Frazzled wrote:Thats why it is the duty of Christians to bring the Word to them, both in action, and word.

Frazzled... I agree that action and words should be the duty... but who's interpretation of what is right should we follow? What actions and words should we follow?

Westboro Baptist Church will tell you some pretty extreme stuff... Should we listen to these people? (IMHO... HELL NO) Should we listen to the people that tell you on national TV that the Katrina incident was God Punishing the wrong?

Should we teach in our schools creationism because thats what some bishops tell their clergy to preach?

My point is that you can't make blanket statements and expect each person to have your vision of what is right and what is wrong...

Note I am not saying here that anyone is right or wrong... except maybe the westboro baptist church... I am simply saying you should have some doubt as to what is the "right thing"

I'm going to end with a quote...
“When we talk about values, I think of rationality in solving problems. That’s something I value. Fairness, kindness, generosity, tolerance. When they talk about values, they’re talking about things like going to church, voting for Bush, being loyal to Jesus, praying. These are not values.”
--Bill Maher

frgsinwntr wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Thats why it is the duty of Christians to bring the Word to them, both in action, and word.

Frazzled... I agree that action and words should be the duty... but who's interpretation of what is right should we follow? What actions and words should we follow?

Westboro Baptist Church will tell you some pretty extreme stuff... Should we listen to these people? (IMHO... HELL NO) Should we listen to the people that tell you on national TV that the Katrina incident was God Punishing the wrong?

Should we teach in our schools creationism because thats what some bishops tell their clergy to preach?

My point is that you can't make blanket statements and expect each person to have your vision of what is right and what is wrong...

Note I am not saying here that anyone is right or wrong... except maybe the westboro baptist church... I am simply saying you should have some doubt as to what is the "right thing"

I'm going to end with a quote...
“When we talk about values, I think of rationality in solving problems. That’s something I value. Fairness, kindness, generosity, tolerance. When they talk about values, they’re talking about things like going to church, voting for Bush, being loyal to Jesus, praying. These are not values.”
--Bill Maher

You're fogging the question/answer with subjective stuff thats not relevant to the question asked. The poster asked-what about regions where there is not Christianity. Answer-it is the duty of Christians to bring Christianity to those regions. Thats part of the stated duty of a Christian. I am sure many, if not most religions have a similar duty for their members. Preach the word Brother Rabbit. Its not relevant that there are many sects fo Christianity-they all strive to bring their word to the unheeled (ok some do, some practice the method of breeding new members, some just kind of fade like the Anglicans).

Does anyone have contact to Jehovas Witnesses?
Is it true that in their belief, there's a certain limit of people who can get into paradise, which is why everyone's working so hard in their community?

Frazzeled... That is the same arguement Muslims use... It is their Duty to Covert others, at sword point if neccessary (yes I had a class or two in the topic of religion). Are the two religions all that different?

The same argument was most likely made to Zorastrians when they were converted... (http://zoreled.org/historyzorislamiciran.aspx)

No I am not fogging the question. I am simply asking what is this message? where did it come from? What Values are we talking about when we bring the message there? Are they really values at all?

I was under the impression the Jobo's believe once they reach a certain number, the Rapture will occur and all good Jobo's (thinking this might actually be the Mormons you know) will go to Heaven, and nobody else will.

frgsinwntr wrote:Frazzeled... That is the same arguement Muslims use... It is their Duty to Covert others, at sword point if neccessary (yes I had a class or two in the topic of religion).

No I am not fogging the question. I am simply asking what is this message? where did it come from? What Values are we talking about when we bring the message there? Are they really values at all?

It is their duty to convert others. It is against Christian ethos to convert by the sword-its against everything being a Christian is about.

I'm off.

Frazzled wrote:

It is their duty to convert others. It is against Christian ethos to convert by the sword-its against everything being a Christian is about.

I'm off.

I'm not here to Frustrate you. I've had 12 years of Catholic school and spent many summers doing my fair share of reading up.

Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

Some would argue that the first line doesn't explicitly say to convert people at all costs but means it (some friends of mine and as mad doc said... Spanish Inquisition?).... But at the same time... In fact Some in the Muslim religion (also friends of mine) say the sword point doesn't physically mean sword!

What if I don't want to be converted? Do you have the right to come to me and try to convert me? What if I come to you and try to convert you to FSMism? would you be upset?

Frazzled wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:Frazzeled... That is the same arguement Muslims use... It is their Duty to Covert others, at sword point if neccessary (yes I had a class or two in the topic of religion).

No I am not fogging the question. I am simply asking what is this message? where did it come from? What Values are we talking about when we bring the message there? Are they really values at all?

It is their duty to convert others. It is against Christian ethos to convert by the sword-its against everything being a Christian is about.

I'm off.

Guess the Spanish Inquisition and the various Crusaders missed that bit.

Anung Un Rama wrote:Does anyone have contact to Jehovas Witnesses?
Is it true that in their belief, there's a certain limit of people who can get into paradise, which is why everyone's working so hard in their community?

Yeah, I don't remember the exact number though. I think it is 400,000 or 125,000 people. Something like that.

Checking some sources it is 144,000. I remembered 100k and the number 4 were involved, so I guess that is something.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:Frazzeled... That is the same arguement Muslims use... It is their Duty to Covert others, at sword point if neccessary (yes I had a class or two in the topic of religion).

No I am not fogging the question. I am simply asking what is this message? where did it come from? What Values are we talking about when we bring the message there? Are they really values at all?

It is their duty to convert others. It is against Christian ethos to convert by the sword-its against everything being a Christian is about.

I'm off.

Guess the Spanish Inquisition and the various Crusaders missed that bit.

Uhh, someone going against the teachings of their religion while preaching it doesn't mean the teachings get overwritten or don't matter.

Unless you were stating the obvious, then you can just ignore this post

Yes and no.

I just cannot help but notice that The Word of God has traditionally been violently enforced upon the peoples of the world. Spanish Conquitadors are another example.

Given that, I don't put much stock in the teachings if they are so easily ignored with no punishment. I'd imagine God would be somewhat pissed off by now, the atrocities performed in his name....

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Yes and no.

I just cannot help but notice that The Word of God has traditionally been violently enforced upon the peoples of the world. Spanish Conquitadors are another example.

Given that, I don't put much stock in the teachings if they are so easily ignored with no punishment. I'd imagine God would be somewhat pissed off by now, the atrocities performed in his name....

I completely agree with you on that, but the fact that Christians follow Christ, who taught us to love everyone (not just people we like), that would make not attacking innocent people a very important pillar of the faith.

You are right that once enough people think the teachings mean something else, the teachings actually change in the eyes of others, but once that happens, I hope the real Christians will break away and form their own group that still pays attention to what Jesus had to say.

frgsinwntr wrote:Frazzeled... That is the same arguement Muslims use... It is their Duty to Covert others, at sword point if neccessary (yes I had a class or two in the topic of religion). Are the two religions all that different?

If that’s all you were taught then it was a pretty crappy class. The real message, like in all faiths, a complicated and often seemingly contradictory one. The ‘sword’ has been argued to not mean a literal sword. Now, all of that wouldn’t amount to much if the Koran didn’t also spend a hell of a lot of time talking about peace.

Like Christianity, it’s complicated and can’t be summed up by a literal reading of a single sentence here or there.

sebster wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:Frazzeled... That is the same arguement Muslims use... It is their Duty to Covert others, at sword point if neccessary (yes I had a class or two in the topic of religion). Are the two religions all that different?

If that’s all you were taught then it was a pretty crappy class. The real message, like in all faiths, a complicated and often seemingly contradictory one. The ‘sword’ has been argued to not mean a literal sword. Now, all of that wouldn’t amount to much if the Koran didn’t also spend a hell of a lot of time talking about peace.

Like Christianity, it’s complicated and can’t be summed up by a literal reading of a single sentence here or there.

Did you read my later post where I said that too? I apologize I did not relay all of the information I learned in a semester in a single post! I'll be sure to do that next time instead of relaying only the information I need to make my point. (how silly of me!)

But seriously. Stop trying to attack me instead of my arguments. Ad hominem is beneath us.

God Of Yams wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Yes and no.

I just cannot help but notice that The Word of God has traditionally been violently enforced upon the peoples of the world. Spanish Conquitadors are another example.

Given that, I don't put much stock in the teachings if they are so easily ignored with no punishment. I'd imagine God would be somewhat pissed off by now, the atrocities performed in his name....

I completely agree with you on that, but the fact that Christians follow Christ, who taught us to love everyone (not just people we like), that would make not attacking innocent people a very important pillar of the faith.

You are right that once enough people think the teachings mean something else, the teachings actually change in the eyes of others, but once that happens, I hope the real Christians will break away and form their own group that still pays attention to what Jesus had to say.

The real question is what are the pillars of faith? where are these defined? What makes your interpretation of what "God meant" any better than the interpretation of the westboro Baptist church? How do you know for sure Jesus wanted things to be peaceful? See where my argument is in doubting what we think?

frgsinwntr wrote:Did you read my later post where I said that too? I apologize I did not relay all of the information I learned in a semester in a single post! I'll be sure to do that next time instead of relaying only the information I need to make my point. (how silly of me!)

But seriously. Stop trying to attack me instead of my arguments. Ad hominem is beneath us.

Yeah, that first line in my post was way too aggressive. My apologies.

No Prob. I will agree. The real message is extremely complicated and we can't really assume any one person has the idea right... As soon as we do this, we've stopped thinking. THAT is dangerous in my mind...

I took a step back about 20 pages ago, because I didn't want to usurp the entire thread. But I feel it's time to jump back into the fray.

First of all Christians don't convert people. It's the Holy Spirit that convicts humans and draws them to himself. Christians are just word bearers "lights on the hill". The minute a Christian takes it upon themselves to go about converting people, they verge on usurping the job of the Holy Spirit and entering into "trying to do things themselves". This is one reason why you have things like inquisitions and crusades. People thought they had the "duty" to convert other people to the faith instead of letting God do it. Not to mention all the other reasons(theft, power, money,corruption).

God's will is going to be done regardless of what we want, we as humans just mess things up when we try to do God's job for Him.

Also I have seen some references to scripture. Again you have to be real carefull when you start quoting scripture so that you allow scripture to interpret itself. Or you can very quickly get yourselves into trouble.

For example, some people dance around poisonous snakes during their Church services because they take the Bible out of context, where Mark 16:18 says" They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."

GG

frgsinwntr wrote:
The real question is what are the pillars of faith? where are these defined? What makes your interpretation of what "God meant" any better than the interpretation of the westboro Baptist church? How do you know for sure Jesus wanted things to be peaceful? See where my argument is in doubting what we think?

What are the pillars of faith? By that, do you mean how does a person decide what to believe in? Well, you take a pretty decent swing. There's no shortage of revealed texts that describe god. personally, I think they're all pretty good, although I think that the morality preached by Jesus in the Gospels is one of the more human and useful ones.

As for interpretations, you read, you read some annotations, you talk to experts, you think about it, and you come up with your belief. Most people stop there, but others try to convert others to their view.

Choosing a faith is really just the same process as rejecting faith. Atheists, agnostics, and theists are all faced with the same facts, the same world, and all reach different conclusions based on themselves. You can attribute it to a spiritual awakening or god speaking to you (if a believer) or a realization or the end of a logical thought (if atheist), but we all make decisions in what to believe.

One of the reasons there are some many religions is that there are some many cultures and types of people, and different people see god in different ways.

Golden Eyed Scout wrote:Turtle Pie is the one true religon!

Not cool! I really do enjoy making puns and photoshops in already doomed and pointless threads, but this one is very interesting and incredibly calm and on topic and really doesn't deserve something like this.

And that's coming from a saint of Turtle Pie, please desist...

"Thats why it is the duty of Christians to bring the Word to them, both in action, and word."

That's interesting. I find the post above highly insulting. Will it be deleted and followed up with a brusque PM, as mine was?

Anung Un Rama wrote:Does anyone have contact to Jehovas Witnesses?
Is it true that in their belief, there's a certain limit of people who can get into paradise, which is why everyone's working so hard in their community?

The limit of people they believe that are allowed into heaven has long since been surpassed.

Because of that, all current Jehovah's witnesses believe that once the 2nd coming occurs god will wipe all people from the earth and at that point those who died as good Jehovah's Witnesses (but didn't get into heaven because of the limit) will then be resurrected from the dead to live eternally on earth.

kged wrote:"Thats why it is the duty of Christians to bring the Word to them, both in action, and word."

That's interesting. I find the post above highly insulting. Will it be deleted and followed up with a brusque PM, as mine was?

Nope. Adults are discussing things here. Feel free to leave in a huff, never to return.

I will leave, with some reluctance; I was beginning to rather enjoy this site, but I don't care to be demeaned, particularly not by a bigot. Feel free to call that a huff if you wish, although I'm not sure your claims to adulthood have been strongly supported by your conduct here. Keep practising your modding - I'm sure you'll pick it up eventually.

Excellent. As my dad used to say "Don't let the door hit your on the way out."

Guess the Spanish Inquisition and the various Crusaders missed that bit.

Yep. But remember MDG. No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!

What if I don't want to be converted? Do you have the right to come to me and try to convert me? What if I come to you and try to convert you to FSMism? would you be upset?

Thats what doors are for. Close them. You don't have to listen.


if that doesn't work there's always

Nice to see some entertaining mod-fu. Nothing as dreary as a locked thread.

So, does Dakka has specific terms on blasphemy?

I recall in recent news, the debate regarding the restriction of 'blasphemous' publications vs. free speech came up. There has been a bit of this since Rushdie's Ye Olde Book of Fun. The Vatican's stance was that blasphemy against any religion should absolutely be protected under rights to free speech. It seems like a bit of politic-fu, as an established sect, to mandate the verbal discrimination of their 'competitors' (since now it's clearly a "collect 'em all" game). It's just as much of a power play to bring in such restrictions, and I generally err towards the preservation of the unintruded right to have rights.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Nice to see some entertaining mod-fu. Nothing as dreary as a locked thread.

So, does Dakka has specific terms on blasphemy?

I recall in recent news, the debate regarding the restriction of 'blasphemous' publications vs. free speech came up. There has been a bit of this since Rushdie's Ye Olde Book of Fun. The Vatican's stance was that blasphemy against any religion should absolutely be protected under rights to free speech. It seems like a bit of politic-fu, as an established sect, to mandate the verbal discrimination of their 'competitors' (since now it's clearly a "collect 'em all" game). It's just as much of a power play to bring in such restrictions, and I generally err towards the preservation of the unintruded right to have rights.

In reverse order: I'd save the blasphemy issue for a separate thread as its, its own involved topic but to each his own.

Dakka blasphemies: (sorry most humorous I could do in the morning-this needs its own thread and better writers)
-Thou shalt not make fun of Sean Connery
-Thou shalt not attempt to challenge Frazzled to a "crotchetiest old man competition." Thou shalt not make fun of Frazzled incredibly bad typing.
-Thou shalt make fun of the French, unless of course you're French and take exception, in which case we have to remind you of the awesomeness of French women.
-Thou shalt not take thineself or the intranets too seriously.
-Thou shalt not let Malf have your socks.
-Thou shalt not put the WC, Two Heads Talking, JD12120, Sebster, HMBC/HBMC, and JohnHwang in the same arena, unless thou hast coconut butter cooked popcorn of course.
-Thou shalt translate what Mad Doc Grostnik says for the Frazzled, as he does not have a clue what MDG is typing half the time.
-Thou shalt not overuse the reporting button, nor shalt thou underuse it.
and of course:
-Thous shalt not speak ill of Texas and more importantly Tex/Mex! Mmmm fajitas....

Thou shalt translate what Mad Doc Grostnik says for the Frazzled, as he does not have a clue what MDG is typing half the time.

In fairness neither does he.

Frazzled wrote:

What if I don't want to be converted? Do you have the right to come to me and try to convert me? What if I come to you and try to convert you to FSMism? would you be upset?

Thats what doors are for. Close them. You don't have to listen.

I'm glad you brought this up! This attitude is really what starts wars. Yes you are right, you don't have to listen, but at the same time if you shut out other opinions or needs or concerns you hurt feelings. We know human beings (a good bunch of them anyway)at their core make decisions based on emotion. Yes you can shut the door to hide from the bad man who dissagrees with you, but should you really shut your mind also?

If I said:
"I found Published information on the fact that our planter was formed at the will of a flying spaggheti monster. It was passed down orally for generations before someone wrote it down on the internet. "

You would consider me crazy and a danger to society.... but then If I told you I beleived that a woman became pregnant for no reason by a ghost and that he died on a cross and rose from the dead (much like a zombie?) you would think me less crazy.

My point: You can't shut the door on one idea and expect others to convert to your idea simply because you think it makes more sense.

And I am going ot assume the "get off my lawn" comment was not directed at me as that would be offensive and child like.

reds8n wrote:

Thou shalt translate what Mad Doc Grostnik says for the Frazzled, as he does not have a clue what MDG is typing half the time.

In fairness neither does he.

Pshwa! I always know what I've written!

Now, to go and crimp of a length on Frazzled's neatly manicured lawn.

yakface wrote:

Anung Un Rama wrote:Does anyone have contact to Jehovas Witnesses?
Is it true that in their belief, there's a certain limit of people who can get into paradise, which is why everyone's working so hard in their community?

The limit of people they believe that are allowed into heaven has long since been surpassed.

Because of that, all current Jehovah's witnesses believe that once the 2nd coming occurs god will wipe all people from the earth and at that point those who died as good Jehovah's Witnesses (but didn't get into heaven because of the limit) will then be resurrected from the dead to live eternally on earth.

To be quite honest: that sounds like they took the easy way out. Who made that decission? Is there someone who's in charge of all JWs? Or at least in theory, a witness-pope if you will. To me this looks like one of the following things happened:
1.) God came down to earth to tell all the JWs that he changed the rules.
2.) Whoever is in charge of the Witnesses noticed that it won't work like that forever, so he changed it to keep the people flowing in.
I don't want to flame/troll anyone with this, but as said before, I have problems with "organized" religions and this just seems weird to me.

frgsinwntr wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

What if I don't want to be converted? Do you have the right to come to me and try to convert me? What if I come to you and try to convert you to FSMism? would you be upset?

Thats what doors are for. Close them. You don't have to listen.

I'm glad you brought this up! This attitude is really what starts wars. Yes you are right, you don't have to listen, but at the same time if you shut out other opinions or needs or concerns you hurt feelings. We know human beings (a good bunch of them anyway)at their core make decisions based on emotion. Yes you can shut the door to hide from the bad man who dissagrees with you, but should you really shut your mind also?

If I said:
"I found Published information on the fact that our planter was formed at the will of a flying spaggheti monster. It was passed down orally for generations before someone wrote it down on the internet. "

You would consider me crazy and a danger to society.... but then If I told you I beleived that a woman became pregnant for no reason by a ghost and that he died on a cross and rose from the dead (much like a zombie?) you would think me less crazy.

My point: You can't shut the door on one idea and expect others to convert to your idea simply because you think it makes more sense.

But maybe people who "shut that door" aren't interested in any other ideas or in other people learning about it. Maybe the guy who shuts the door in front of a Christian who wants to bring him word, is a Jew or a Muslim. What would he do? Either try to talk to the christian to bring him his version of the word or just leave him alone and with, leave him to never enter "paradise" unless someone else bothers to "convert" him.

Frazzled wrote:Thats why it is the duty of Christians to bring the Word to them, both in action, and word.

This kind of bothers me. It implies that Christianity is the only way which will get you into paradise. But if I were a member of another religion, say Islam for the sake of argument, I would be offended by someone who thinks that I'm damned to whatever if I don't acknowledge and take part in his way of life.


I want to add that I have nothing against one Religion in particular, if use the Islam too often, or something like that, it's just because I can't think of any other examples.

This attitude is really what starts wars.

Respectfully-no.
1. You asked what do other people do if they don’t want to hear the message. My response is-fine don’t hear the message.
2. Now you’re confusing me (that’s like depressing teenager so easy!). One the one hand you’re saying what about people who don’t want to hear the message-don’t bother them. On the other hand you are saying my view that they can take it or leave it starts wars. Wait? What? Its freedom of speech. I have the right to speech. You habve the right to speech. Part of your right to free speech is that my freedom ends at your nose. You don’t have to listen to my noise, and I don’t have to listen to your noise.

I found Published information on the fact that our planter was formed at the will of a flying spaggheti monster.

Sorry you’re wrong there, as I ate the spaghetti monster Tuesday with meatballs and milk, followed later by coconut rum and water. Your planter never had a chance

Now, to go and crimp of a length on Frazzled's neatly manicured lawn.

I always feel like there’s an ork on the other end - very appropriate crazy ork = drunken soccer hooligan scot!

Sorry you’re wrong there, as I ate the spaghetti monster Tuesday with meatballs and milk, followed later by coconut rum and water. Your planter never had a chance

I'm Deeply offended!

If I said this about your religion. I would be Banned/warned/yelled at. How is this fair? Example... someone here said something bad about the bible and got warned and told to get off their lawn... I'm sorry Frazzled... but you're not being an impartial mod here...

Yes, christians believe it a duty to act like "a living gospel", I for one am horrible at that.

Not many people know this, but many people in Africa are converting to catholicism<---Hard to say in real life. Also, 99.9% of Mexico is catholic because of the spanish and America is a nice mix, mostly Lutheren/protestant with some catholics(mainly hispanic or irish).

The crusades, inquisition, terrorists, church burnings are all examples of fanatical religion or the peversion of religion by man. Although I've never seen a buddhist or hindu attack a church, I've seen atheists, homosexuals, muslims, christians, and such all attack each other.

Look at the reformation in europe. The inquisition killed those who were heretics while protestants and lutherens lynched catholics in france and germany.

Hitler also killed most religious groups, not just jews. The only reason why he didn't go overboard with catholics was because of Mussolini. Any religion Hitler hated were peaceful according to gospel.

Jesus was asked by his disciples to burn down a city that wouldn't let them in. To which he replied no. The whole "Whoever is without sin may cast the first stone."rule applies to most christians and I'm positive its in the other religious texts as well, but the Torah, Quran, and Bible are all really long and I get bored.

As to the whole paradise thing, I believe that most will get in even if they don't believe in god. As long as they are a good person I think they get a little leeway.

halonachos wrote:
The crusades, inquisition, terrorists, church burnings are all examples of fanatical religion or the peversion of religion by man. Although I've never seen a buddhist or hindu attack a church, I've seen atheists, homosexuals, muslims, christians, and such all attack each other.

To be fair, Buddhist/hinduism have had their share of wars also if you study their history.

frgsinwntr wrote:

Sorry you’re wrong there, as I ate the spaghetti monster Tuesday with meatballs and milk, followed later by coconut rum and water. Your planter never had a chance

If I said this about your religion. I would be Banned/warned/yelled at. How is this fair? Example... someone here said something bad about the bible and got warned and told to get off their lawn... I'm sorry Frazzled... but you're not being an impartial mod here...

He was talking about a flying spaghetti monster here, but who drinks milk with pasta? Then not only that but you go and drink rum later, that is not good. Most pastas deserve a red or white wine, or a soft drink.

halonachos wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

Sorry you’re wrong there, as I ate the spaghetti monster Tuesday with meatballs and milk, followed later by coconut rum and water. Your planter never had a chance

If I said this about your religion. I would be Banned/warned/yelled at. How is this fair? Example... someone here said something bad about the bible and got warned and told to get off their lawn... I'm sorry Frazzled... but you're not being an impartial mod here...

He was talking about a flying spaghetti monster here, but who drinks milk with pasta? Then not only that but you go and drink rum later, that is not good. Most pastas deserve a red or white wine, or a soft drink.

I've already said I believe in the flying spaghetti monster. I see no reason why this should be ridiculed again? How is this any different then your beliefs?

Not trying to kill the discussion, just making a point.

Hmmm... good question. I think has something to do with carbs.

I've never really heard of any wars about religion regarding the buddhists and hindus, genocides sure, but never any wars over religion.

I was just going at the fact of people who have killed because of religion only.

halonachos wrote:Hmmm... good question. I think has something to do with carbs.

I've never really heard of any wars about religion regarding the buddhists and hindus, genocides sure, but never any wars over religion.

I was just going at the fact of people who have killed because of religion only.

It's too bad that they never had the chance to be touched by his Noodly appendage :(

Sup guys.

I just made god into a sandwich and ate him for lunch. He was delicious.

Now everyone's even.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Sup guys.

I just made god into a sandwich and ate him for lunch. He was delicious.

Now everyone's even.

To be honest Orkeosaurus... I am not upset at all. I'm just surprised that a Mod would so easily scorn another member for doing the same exact thing he did himself. Seems Hypocritical.

Frazzled. If you are confused it is because I don't have a side to stand on. Nor Do I want one. I do not have a belief either way. I also honestly don't care. But I will always take the chance to point out Hypocracy when I see it.

Whether it is the postings of a MOD, other organization member(religious or not!), or even just myself.

To be fair, Buddhist/Hinduism have had their share of wars also if you study their history.

Islam invented crusades. Muslim Arabs are on a happy genocidal frenzy in Southern Sudan against Christians. Hindu/Muslim violence is still rampant. I’d better not explore this point too deeply.

He was talking about a flying spaghetti monster here, but who drinks milk with pasta? Then not only that but you go and drink rum later, that is not good. Most pastas deserve a red or white wine, or a soft drink.

I was out of wine. Sometimes you have to do what you have to do.

If I said this about your religion. I would be Banned/warned/yelled at. How is this fair? Example... someone here said something bad about the bible and got warned and told to get off their lawn... I'm sorry Frazzled... but you're not being an impartial mod here...

I’m offended that you’re offended! I have insulted the great Spaghetti Bowl! OMG someone reported me, and it wasn’t me! Oh wait you’re serious… and here I thought we were having a nice conversation. . Well that wraps it up for me on this thread, teach me to participate on a thread about religion. Why did I open this thread twice again?

I thought we were having a nice Conversation also :...(

Orkeosaurus wrote:Sup guys.

I just made god into a sandwich and ate him for lunch. He was delicious.

Now everyone's even.

Which god? The flying spaghetti monster or the ones that other people believe in?

Who puts spaghetti on a sandwich?

It was the regular god, of course!

Well, the FSM is different for three reasons, reasons that are of course self evident such that requesting their production is just being snotty:
1) the FSM is a internet meme/joke, and not a legitimate sect.
2) It's primary goal is to either show point out the difficulty in intelligent design; or more broadly to mock religion in general
3) As a religion, it has no history, no tradition, no gravitas, and therefore no wide acceptance. Build a church, elect a leader, develop scriptures, educate a priesthood, develop ritual, and hang around for longer than LolCats and then we'll talk.

People who want to max out their carbs of course!

Also, some people prefer god-lite.

Side note: I am tolerant, but don't push it. Oh hell, I don't care. I'm catholic, everyone thinks were evil. Like that corporation in "The Island" or like the guys in "The DaVinci Code". FOR THE LAST TIME, EVERY TIME I SIN I DO NOT WHIP MYSELF!!

I wish that I knew where religioso's got their faith from.

....the prospect of death and oblivion is terrifying to some people. (me)

I WISH I could be down with the G O D !

Pascal said just go to church, even if you don't believe you'll start to eventually. I think that's hilarious.

halonachos wrote:Pascal said just go to church, even if you don't believe you'll start to eventually. I think that's hilarious.

Like being brainwashed into a cult?

frgsinwntr wrote:



Frazzled. If you are confused it is because I don't have a side to stand on. Nor Do I want one. I do not have a belief either way. I also honestly don't care. But I will always take the chance to point out Hypocracy when I see it.

Whether it is the postings of a MOD, other organization member(religious or not!), or even just myself.

It would help if you first understand the definition of hypocrisy.

frgsinwntr wrote:To be fair, Buddhist/hinduism have had their share of wars also if you study their history.

The trick here is separating a peoples general religious make-up with cassus belli. Just being one or the other and being at war isn't enough to attribute to the religion. The United States didn't go to war with Japan in WWII because it was a Christian crusade anymore than Japan built the East Asian Co-prosperity Sphere and bombed Pearl Harbor to make a point about Buddhism. It isn't any more fair to blame Christians then it is Buddhists for government machinations and responses.

Frazzled wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

Frazzled. If you are confused it is because I don't have a side to stand on. Nor Do I want one. I do not have a belief either way. I also honestly don't care. But I will always take the chance to point out Hypocracy when I see it.

Whether it is the postings of a MOD, other organization member(religious or not!), or even just myself.

It would help if you first understand the definition of hypocrisy.

an expression of agreement that is not supported by real conviction.

Please refrain from personal attacks.

@ Polonious
What if I did believe it? How is that any different then believing in Jesus? History?

"3) As a religion, it has no history, no tradition, no gravitas, and therefore no wide acceptance. Build a church, elect a leader, develop scriptures, educate a priesthood, develop ritual, and hang around for longer than LolCats and then we'll talk."

Since when do these things deal with believing in a higher power? How are they important? Isn't this exactly what people who believe in jesus are against in the first place?

Anyways I think I am going to Get off the lawn now

Ahtman wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:To be fair, Buddhist/hinduism have had their share of wars also if you study their history.

The trick here is separating a peoples general religious make-up with cassus belli. Just being one or the other and being at war isn't enough to attribute to the religion. The United States didn't go to war with Japan in WWII because it was a Christian crusade anymore than Japan built the East Asian Co-prosperity Sphere and bombed Pearl Harbor to make a point about Buddhism. It isn't any more fair to blame Christians then it is Buddhists for government machinations and responses.

Agreed. I was just pointing out to the poster I responded to that all religions have experienced their own wars.

frgsinwntr wrote:

Please refrain from personal attacks.

If you believe my questionaing your understanding of knowing the definition of hypocricy when you made up an on the spot belief in the speghetti monster vs. someone directly attacking a document revered by a billion people, and then get huffy when I joke about eating said speghetti monster, if you really believe this is a personal attack you might reconsider posting in the OT area.

EDIT: Appreciate the second report by the way. I'll leave it up for other mods so it will have an impartial review.

I just made god into a sandwich and ate him for lunch. He was delicious

With mayo or mustard? Was there bacon involved?

frgsinwntr wrote:

@ Polonious
What if I did believe it? How is that any different then believing in Jesus? History?

"3) As a religion, it has no history, no tradition, no gravitas, and therefore no wide acceptance. Build a church, elect a leader, develop scriptures, educate a priesthood, develop ritual, and hang around for longer than LolCats and then we'll talk."

Since when do these things deal with believing in a higher power? How are they important? Isn't this exactly what people who believe in jesus are against in the first place?

Anyways I think I am going to Get off the lawn now

Well, if you believe in him, than you do. Faith is unimpeachable, but respect for faith tends to come after it's time tested. It's really similar to the questions about what is a religion and what is a dangerous cult.

The third point I raised was one of three, and I'm assuming you're admitting the other two. The third was just gravy. There have always been advantages to posing as a relgion. Political protection, freedom from taxes, moral superiority, etc. Religions have been jealous in protecting their status, and weeding out imposters. Many of those trappings are part of the process.

Really though, it comes down to common sense. People of faith tend to have reasons for their faith: they were raised in it, they had a spiritual experience, they've been born again, etc. Now, if you were to speak of why you had belief in the FSM, and how it changed your life, and it looked serious and bona fide, then more people would take it as real. As it stands, everybody knows it was an internet fad that people use to mock religion.

L

Problem with that statement is that I could easily say 'Everyone knows God's just some fairy tale invented by rich people to keep the poor in line.' I won't though, that was for argument's sake. (Seriously, I'm not out to attack anyone here, and none of this post is intended to do so, or to be facetious, I'm trying to make a proper point. How well I'm doing that, well, YMMV)

The real problem when debating Pastafarianism is that in every sense it is as legitimate a faith as any other, the only ways to attack it are conjecture. There is scripture, there are set codes of belief, even holidays, the largest of the year being International Talk Like a Pirate Day.

For further reading: http://www.venganza.org/evidence/endorsements1/

Polonius wrote:
Really though, it comes down to common sense. People of faith tend to have reasons for their faith: they were raised in it, they had a spiritual experience, they've been born again, etc. Now, if you were to speak of why you had belief in the FSM, and how it changed your life, and it looked serious and bona fide, then more people would take it as real. As it stands, everybody knows it was an internet fad that people use to mock religion.
L

Or Use it to make a point. If you revere the bible for example and get angry when people "mock" it... then don't be upset when someone bombs an artist's home when they draw/publish a picture of the prophet mohamad. IMHO It is still the same reaction (a lot more extreme... but that really is a cultural thing)

You are correct polonius I don't believe in the FSM.

To quote Greebynog:
"The real problem when debating Pastafarianism is that in every sense it is as legitimate a faith as any other, the only ways to attack it are conjecture. There is scripture, there are set codes of belief, even holidays, the largest of the year being International Talk Like a Pirate Day."

Again this is the point I was doing my best to get across. It is just as legitimate. Same as "Dudeism" A religion based on The Big Lebowski.

Prophets? Events that have occurred? Any actual believers? Its kind of important to have believers. Never mind this is pointless.

Frazzled wrote:Prophets? Events that have occurred? Any actual believers? Its kind of important to have believers. Never mind this is pointless.

I actually agree with Frazz here. If nothing else, the member of the faith need to treat it with reverence to even begin to expect others to do the same.

frgsinwntr wrote:If you revere the bible for example and get angry when people "mock" it... then don't be upset when someone bombs an artist's home when they draw/publish a picture of the prophet mohamad. IMHO It is still the same reaction (a lot more extreme... but that really is a cultural thing)

Total nonsense.

Becoming upset with someone is not the same as doing harm to others. Not even close.

Frazzled wrote:Prophets? Events that have occurred? Any actual believers? Its kind of important to have believers.

I am sure there are believers. Even if I am not one, the site even has people with tatoos on them!

Events? what kind of events?

Virgin Birth is not unique:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_virgin_births

OK... how about other parrallels that seem to repeat themselves?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ_in_comparative_mythology

Gospels/writings?
yup FSMism has that too.

IMHO You are dismissing my argument with out considering the implications. Are large scores of believers necessary to be a religion, or cult? What really actually defines an event? Is a prophet really a prophet... or did they even exist at all?

I am not saying they didn't exist, but just opening the door to doubt.

Polonius wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Prophets? Events that have occurred? Any actual believers? Its kind of important to have believers. Never mind this is pointless.

I actually agree with Frazz here. If nothing else, the member of the faith need to treat it with reverence to even begin to expect others to do the same.

http://www.dudeism.com/

you can become a clergy man here... does that make it a real religion?

Orkeosaurus wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:If you revere the bible for example and get angry when people "mock" it... then don't be upset when someone bombs an artist's home when they draw/publish a picture of the prophet mohamad. IMHO It is still the same reaction (a lot more extreme... but that really is a cultural thing)

Total nonsense.

Becoming upset with someone is not the same as doing harm to others. Not even close.

I agree! But that is because of myself growing up in the USA. But... culturally speaking this is not the same around the world...

Edit: Perhaps this is the time I can learn something new. Please elaborate.

Can Dudeists roll on Shabbos?

Orkeosaurus wrote:Can Dudeists roll on Shabbos?

I have no idea... I guess if they go to a party and its the chill thing to do.

Polonius: I remember that also. Mocking a religion is not a wise thing to do. Since religion is a personal belief, and some people identify themselves by their religion, mocking religion is like mocking the person himself. This thread is very interesting and this is a very delicate issue.

I respect the point of view from Atheist that they feel Religion is arguably silly and morally abhorrent to them,but just as they have the right to criticize, I will reserve the right to criticize them with or without the use of satire. On the other hand I accept the right of others to hold such points of view.

"Stay in the Light of the Emperor and he will guide you through the shadows" 108th Crusaders 999.M-41

frgsinwntr wrote:I agree! But that is because of myself growing up in the USA. But... culturally speaking this is not the same around the world...

Edit: Perhaps this is the time I can learn something new. Please elaborate.

I know of no culture that considers them to be the same. Some cultures may consider violence an appropriate response to a certain offense, but they're well aware of the difference between violence and anger.

If a Muslim sees a portrayal of Muhammad that makes him angry, that does not immediately cause him to turn violent; only a complete sociopath would be unable to separate a feeling of anger, offense, or hatred from immediately committing a violent act.

If a Muslim (who would already probably be pretty fanatic, in my opinion) decided that the portrayal of Muhammad needed violent retribution, that would likely be based, at least somewhat, on culture; however, the culture dictates what does and does not deserve violence, it does not eliminate the difference between violence and anger/offense.

After all, there may be quite a bit of violence int he middle east, but the entire region would be in flames if people were unable to see the difference in the two.

Interesting. I am going to go do some research on this aspect of the topic as I am not well versed and far from even mediocre in knowledge about violence and culture... Until then... this is where I will start my search for understanding.

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/institutes/csls/Taiwan%20Piece.pdf

Well, just think about it in non-religious terms.

A person from a particular culture may be more likely to start a fight over a particular insult than a person of another culture may be, but they both understand the difference between their reactions.

People of the first culture simply think that their reaction is justified, while people of the second culture do not.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Well, just think about it in non-religious terms.

A person from a particular culture may be more likely to start a fight over a particular insult than a person of another culture may be, but they both understand the difference between their reactions.

People of the first culture simply think that their reaction is justified, while people of the second culture do not.

So like I think it is a bit extreme to threaten someone (with violence, or an internetesque bully style) for mocking the bible... while others might think it is not extreme enough... and this is determined by the social tolerance of such behaviors from which a person is raised?

hmm

I like this discussion.

Now can I ask a question, that not meant to offend most likely will not be taken as the intellectual debate it is intended to be?

Why do Christians believe the devil is a god? And in the Same respects why are Satanists Christians? Now hear me out... before shutting me out. Christians believe in more then one God, father, son, Holy spirit, jesus... yea and they pray to saints and angels.... polytheistic under the guise of monotheism. In the same regard if the devil is there to fight against god and we must struggle in order to resist his otherworldly control... doesn't this challenge the all powerfuls abilities in a way only a God/Godlike being can?

In the same regard... are Satanists also christian? They need to acknowledge that Christ exists in order to reject him so completely...

Just some musings that came up that left me in deep thought for a very long time when I debated with the preacher from Penn state that stands on campus preaching to people about how evil they are....

Any particular reason why that preacher is demonizing you? Are you at a university of science or something?

frgsinwntr wrote:

Why do Christians believe the devil is a god? And in the Same respects why are Satanists Christians? Now hear me out... before shutting me out. Christians believe in more then one God, father, son, Holy spirit, jesus... yea and they pray to saints and angels.... polytheistic under the guise of monotheism. In the same regard if the devil is there to fight against god and we must struggle in order to resist his otherworldly control... doesn't this challenge the all powerfuls abilities in a way only a God/Godlike being can?

In the same regard... are Satanists also christian? They need to acknowledge that Christ exists in order to reject him so completely...

well, from my days as a baptist, the trinity (god the father, god the son, and god the holy ghost) are viewed as 3 that are one. its kinda weird, but its a sort of aspects of a whole kind of thing more then 3 different gods. (keep in mind, i haven't been a practitioner of an organized religion in years, so i could be a bit off)

as for the saints and angels being prayed to, i would guess that more along the lines of asking them to get god to help you, since your a cause they stood for or somesuch, i would guess a catholic perhaps would be better to ask, since baptists didn't really have much talk along those lines.

as for satan, he was suppose to be the greatest of angels, with loads of power, and while he can do a lot of stuff, he can't actually win against god, so isn't really on the same level (though to believers, he still has enough power to do quite a lot)

and i have no real experience with satanists, though i was under the impression they worshiped more primordial ideas then a judeo-christian father of lies, prince of darkness type thing.

i'm could be wrong, and probably am on a few points, but the way this thread is going, i'm sure someone will have a more in depth explaination soon

Cheese Elemental wrote:Any particular reason why that preacher is demonizing you? Are you at a university of science or something?

nope. I was there for a football game. He gets paid to be outside like that

Did nobody read my last post or cared about it?

Frazzled wrote:

If I said this about your religion. I would be Banned/warned/yelled at. How is this fair? Example... someone here said something bad about the bible and got warned and told to get off their lawn... I'm sorry Frazzled... but you're not being an impartial mod here...

I’m offended that you’re offended! I have insulted the great Spaghetti Bowl! OMG someone reported me, and it wasn’t me! Oh wait you’re serious… and here I thought we were having a nice conversation. . Well that wraps it up for me on this thread, teach me to participate on a thread about religion. Why did I open this thread twice again?

Disregarding a religious movement because it is in it's infancy and another has been around a long time isn't a very good argument against the younger movement because all religions start as a small, usually scorned, group. Christianity started as a very small and maligned group as well.

There are arguments to be made on some of the other points to be sure but the fact that is just beginning is not a very valid one as all start with a handful of believers and move forward.

For all we know this joke could in 2000 years be the standard religious group. In Japan it will be Hello Kitty Worship.

are Satanists also christian

Like in general or are you referring to Anton Lavey's group?

Good job greenskin lynn: For the most part this is all correct and I hope frgsinwntr: It answered some of your ????????????.

Greenlight1107 wrote:Good job greenskin lynn: For the most part this is all correct and I hope frgsinwntr: It answered some of your ????????????.

With Any question I ask, I don't think I will satisfied with ANY answer.

1) well, from my days as a baptist, the trinity (god the father, god the son, and god the holy ghost) are viewed as 3 that are one. its kinda weird, but its a sort of aspects of a whole kind of thing more then 3 different gods. (keep in mind, i haven't been a practitioner of an organized religion in years, so i could be a bit off)


polytheist - one who believes in a plurality of gods
Three as one... how is this different then one as there. No matter how you cut it, it is polytheistic.

2) as for the saints and angels being prayed to, i would guess that more along the lines of asking them to get god to help you, since your a cause they stood for or somesuch, i would guess a catholic perhaps would be better to ask, since baptists didn't really have much talk along those lines.

If god is everywhere at once listening to us... why would he even need this middle man? Seems a bit of waste. unless his power is limited?

as for satan, he was suppose to be the greatest of angels, with loads of power, and while he can do a lot of stuff, he can't actually win against god, so isn't really on the same level (though to believers, he still has enough power to do quite a lot)

yea..... gonna let this one go for now. I am sure we will get to it later

On another note frgsinwntr: When one speaks of Luciferian or Satanists worship, the very idea comes as both a shock and an enigma for most people. Many people, especially Christians, find it very hard to believe that someone would worship Lucifer, the fallen angel, or Satan. Even non-religious people in our culture find Luciferian worship hard to swallow. Their attitude is primarily shaped by the fact that we live in a largely Judeo-Christian culture where Lucifer is anathema or an abomination being directly opposed to God.

As a student of the bible I can't even understand the philosophy of it. I do know that worshippers of Lucifer feel that he has received a "bum rap" from Christians and Jews who personify him as evil.

I know that there was a time in heaven when the Devil was cast out because of the Devils up rising In Isaiah 14:12 it speaks of Lucifer falling from heaven, etc., There was a war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, and prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: He was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. (Revelation 12:7-9)

The Devils argument is that you do not have a choice and that if you had that choice you would want to be free of him and his rule over you.

Luciferian or Satanists know that there will be a finale war and are sideing with Satan. It says "That the last half of the tribulation period, Satan will gather his demonic army and declare war against the power of God Almighty. Why he has chosen this specific time is not known. But God, who knows the mind of Satan better then himself, is fully aware of his scheming plans. Michael the archangel will be appointed to lead the heavenly host into battle, while Satan will take command and lead his forces. Now I ask who's side will you be on?

frgsinwntr wrote:

Greenlight1107 wrote:Good job greenskin lynn: For the most part this is all correct and I hope frgsinwntr: It answered some of your ????????????.

With Any question I ask, I don't think I will satisfied with ANY answer.

1) well, from my days as a baptist, the trinity (god the father, god the son, and god the holy ghost) are viewed as 3 that are one. its kinda weird, but its a sort of aspects of a whole kind of thing more then 3 different gods. (keep in mind, i haven't been a practitioner of an organized religion in years, so i could be a bit off)


polytheist - one who believes in a plurality of gods
Three as one... how is this different then one as there. No matter how you cut it, it is polytheistic.
i was just giving what i remembered as the party line, so to speak. in my personal opinion, it is polytheistic, but they don't like to admit it with that "there is only one god" lines
2) as for the saints and angels being prayed to, i would guess that more along the lines of asking them to get god to help you, since your a cause they stood for or somesuch, i would guess a catholic perhaps would be better to ask, since baptists didn't really have much talk along those lines.

If god is everywhere at once listening to us... why would he even need this middle man? Seems a bit of waste. unless his power is limited?
i'm not really sure either, i was pretty much making a guess.
as for satan, he was suppose to be the greatest of angels, with loads of power, and while he can do a lot of stuff, he can't actually win against god, so isn't really on the same level (though to believers, he still has enough power to do quite a lot)

yea..... gonna let this one go for now. I am sure we will get to it later
sorry, its just been a long time since i practiced this religion, so what i remember is pretty vague beyond (he is evil, the father of lies, booga booga booga he'll get'cha if your bad) and (according to the good book, he will be cast into a pit/ he loses, says so right here in chapter whatever)

frgsinwntr wrote:1) well, from my days as a baptist, the trinity (god the father, god the son, and god the holy ghost) are viewed as 3 that are one. its kinda weird, but its a sort of aspects of a whole kind of thing more then 3 different gods. (keep in mind, i haven't been a practitioner of an organized religion in years, so i could be a bit off)


polytheist - one who believes in a plurality of gods
Three as one... how is this different then one as there. No matter how you cut it, it is polytheistic.

This is a very old argument in Christian theology going way way back. The debate over the nature of Jesus as either wholly man, wholly god, or hybrid was one of the earliest conflicts. Was it Constantine that got all of the Christian leaders together and locked them in a room and told them to make a decision? I think it was. Their answer today is what we got as the most common belief. One has taken more followers but there are still others out there that believe differently.

As to the polytheistic problem, I can understand the confusion. Hindu really isn't any different (many gods represting different aspects of the one true god) yet gets the polytheistic label while Christianity gets monotheistic. By the standard Hinduism should also be labeled monotheistic. Still the difference may come from the fact that in Hinduism one aspect is usually focused on as the path to understanding whereas in Christianity all are sort of worshiped together. You don't get to many Christians that only worship the Holy Spirit exclusively,for example.

Greenlight1107 wrote:On another note frgsinwntr: When one speaks of Luciferian or Satanists worship, the very idea comes as both a shock and an enigma for most people. Many people, especially Christians, find it very hard to believe that someone would worship Lucifer, the fallen angel, or Satan. Even non-religious people in our culture find Luciferian worship hard to swallow. Their attitude is primarily shaped by the fact that we live in a largely Judeo-Christian culture where Lucifer is anathema or an abomination being directly opposed to God.

As a student of the bible I can't even understand the philosophy of it. I do know that worshippers of Lucifer feel that he has received a "bum rap" from Christians and Jews who personify him as evil.

I know that there was a time in heaven when the Devil was cast out because of the Devils up rising In Isaiah 14:12 it speaks of Lucifer falling from heaven, etc., There was a war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, and prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: He was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. (Revelation 12:7-9)

The Devils argument is that you do not have a choice and that if you had that choice you would want to be free of him and his rule over you.

Luciferian or Satanists know that there will be a finale war and are sideing with Satan. It says "That the last half of the tribulation period, Satan will gather his demonic army and declare war against the power of God Almighty. Why he has chosen this specific time is not known. But God, who knows the mind of Satan better then himself, is fully aware of his scheming plans. Michael the archangel will be appointed to lead the heavenly host into battle, while Satan will take command and lead his forces. Now I ask who's side will you be on?

To quote Eddie Izzard..."So my choice is 'Or Death?'

To quote some other people:
I had a student ask me, "Could the savior you believe in save Osama bin Laden?" Of course. We know the blood of Jesus Christ can save him, and then he must be executed.
-- Rev. Jerry Falwell

The "wall of separation between church and state" is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.
-- William Rehnquist, Supreme Court

I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good.... Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism."
--Randall Terry, quoted in The News-Sentinel, Fort Wayne, Indiana, August 16, 1993

We have no king but Jesus.
--John Ashcroft, May 8, 1999

We're going to bring back God and the Bible and drive the gods of secular humanism right out of the public schools of America.
--Pat Buchanan, at an anti-gay rally in Des Moines, Iowa, February 11, 1996

The idea that religion and politics don't mix was invented by the Devil to keep Christians from running their own country.
-- Rev. Jerry Falwell

After the Christian majority takes control, pluralism will be seen as immoral and evil and the state will not permit anybody the right to practice evil.
--Gary Potter, president of Catholics for Christian Political Action

The Christian community has a golden opportunity to train an army of dedicated teachers who can invade the public school classrooms and use them to influence the nation for Christ.
--D. James Kennedy, Coral Ridge Ministries, 1993

The Constitution of the United States, for instance, is a marvelous document for self-government by the Christian people. But the minute you turn the document into the hands of non-Christian people and atheistic people they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society. And that's what's been happening.
--Pat Robertson

The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.
--Pat Robertson

I think we ought to close Halloween down. Do you want your children to dress up as witches? The Druids used to dress up like this when they were doing human sacrifice... [Your children] are acting out Satanic rituals and participating in it, and don't even realize it.
--Pat Robertson

Get the few liberals out. If you don't do it, it ain't gonna be done. You will be doing the Lord's work, and he will richly bless you for it.
--Sen. James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, Christian Coalition's Road to Victory Conference, 2002, Washington D.C

If I do not return to the pulpit this weekend, millions of people will go to hell.
-- Jimmy Swaggart

These people all have a very similiar style of speech... especially the last.

It is very easy to say we are standing on the precipice of the end of times... but that really is an argument based on the thought your audience is afraid... I'm sorry I don't think IMHO your question has an answer and if it did, it would be worth debating for a lifetime.

on all those quotes- those kind of people are one of the reasons i don't miss being part of that religion

edit-reworded some and removed some elements that i decided weren't needed

Ehm...wow!
I mean, it's not like all atheists are saints (pun intended), but these quotes are really hardcore. I can understand that people like this actually scare people away from christianity.
But it's not like everyone who's not religious automatically is that much smarter. The quotes above are just some worst-case-scenarios.

Anung Un Rama wrote:Ehm...wow!
I mean, it's not like all atheists are saints (pun intended), but these quotes are really hardcore. I can understand that people like this actually scare people away from christianity.
But it's not like everyone who's not religious automatically is that much smarter. The quotes above are just some worst-case-scenarios.

Agreed. (hehe I'm a pretty intense person)

Anung Un Rama wrote:Ehm...wow!
I mean, it's not like all atheists are saints (pun intended), but these quotes are really hardcore. I can understand that people like this actually scare people away from christianity.
But it's not like everyone who's not religious automatically is that much smarter. The quotes above are just some worst-case-scenarios.

I used to be an Atheist. But then a college buddy (knowing of our mutual Atheism) gave me a copy of the God Delusion with his emphatic endorsement. Since then I have never identified as an Atheist in any discussion of religion. When someone can write an entire book about how Atheism is superior to Theism, and simultaneously advocate the formation of specifically Atheistic organizations, you know that part of the puzzle got lost in the move.

And now, a tangential point. I find the phrase 'secular humanist' to be a contradiction. A humanist is a person who believes in humanity as a force for good. A secularist is a person who is without religion. If the secular humanist is to actually be secular he must accept all human activity as positive. If he doesn't, then he has created a set of beliefs about the supernatural (an ideal humanity) which contradicts his nature as a secularist.

Yeah, there have been some mod alerts in this thread. Since so many people are pouring salt into eyes (as it were), I'm leaving them alone.

Duke it out, fellas.

Iorek wrote:Yeah, there have been some mod alerts in this thread. Since so many people are pouring salt into eyes (as it were), I'm leaving them alone.

Duke it out, fellas.

i don't know why, but now i find myself imagining some of the posters entering the thunder dome, some armed with the tools of their chosen religion

I think religion is pretty cool guy, eh kills aleins and doesn't afraid of anything.

You know, despite being an nominal atheist, I do like to believe in a very short afterlife.

Just five minutes after death, for all those self aggrandising, arrogant, swaggering, doom swearing extreme religious arseholes to figure out there is no God. There never was. There never will be. Ideally, I'd like a theory defying crowd of atheist souls to be there, just for five minutes, to point, laugh and say 'I told you so'.

Just five short minutes. That would make me laugh. To see the look of sheer and utter horror, just before oblivion hits, when they realise it was all a lie.

greenskin lynn wrote:

Iorek wrote:Yeah, there have been some mod alerts in this thread. Since so many people are pouring salt into eyes (as it were), I'm leaving them alone.

Duke it out, fellas.

i don't know why, but now i find myself imagining some of the posters entering the thunder dome, some armed with the tools of their chosen religion

NERD THUNDERDOME!

2 nerds enter, one nerd leaves

man, more arguments should be solved with the thunder dome.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LauaI21uFgY

Better.

Regardless of the death deal that most religions have special offers on, most have special life offers, namely to be good and do good yet, in most cases this is not the case as we can plainly see in our modern lives.

For me the point of religion is:

A: Give reassurance that there is something for you in death.

B:Give you a moral guidline to live by.

The funny thing is that regardless of the second point people insist on putting different perspectives on ther religion, like 'ya its ok to beat them up, they is bad' yet this just undermines the whole point of the religion.

I don't what I am trying to say, I guess we will never have 'heaven' on earth.

What would be good is an organised atheist 'religion' with the same goals to make the world a better place but with none of the bitter grudges that these moral high ground religions have yet act like none of it, none of it at all, is there doing.

A little more niceness in the world seems to be an unatainable thing.

@ AUR:

Sorry i havnt read through the 13 pages of replies, but i'll answer your original post
with my personal experience.

I spent my childhood around religion heavy environment before i immigrated to canada.
Death of grandparents , and other various reasons. Having seen lots of greedy people abusing
religious activities for personal benefits , i sort of stopped actively participating .

Do i believe in god? yes i do.
Do i work to do good deed so i can go to heaven? no

What i cant stand is looking at people fearing death praying to which ever religion they came across
in hope to gain salvation.

To me, religion is just a guidance. For lost to be guided , for the hopeless to gain hope .
I will be the best i can be for a human being , without wronging others. For my own sake.

If not being a christian / catholic / buddhist means i cannot go into their heaven despite me been the best
i can be, so be it. Thats not a heaven i would want to be in.

Wow I go away for a bit and look what happens, sphagetti monsters and now this. And I'm not sure if you are serious or just using sarcasm.

frgsinwntr wrote:
Why do Christians believe the devil is a god? And in the Same respects why are Satanists Christians? Now hear me out... before shutting me out. Christians believe in more then one God, father, son, Holy spirit, jesus... yea and they pray to saints and angels.... polytheistic under the guise of monotheism. ?
In the same regard if the devil is there to fight against god and we must struggle in order to resist his otherworldly control... doesn't this challenge the all powerfuls abilities in a way only a God/Godlike being can?

I'll post again some of what I posted many many pages ago concerning the basis of Christian doctrine, which the above quote shows a fundamental misunderstanding of orthodox Christian doctrine.

The trinity is a basic "fundamental" doctrine of orthodox Christianity, and in fact the denial of the trinity is one of the key indicators of a cult. I will paste a confession of faith from my particular denomination concerning the trinity.

"We Believe that there is one God eternally existent in three persons: God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost. "

That doesn't mean that there are 3 seperate gods, it means exactly what the above quote says "one God". The modalism heresy you describe has been recirculating since the early Church. This is also why many muslims are resistant to the teachings of the Bible, because they have been falsley indoctrinated into believing that Christians worship 3 gods not the single Allmighty God. There are many references in the Bible that point to a "triune God". I'm not going to go into all the references here, but this is a handy link that appears to go over the highlights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity


As far as praying to saints and angels, I believe that Roman Catholics have a form of this, but as I'm not Catholic, I know very little about this practice. You should be a little more careful when you make a generic statement about Christians when not all Christians practice what, from your statement, could easily be interpreted as "all" Christians.
I for one know that the Bible states that their is one mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ. I agree to disagree with Roman Catholics on this issue (as well as many others), but still consider them to be orthodox Christians.

Now satanists as Christians is where I wonder where your going. I don't know a lot about satanism, but from what little I have read they basically just practice rebellion. I don't know if they even really believe satan exists or even if God exists. I.E. they just practice satanism because to them it's a way to be controversial/rebellious.

So no.... they are not Christians, since they don't acknowedge Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. And just because you acknowedge the existance of Jesus Christ doesn't make you a Christian. I.E. it takes much more than just intellectual assent.


GG

You know what seems somewhat annoying about Christianity? all of those little sub-divisions (i.e. Protestants, Mormons, Lutherans etc.)

NO, they're NOT bad. They're perfectly fine. But do we have to start a whole new religion for a few differences in beliefs (I.E. belief in saints)

Ahtman wrote:The trick here is separating a peoples general religious make-up with cassus belli. Just being one or the other and being at war isn't enough to attribute to the religion. The United States didn't go to war with Japan in WWII because it was a Christian crusade anymore than Japan built the East Asian Co-prosperity Sphere and bombed Pearl Harbor to make a point about Buddhism. It isn't any more fair to blame Christians then it is Buddhists for government machinations and responses.

Sort of. While religion has never been the sole reason for a war, there are certainly plenty of cases where religion fed into the culture that led to war. The militant expansionism of WWII Japan was directly fed by Zen Buddhism. It would be crazy to say the post independence rioting that saw Sikhs, Muslims and Hindus in India at each other’s throats. The crusades were a mixed, and while motives of land grabs and opportunism were common, it’s very hard to say religion didn’t directly feed into the violence as well.

So while I think it isn’t fair to say religion leads to violence, nor is it really correct to say it never does. I think religion is a human thing, and it produces very human results. One of those results is violence, religion produces no more or less than our other endeavours.

Anung Un Rama wrote:Ehm...wow!
I mean, it's not like all atheists are saints (pun intended), but these quotes are really hardcore. I can understand that people like this actually scare people away from christianity.
But it's not like everyone who's not religious automatically is that much smarter. The quotes above are just some worst-case-scenarios.

Except they're not just extremists on the outskirts. They're politically powerful individuals, almost entirely tied in to the heart of the Republican party. I've been saying for a bit now how the Republican party had gone more than a little crazy and needed to spend some time in the outer to get itself back to reality. Well, yeah, it's folk like that that had tremendous power in the Republican party for the last 25 years. They need to be expunged.

It's also worth noting how terrible the religious argument were in those quotes, not just the politics. Just goes to show there are two benefits to the seperation of church and state. It not only protects politics from religion, it also protects religion from politics.

dogma wrote:I used to be an Atheist. But then a college buddy (knowing of our mutual Atheism) gave me a copy of the God Delusion with his emphatic endorsement. Since then I have never identified as an Atheist in any discussion of religion. When someone can write an entire book about how Atheism is superior to Theism, and simultaneously advocate the formation of specifically Atheistic organizations, you know that part of the puzzle got lost in the move.

Dawkins is a jerk. He is also quite poorly informed on religious studies. Yet more proof that someone can be very learned and inciteful in their chosen field (Dawkins is a terrific evolutionary biologist) but really terrible and obnoxious on something else.

And now, a tangential point. I find the phrase 'secular humanist' to be a contradiction. A humanist is a person who believes in humanity as a force for good. A secularist is a person who is without religion. If the secular humanist is to actually be secular he must accept all human activity as positive. If he doesn't, then he has created a set of beliefs about the supernatural (an ideal humanity) which contradicts his nature as a secularist.

That's not what humanism means. Humanism seeks for the basic dignity and rights of man, and attempts to argue for such based on reason alone. It isn't about believing in humanity as a force for good, doesn't require anyone to accept all human activity as positive.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:You know, despite being an nominal atheist, I do like to believe in a very short afterlife.

Just five minutes after death, for all those self aggrandising, arrogant, swaggering, doom swearing extreme religious arseholes to figure out there is no God. There never was. There never will be. Ideally, I'd like a theory defying crowd of atheist souls to be there, just for five minutes, to point, laugh and say 'I told you so'.

Just five short minutes. That would make me laugh. To see the look of sheer and utter horror, just before oblivion hits, when they realise it was all a lie.

Dude... bitter much?

No, but come on. Admit it. I think most people would like to be present in this 5 minute afterlife when a hateful arse like the guy who runs Westboro Baptist Church pops their clogs.

And at the very least, it's an amusing foil for that gamble thingy!

The one thing I don't get about people of faith, is the scriptures. Why so much indecision? I've been told on this thread that they aren't to be taken literally. Why not? If the Bible was given to us by God, then why would he put ambiguity into it? Why believe one section to be true, but not the other. Does disbelieving one part not automatically throw doubt on others and so on?

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:No, but come on. Admit it. I think most people would like to be present in this 5 minute afterlife when a hateful arse like the guy who runs Westboro Baptist Church pops their clogs.

And at the very least, it's an amusing foil for that gamble thingy!

Maybe at one time I would have. I don't know, as much as I think the Westboro people are hateful jerks, I really don't care what happens to them when they're dead.

The one thing I don't get about people of faith, is the scriptures. Why so much indecision? I've been told on this thread that they aren't to be taken literally. Why not? If the Bible was given to us by God, then why would he put ambiguity into it? Why believe one section to be true, but not the other. Does disbelieving one part not automatically throw doubt on others and so on?

Because life is complex and constantly changing. Don't eat seafood is great advice when you live in dry, dustry area where food spoils quickly. It's pretty lousy advice for people living on small islands. So the best advice for life is probably given in metaphor, to allow us to apply modern context.

sebster wrote:The militant expansionism of WWII Japan was directly fed by Zen Buddhism.

Uhm, no. Most Japanese are not Zen Buddhists, but Pure Land Buddhist, and it played a far smaller role then them trying to emulate western colonial powers.

sebster wrote:So while I think it isn’t fair to say religion leads to violence, nor is it really correct to say it never does.

I agree. If you can show me where I say religion never leads to violence I would appreciate it. I said it shouldn't always be blamed as the cause for war (cassus belli). Now once war is started it can certainly be used as a tool.

sebster wrote:Because life is complex and constantly changing. Don't eat seafood is great advice when you live in dry, dustry area where food spoils quickly. It's pretty lousy advice for people living on small islands. So the best advice for life is probably given in metaphor, to allow us to apply modern context.

The irony of course is that this is in and of itself a modern interpretation of how to interpret them.

sebster wrote:The militant expansionism of WWII Japan was directly fed by Zen Buddhism.

You mean Shintoism right?

sebster wrote:Because life is complex and constantly changing. Don't eat seafood is great advice when you live in dry, dustry area where food spoils quickly. It's pretty lousy advice for people living on small islands. So the best advice for life is probably given in metaphor, to allow us to apply modern context.

Except it isnt don't eat seafood it's don't eat anything from the sea without fins or scales. Old fish is just as bad as any other old 'meat'.

On a related note, how do Christians decide which bits of the Old Testament to follow? What makes 'gays are bad' more valid than 'don't eat pork'?

I understand there was much debate amongst early Christians over how Christ could be divine if there was only one god.

I like the Smiting parts of the Old Testament.

God Before Coffee: cranky-Old Testament

God after a nice refreshing French Roast and maybe some biscuits and gravy: we can all get along, Man!-New Testament.

sebster wrote:
That's not what humanism means. Humanism seeks for the basic dignity and rights of man, and attempts to argue for such based on reason alone. It isn't about believing in humanity as a force for good, doesn't require anyone to accept all human activity as positive.

You're right, that is a better definition. However, it still requires a discreet set if beliefs that are necessarily metaphysical. Dignity and rights are not 'natural kinds' that can be discovered or proven scientifically.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:No, but come on. Admit it. I think most people would like to be present in this 5 minute afterlife when a hateful arse like the guy who runs Westboro Baptist Church pops their clogs.

Personally, I'd rather watch him promulgate his nonsense in this one. But then I get a kick out of being an argumentative ass, so ymmv.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
The one thing I don't get about people of faith, is the scriptures. Why so much indecision? I've been told on this thread that they aren't to be taken literally. Why not? If the Bible was given to us by God, then why would he put ambiguity into it? Why believe one section to be true, but not the other. Does disbelieving one part not automatically throw doubt on others and so on?

The answer of the faithful (some of them) would be that ambiguity exists as a test of faith. My answer would be that ambiguity exists in the majority of human existence. When clarity comes its generally because you decided to stop looking.

Deadshane1 wrote:

halonachos wrote:Pascal said just go to church, even if you don't believe you'll start to eventually. I think that's hilarious.

Like being brainwashed into a cult?

Yes, which is why I think that whole concept is funny.

But as it was said, new testament god is a nicer god. Thank god I believe in that god or I would be screwed.

But seriously, when it comes to religion, it is almost impossible to believe after not believing unless some sort of miracle happens. When something goes bad, most people ask god why it happened. Most never ever say "okay, this isn't gods work.". They always assume that god controls all life and death, but as I believe, it isn't always god. Humans were made, and have life spans dependent on genes and parts of genes called telomeres. The telomere slowly disintigrates and once its gone, you die.

I've had my share of bumps, middleschool saw; two grandmas die, 9/11, death of favorite aunt, 1 grandfather die, 2 homicides down the street. high school saw; a pregnant woman lose her child due to a low speed crash(was working at hospital for a bit), a crash involving a motorcyclist leaving his face on the asphalt, the death of a god-mother, and a general loss of my belief in humanity. I didn't lose my faith, but gained a great belief in dark humor.

Relgion helped a bit, but dark humor helped the most.

What ambiguity MDG? Sorry lots of posts to find that.

It also depends on the religion/sect. For example, Islam teaches that the Quran is the literal word of God. No ambiguity. So don't screw up!

Some sects say the the Bible is as well, word for word. Others that it is, but written by fallible Man, and includes such things as metaphor.

some word for word vs. metaphor conflicts in Bible
Six days creation
Fall of Jericho

We say that its written by a man, so chances are there are some typos or misquoting.

Some differences in religions include use of saints, iconography, and the translation of the bible.

Most people, in america at least, can tell a person is catholic if they have a cross in his/her car. Protestants and others almost never have crosses in their cars.

For example: Many believe that the commandments say thou shall not kill, when it says thou shall not murder. So you can kill in self defense if the other is trying to murder. Its basic survival instinct, I take the whole "turn the other cheek" thing for non lethal actions as do some other christians.

Frazzled wrote:Fall of Jericho

Your saying he isn't going to win at this years Wrestlemania?

que?

John Cena will be victorious.

Cryonicleech wrote:You know what seems somewhat annoying about Christianity? all of those little sub-divisions (i.e. Protestants, Mormons, Lutherans etc.)

NO, they're NOT bad. They're perfectly fine. But do we have to start a whole new religion for a few differences in beliefs (I.E. belief in saints)

Here we go again.....

Just to keep things short. Mormonism is not a denomination of Christianity.

Denominationalism does not a "new" religion make. Any denomination that is not Roman Catholic (except eastern orthodox) is by definition protestant. So Lutherans, Episcopalians, Baptists, Most Penticostals, etc are protestant denominations, but are not a different religion.

But I do agree with you it is kind of annoying.

GG

halonachos wrote:We say that its written by a man, so chances are there are some typos or misquoting.

There is a common misconception that the Bible we have today is somehow drastically different than what they had during the Bible days. The dead sea scrolls, written around the time of Jesus, that were found in the 1940's matched almost exactly to the letter what we had that had been handed down for 1,000's of years.

C&P'd
"Ignoring spelling-oriented (orthographic) changes and similar small differences, the Dead Sea Scrolls match the Hebrew text behind today’s Old Testament, in spite of the passage of over 2,000 years (where one would expect errors to creep in)."

Again a good read I recomend is "Evidence that demands a verdict" by Josh Mcdowell.

These same statements keep popping up, so I have to keep jumping back in to counter them.

GG

Reply by: dogma - click to view full reply 

5534

Religion @ 2009/03/27 23:18:20

Post by: dogma

Frazzled wrote:
It also depends on the religion/sect. For example, Islam teaches that the Quran is the literal word of God. No ambiguity. So don't screw up!

They also teach that it is fundamentally incomprehensible to mankind. You can feel God's word, but you cannot understand it. Its also worth mentioning that a lot of the more precise claims that are commonly attributed to the Qu'ran via Sharia actually originate in the Hadith, which is not considered to be God's word. The Hadith is the story of the prophet, and is still revered, but its a step down in Holiness.

Reply by: Arctik_Firangi - click to view full reply 

8044

Religion @ 2009/03/27 23:45:55

Post by: Arctik_Firangi

What's the difference between a person raised as a Christian and one who was converted/awakened/whatever? As I've said, I was raised a Christian, but participated in 'church going' and so on for many years. I know that I have a pretty normal white, Christian-based mannerism, which would pass for a Christian concept of values or morals, but that's just acquired behavior. I have believed in atheism since I was 6 or so, but I guess just didn't know it as 'atheism'. It was like how you knew Santa was fake but played along.

Perhaps I just never bought the 'big reward' bit. It seems stunningly implausible. Is the afterlife a big deal for religious folks? I worry about that, because I fear it leads to destructive attitudes toward the real world. I do find apocalyptic types a bit offensive that way.

Reply by: sebster - click to view full reply 

5470

Religion @ 2009/03/30 05:00:55

Post by: sebster

Ahtman wrote:Uhm, no. Most Japanese are not Zen Buddhists, but Pure Land Buddhist, and it played a far smaller role then them trying to emulate western colonial powers.

It played a part, as did Shinto, which I had meant to also include. Both were important in forming Japanese ideas of manifest destiny. They were not alone, nor were they singly important but religion is part of culture, and culture shapes a nation's values and its foreign policy objectives.

I agree. If you can show me where I say religion never leads to violence I would appreciate it. I said it shouldn't always be blamed as the cause for war (cassus belli). Now once war is started it can certainly be used as a tool.

Yeah, it isn't always the cause. But it frequently plays its part as all elements of culture play their part.

The irony of course is that this is in and of itself a modern interpretation of how to interpret them.

Good pick up. God as the original post-modernist.

Reply by: sebster - click to view full reply 

5470

Religion @ 2009/03/30 05:01:06

Post by: sebster

George Spiggott wrote:You mean Shintoism right?

I meant to include both, as they were both significant in forming militant Japanese ideas.

Except it isnt don't eat seafood it's don't eat anything from the sea without fins or scales. Old fish is just as bad as any other old 'meat'.

On a related note, how do Christians decide which bits of the Old Testament to follow? What makes 'gays are bad' more valid than 'don't eat pork'?

I understand there was much debate amongst early Christians over how Christ could be divine if there was only one god.

It's the beauty of the buffet style of approach to religion.

For instance, the New Testament spends so much time talking about the need for charity and helping the poor, and yet there's folk out there preaching about how faith in God will make you rich. The bible spends little time talking about Hell but it's a major part of most people's understanding today.

Reply by: sebster - click to view full reply 

5470

Religion @ 2009/03/30 05:01:17

Post by: sebster

Frazzled wrote:I like the Smiting parts of the Old Testament.

God Before Coffee: cranky-Old Testament

God after a nice refreshing French Roast and maybe some biscuits and gravy: we can all get along, Man!-New Testament.

Tom Waits said it best; 'Don't you know there ain't no devil, there's just God when he's drunk.'

Reply by: Ahtman - click to view full reply 

241

Religion @ 2009/03/30 07:02:55

Post by: Ahtman

sebster wrote:

Ahtman wrote:The irony of course is that this is in and of itself a modern interpretation of how to interpret them.

Good pick up. God as the original post-modernist.

That is not post-modernism, that is history. You don't have to ascribe to post modernism to notice that different time periods treated the words differently.

Reply by: sebster - click to view full reply 

5470

Religion @ 2009/03/30 08:14:20

Post by: sebster

Ahtman wrote:That is not post-modernism, that is history. You don't have to ascribe to post modernism to notice that different time periods treated the words differently.

Maybe, depending on how varied and how deep you ascribe postmodern thought. I don't know about you but I really don't want to get into a conversation on postmodernism

Reply by: dogma - click to view full reply 

5534

Religion @ 2009/03/30 08:58:54

Post by: dogma

Let us all agree that Edward Said is the worst artifact of that thing we call 'PoMo'.

Reply by: sebster - click to view full reply 

5470

Religion @ 2009/03/30 10:09:04

Post by: sebster

dogma wrote:Let us all agree that Edward Said is the worst artifact of that thing we call 'PoMo'.

There's also the word 'PoMo', which is narrowly behind 'bromance' as the silliest word in use today.

Reply by: dogma - click to view full reply 

5534

Religion @ 2009/03/30 11:36:32

Post by: dogma

It seems you have not yet encountered antidisestableshmentarianism

Reply by: halonachos - click to view full reply 

12061

Religion @ 2009/03/30 13:33:44

Post by: halonachos

Okay, the thing with us christians is that we tend to follow the new testament more than the old testament. Its like a message on an answering machine; if someone calls saying that they're going out somewhere, and then call later saying that they're staying home, which message would you listen to?

The whole thing with Chrit's divinity is talked about in the trinity. The father, the son, and the holy spirit are actually one being in spirit of the father(god).

It depends on what kind of rich you look at, rich in spirit and rich in wallet are two different things. They could be looking at the fact that if you are religious, you will be moral. If you are moral, you will get raises and be kept by whatever business you work at.

Has anyone seen the family guy episode with the star trek cast? That's how most christians are converted.

Reply by: George Spiggott - click to view full reply 

4412

Religion @ 2009/03/30 15:18:00

Post by: George Spiggott

That still doesn't clarify why gays = bad and pork = ok.

Reply by: halonachos - click to view full reply 

12061

Religion @ 2009/03/30 15:32:25

Post by: halonachos

gays=bad only applies to some churches like the pork=ok thing.

The thing about christianity is that you can't stereotype it. Its like this, not all muslims are terrorists, not all atheists want to kill god, not all emo kids are vampires(thats a lie I think), not all christians hate gays, not all gays hate christians, not all black people play basketball, not all illegal immigrants are mexicans, not all catholic priests molest children, and etc.

The whole pork thing was also because of health reasons, but we learned to cook pork right and so people didn't care anymore.

Reply by: Ahtman - click to view full reply 

241

Religion @ 2009/03/30 18:41:30

Post by: Ahtman

halonachos wrote:
The whole pork thing was also because of health reasons, but we learned to cook pork right and so people didn't care anymore.

It's not just about health, it is about recognition of the sacred. Sure you could eat it and know you aren't going to get sick but you also need to give a little reverence to g-d. The the big guy some props yo.

Reply by: generalgrog - click to view full reply 

5742

Religion @ 2009/03/30 18:41:37

Post by: generalgrog

Once again HaloNachos has caused me to jump in.

Halonachos, no offense intended, but you really need to do some research before you attempt to defend the faith as you can do more harm then good when you are uninformed.

According to the Bible, homosexuality is a sin, adultery is a sin, theft is a sin. lying is a sin. ect.etc. A Christian saying homosexuality is a sin, is not saying that Christians hate gays. In fact if you hate gays then by definition you aren't a Christian, because you have no love for the sinner.

As for the pork thing. It is against the law of the old testamant to eat pork, as were many other things. The Bible teaches that the crucifixtion of Jesus did away with having to try to keep the Law for the Laws sake. Because He was the ultimate sacrifice, and therefore there is no longer any need to continue sacrificing animals(prescribed by the law) to atone for sins. The Holy Spirit would come and convict sinners of the need for repentence and no longer needed the priestly system of the old testament law. Read the book of Hebrews, in the Bible, it's a really good treatment on the subject.

GG

Reply by: Ahtman - click to view full reply 

241

Religion @ 2009/03/30 18:49:32

Post by: Ahtman

generalgrog wrote:Once again HaloNachos has caused me to jump in.

Halonachos, no offense intended, but you really need to do some research before you attempt to defend the faith as you can do more harm then good when you are uninformed.

According to the Bible, homosexuality is a sin, adultery is a sin, theft is a sin. lying is a sin. ect.etc. A Christian saying homosexuality is a sin, is not saying that Christians hate gays. In fact if you hate gays then by definition you aren't a Christian, because you have no love for the sinner.

As for the pork thing. It is against the law of the old testamant to eat pork, as were many other things. The Bible teaches that the crucifixtion of Jesus did away with having to try to keep the Law for the Laws sake. Because He was the ultimate sacrifice, and therefore there is no longer any need to continue sacrificing animals(prescribed by the law) to atone for sins. The Holy Spirit would come and convict sinners of the need for repentence and no longer needed the priestly system of the old testament law. Read the book of Hebrews, in the Bible, it's a really good treatment on the subject.

GG

I'm confused. You say that you don't have to follow stuff from the old testament yet still claim homosexuality is a sin which is back in the old testament with the delicious bacon laws. If we want to be really technical, like ultra-orthodox Jews, only hot man-on-man action is forbidden in the old testament. Of course they don't follow the new testament at all, so they don't have to worry about working their way around this contradiction.

Reply by: Frazzled - click to view full reply 

221

Religion @ 2009/03/30 18:52:54

Post by: Frazzled

Christians are supposed to respect both, although the new Testament takes precedence. How much the Old is respected depends on the sect.

Reply by: halonachos - click to view full reply 

12061

Religion @ 2009/03/30 19:00:00

Post by: halonachos

So you're going to tell me that the sole reason priests can't get married is because of religious beliefs?

I mean, relgion and traditions are important, but some actions and current traditions are caused by non-religious reasons.

For example: It used to be a sin to "waste" the male "secret ingredient" and not have a child. But recently the pope said it is okay to use condoms, this is against scripture, but the pope said its okay so it must be.

Also, people KNEW that pork not cooked well would give the consumer trichinosis. So many people avoided pork altogether.
Now, lets go back to the pope. The pope used to be able to get married and have children, but one pope had some kids and way back then, the pope OWNED land owned by the church and OWNED all of the money in its coffers. Well, said pope had 4 sons and an argument came about. Technically the 4 sons owned all of the land owned by the church and demanded that it be split. The church changed the rules so that the pope couldn't get married or have kids.

This isn't in the bible, even chastity of the priests isn't in the bible.

So, no offense to you either grog, but there are more reasons than just pure religion for most religious traditions.

Thank the germans for christmas trees and easter eggs.

Reply by: Greebynog - click to view full reply 

6887

Religion @ 2009/03/30 19:23:29

Post by: Greebynog

halonachos wrote:
For example: It used to be a sin to "waste" the male "secret ingredient" and not have a child. But recently the pope said it is okay to use condoms, this is against scripture, but the pope said its okay so it must be.

No, he said that condoms increase the spread of AIDs. You're both very, very wrong.

Reply by: halonachos - click to view full reply 

12061

Religion @ 2009/03/30 19:34:58

Post by: halonachos

Oh god, not that again. I already pointed out that the pope had said that condoms increase the spreadof AIDs. The fact is, he was trying to promote abstinence instead of wonton sex just because they use a condom.

And recently the pope has said it is not a sin to use condoms. I go to a catholic church, I am catholic, and I read what the pope says. Did you know that Pope John Paul II had breakdancers come to the Vatican and blessed them. John Paul II was probably the coolest popes ever.

Reply by: stonefox - click to view full reply 

844

Religion @ 2009/03/30 19:48:14

Post by: stonefox

John Paul II was probably the coolest pope ever.

This is true.

Reply by: halonachos - click to view full reply 

12061

Religion @ 2009/03/30 19:50:55

Post by: halonachos

They had an action figure for him, I wanted it so badly so I could pretend he was super pope or something.

A quote from a local priest: "How the hell do you know the pope is holy until you put him into the ground?"

Reply by: stonefox - click to view full reply 

844

Religion @ 2009/03/30 20:17:09

Post by: stonefox

Haha, good one. I take it you've heard of Battle Pope?

Reply by: generalgrog - click to view full reply 

5742

Religion @ 2009/03/30 20:23:12

Post by: generalgrog

Ahtman wrote:

generalgrog wrote:Once again HaloNachos has caused me to jump in.

Halonachos, no offense intended, but you really need to do some research before you attempt to defend the faith as you can do more harm then good when you are uninformed.

According to the Bible, homosexuality is a sin, adultery is a sin, theft is a sin. lying is a sin. ect.etc. A Christian saying homosexuality is a sin, is not saying that Christians hate gays. In fact if you hate gays then by definition you aren't a Christian, because you have no love for the sinner.

As for the pork thing. It is against the law of the old testamant to eat pork, as were many other things. The Bible teaches that the crucifixtion of Jesus did away with having to try to keep the Law for the Laws sake. Because He was the ultimate sacrifice, and therefore there is no longer any need to continue sacrificing animals(prescribed by the law) to atone for sins. The Holy Spirit would come and convict sinners of the need for repentence and no longer needed the priestly system of the old testament law. Read the book of Hebrews, in the Bible, it's a really good treatment on the subject.

GG

I'm confused. You say that you don't have to follow stuff from the old testament yet still claim homosexuality is a sin which is back in the old testament with the delicious bacon laws. If we want to be really technical, like ultra-orthodox Jews, only hot man-on-man action is forbidden in the old testament. Of course they don't follow the new testament at all, so they don't have to worry about working their way around this contradiction.

I said that the Holy Spirit convicts believers to repentence, not the Law. "the letter killeth and the spirit giveth life". It's not a contradiction. That's why it is called a new testament or new covenant. New... meaning that God has given us a new way to atone for our sins by believing that Jesus Christ , The Lamb of God, was sacrificed for our sins, instead of following the Law of Moses, which required the sacrifice of animals for atonement.

Homosexuality was not only sin in the old testament levitical law, but it is also a sin under the New testement. There are all kinds of sexual sin, the problem I see is that people focus on homosexuality and forget about adultery, fornication and lust. Acording to the Bible they are all sins, whether you look at old testament or new.

Also you must remember that there were many many laws (100's 1,000's?) that went beyond the 10 commandments that were in the levitical Law.

GG

Reply by: halonachos - click to view full reply 

12061

Religion @ 2009/03/30 20:24:51

Post by: halonachos

Never heard of battle pope, but I thought that the pope-mobile should shoot communion crackers out of its headlights though.

@grog

Haha, I made you do something! :p

Reply by: generalgrog - click to view full reply 

5742

Religion @ 2009/03/30 20:25:12

Post by: generalgrog

halonachos wrote:
For example: It used to be a sin to "waste" the male "secret ingredient" and not have a child. But recently the pope said it is okay to use condoms, this is against scripture, but the pope said its okay so it must be.

Where does it say that in scripture? (Let me clarify....where does it say that it is against scripture to, as you put it, "waste" the male "secret ingrediant"?



GG

Reply by: halonachos - click to view full reply 

12061

Religion @ 2009/03/30 20:29:37

Post by: halonachos

Thou shalt not waste the fruit of thy loins or something like that.

Reply by: Frazzled - click to view full reply 

221

Religion @ 2009/03/30 20:31:48

Post by: Frazzled

Old testament, better to bang a woman of the evening then having special happy time (Transformers quotes, love them).

Reply by: generalgrog - click to view full reply 

5742

Religion @ 2009/03/30 20:40:17

Post by: generalgrog

halonachos wrote:Thou shalt not waste the fruit of thy loins or something like that.

sigh......

Reply by: halonachos - click to view full reply 

12061

Religion @ 2009/03/30 20:43:41

Post by: halonachos

You can sigh all you want, I don't care if I quoted it wrong, the general pretense is there.

Reply by: Lint - click to view full reply 

9407

Religion @ 2009/03/30 20:47:28

Post by: Lint

generalgrog wrote:

halonachos wrote:Thou shalt not waste the fruit of thy loins or something like that.

sigh......

No, it was a guy in the Old Testament named Onan. It says that he "spilled his seed upon the ground, and God struck him dead." <paraphrase> In context though the story is that Onan was supposed to marry his dead brothers' (plural) wife, but since she had already married and buried like 5 other brothers, Onan said screw that and masturbated rather than consumate a "bad luck" marriage.

So it basically has nothing to do with giving yourself a hello stranger, and more to do with not pissing off the Lord.

Reply by: halonachos - click to view full reply 

12061

Religion @ 2009/03/30 20:58:26

Post by: halonachos

Now we know why masturbation is illegal.

Just joking, but it will give you acne,

Reply by: Orkeosaurus - click to view full reply 

9708

Religion @ 2009/03/30 21:38:28

Post by: Orkeosaurus

Ahtman wrote:If we want to be really technical, like ultra-orthodox Jews, only hot man-on-man action is forbidden in the old testament.

Actually, a man can have sex with a man, as long as he does it in a different way from how he would have sex with a woman.

By RAW.

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Reply by: halonachos - click to view full reply 

12061

Religion @ 2009/03/30 22:34:21

Post by: halonachos

When's the last time you went by RAW? Nobody I know does so.

Reply by: Ozymandias - click to view full reply 

4362

Religion @ 2009/03/30 22:42:22

Post by: Ozymandias

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Ahtman wrote:If we want to be really technical, like ultra-orthodox Jews, only hot man-on-man action is forbidden in the old testament.

Actually, a man can have sex with a man, as long as he does it in a different way from how he would have sex with a woman.

By RAW.

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Which is impossible as (most) men don't have vaginas. So, by RAW, gays are set.

Reply by: halonachos - click to view full reply 

12061

Religion @ 2009/03/30 22:57:32

Post by: halonachos

Also, by RAW, those without sin may cast the first stone. However, I throw rocks at people regardless of this turn based game.

Reply by: Orkeosaurus - click to view full reply 

9708

Religion @ 2009/03/30 22:59:31

Post by: Orkeosaurus

Also you can have sex with relatives, as long as you don't take their clothes off.

Reply by: Ozymandias - click to view full reply 

4362

Religion @ 2009/03/30 23:02:32

Post by: Ozymandias

Seriously though, many of the things in Christian doctrine don't come from the Gospels but instead come from the letters of Paul, a hugely influential Christian leader but a man none-the-less (example, IIRC there aren't any passages condemning homosexuality in the Gospels). Take a look sometime at the 'Jefferson Bible' which tells the story of Christ without the miracles and religion.

To paraphrase from the cast of Monty Python, Jesus said "Love thy neighbor" and people have been killing each other ever since about how he said it.

Reply by: Ahtman - click to view full reply 

241

Religion @ 2009/03/31 01:47:44

Post by: Ahtman

generalgrog wrote:Homosexuality was not only sin in the old testament levitical law, but it is also a sin under the New testement. There are all kinds of sexual sin, the problem I see is that people focus on homosexuality and forget about adultery, fornication and lust. Acording to the Bible they are all sins, whether you look at old testament or new.

Also you must remember that there were many many laws (100's 1,000's?) that went beyond the 10 commandments that were in the levitical Law.

GG

I can't remember something I haven't forgotten. I am well aware that the Torah has more laws than just the 10.

If you could find where in the New Testament is says the homosexuality is a sin that would be great. I've seen most of Jesus's sayings and he never mentioned.

Again you are falling into the contradiction of saying some things from the Old Testament should be kept but others you want to ignore. That is a bit of cherry picking don't you think? Maybe you should speak with a rabbi on it. After all it is his laws you are interpreting in this scenario.

Reply by: Orkeosaurus - click to view full reply 

9708

Religion @ 2009/03/31 02:00:16

Post by: Orkeosaurus

That must be a really old rabbi.

Reply by: generalgrog - click to view full reply 

5742

Religion @ 2009/03/31 02:36:24

Post by: generalgrog

Ahtman wrote:

generalgrog wrote:Homosexuality was not only sin in the old testament levitical law, but it is also a sin under the New testement. There are all kinds of sexual sin, the problem I see is that people focus on homosexuality and forget about adultery, fornication and lust. Acording to the Bible they are all sins, whether you look at old testament or new.

Also you must remember that there were many many laws (100's 1,000's?) that went beyond the 10 commandments that were in the levitical Law.

GG

I can't remember something I haven't forgotten. I am well aware that the Torah has more laws than just the 10.

If you could find where in the New Testament is says the homosexuality is a sin that would be great. I've seen most of Jesus's sayings and he never mentioned.

Again you are falling into the contradiction of saying some things from the Old Testament should be kept but others you want to ignore. That is a bit of cherry picking don't you think? Maybe you should speak with a rabbi on it. After all it is his laws you are interpreting in this scenario.

Respectfully... I'm not cherrypicking. I think you are cherrypicking and trying to bend my statements to your own needs.

I'll quote Paul, who happened to be a Jewish Rabbi before converting to Christianity.

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God" (I Cor. 6:9-10).

Notice Paul's consolation to those who repented of these sinful deeds of the flesh:

"And such were some of you but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor. 6:11).

MEN WITH MEN AND WOMEN WITH WOMEN

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense [penalty] of their error which was meet [due]" (Rom. 1:26-27).

If your really that interested (and not just trying to pick a fight :-0), I suggest you read the book of Romans to understand the Chrisitan view of the sin nature of man, and the book of Hebrews to understand the Christian view of the new covenant and how that relates to the old covenant. Afterall Paul who was a Jew is much better at explaining this than I.

GG

Reply by: Ahtman - click to view full reply 

241

Religion @ 2009/03/31 02:59:27

Post by: Ahtman

generalgrog wrote:I'll quote Paul, who happened to be a Jewish Rabbi before converting to Christianity.

He was Jewish and a Pharisee (almost? he was likened to one but never stated he actually was a member for certain), but not a rabbi. He did not teach, he was closer to an enforcer of Talmudic law.

generalgrog wrote:"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God" (I Cor. 6:9-10).

Here, have some more translations and a breakdown of that passage. Translating words differently changes the meaning.

Also, again as pointed out, you are using Paul's words, not Jesus. He never met the guy while he was alive like most of the others that wrote and yet many cling to him more strongly than those personally closest and heard the word first hand.

Reply by: sebster - click to view full reply 

5470

Religion @ 2009/03/31 03:07:37

Post by: sebster

dogma wrote:It seems you have not yet encountered antidisestableshmentarianism

Sbuh? Antidisestablishmentarianism is a brilliant word!




Meanwhile, GeneralGrog, I think its interesting that in the same post you talk about homosexuality is a sin as it's written in the bible, but then go on to point out how Jesus taught that you shouldn't just follow the law for the sake of the law. I know you'll likely go on to point out homosexuality is still a sin for whatever reasons, but you have to see how much of a stretch the whole thing can appear to the rest of us.

Reply by: generalgrog - click to view full reply 

5742

Religion @ 2009/03/31 03:18:42

Post by: generalgrog

Why are you guys fixated on homosexuality?

I pointed out that there are many sexual sins yet you are focusing on one of them.


Ahtman... I can do the same thing as you...... here you go, enjoy. http://bible-truths.com/homosex.htm

GG

Reply by: sebster - click to view full reply 

5470

Religion @ 2009/03/31 04:10:31

Post by: sebster

generalgrog wrote:Why are you guys fixated on homosexuality?

The question for me is why so many Christian groups are so fixated on the issue. Why was so much money spend lobbying for Prop 8 and the other constitutional amendments, and why wasn't that money spent on things the bible spends most of its time talking about, like caring for the poor and making sure there's another instalment in Max Payne games.

I pointed out that there are many sexual sins yet you are focusing on one of them.

...because people generally agree the other ones are wrong, or at least bad ideas?

Reply by: Ahtman - click to view full reply 

241

Religion @ 2009/03/31 04:15:55

Post by: Ahtman

generalgrog wrote:Why are you guys fixated on homosexuality?

I pointed out that there are many sexual sins yet you are focusing on one of them.


Ahtman... I can do the same thing as you...... here you go, enjoy. http://bible-truths.com/homosex.htm

GG

All your doing is proving my point that there are multiple translations which say slightly different things, which is all I said. I didn't say which was the correct one or which one you choose to believe.

A Christian complaining about people focusing on homosexuality is a little ironic considering the main cause behind anti-gay rights and gay bashing in the US is the reigious right. The Christian (though not all of course) element is what is obsessed with keeping gay people from being equal citizens more than any others here.

Let's make this clear, I am not saying all Christians by any stretch.

Reply by: Polonius - click to view full reply 

752

Religion @ 2009/03/31 04:28:46

Post by: Polonius

generalgrog wrote:Why are you guys fixated on homosexuality?

I pointed out that there are many sexual sins yet you are focusing on one of them.


Ahtman... I can do the same thing as you...... here you go, enjoy. http://bible-truths.com/homosex.htm

GG

Well, for the queer rights movement I think the argument is that all other sexual sins are avoidable while still leading a rich full sexual life. Once you're married, you can do pretty much whatever you want, while gay and lesbian couples are denied that opportunity. Since the evidence seems to be mounting that homosexuality is more innate and less a behavior that can be learned or unlearned, it strikes a lot of people as being really, really unfair.

Reply by: Greenlight1107 - click to view full reply 

12810

Religion @ 2009/03/31 05:47:25

Post by: Greenlight1107

Generalgrog: My thoughts on gay marriage is were do you draw the line. next there will be people trying to mary there dog or even there cat. Bestiality is still very real in this day and age, and though it may sound like I'm trying to be funny there are people out there with real serious emotional issues. I am still one of the strong belivers that believe Homosexuality is a behavioral problem and not a genetic one. This is because there are to many people saying there gay one minute and then saying that there heterosexual the next. This does not seem like genetics to me.

My point is if were going to talk about rights across the board then you'll have to open up Pandoras Box, and that means giveing sexual Liberties for all whether we think it's moral or not. So I think we should leave marriage alone as it is already defined and established, and not cross that line because you may not like whats on the other side.

Reply by: Orkeosaurus - click to view full reply 

9708

Religion @ 2009/03/31 05:53:59

Post by: Orkeosaurus

Eh.

Can someone enter into a legal contract with their dog?

Of course not, that's a line already in place. Adults capable of entering into legal agreements.
Two men are perfectly capable of doing this, that shouldn't change based on their gender.

Reply by: sebster - click to view full reply 

5470

Religion @ 2009/03/31 06:57:40

Post by: sebster

Greenlight1107 wrote:Generalgrog: My thoughts on gay marriage is were do you draw the line. next there will be people trying to mary there dog or even there cat. Bestiality is still very real in this day and age, and though it may sound like I'm trying to be funny there are people out there with real serious emotional issues.

This is a slippery slope fallacy, trying to argue against something on the grounds that some subsequent event might happen. Basically, the argument is a fail because there is nothing stopping the opposition to bestiality after homosexuals are allowed legal marriage. There are so many differences between the two beyond ‘the Bible says they’re bad’.

Besides, there is already a clear legal distinction between bestiality and homosexuality, because the former is illegal while the latter is not. Given that there has been no success at all in legalising bestiality despite the legalisation of homosexuality, why on Earth would gay marriage change anything.

The argument is basically nonsense.

I am still one of the strong belivers that believe Homosexuality is a behavioral problem and not a genetic one. This is because there are to many people saying there gay one minute and then saying that there heterosexual the next. This does not seem like genetics to me.

There’s nothing in genetics that suggests there should be a hard switch between the two. It also doesn’t have to be simply a case of genetics, but environmental factors starting in the womb.

Now, if you think it’s all about choice let me ask you; could you choose to be gay? Because there’s no way I could choose to start being gay, I have no desire towards men at all. Could you decide to start being gay tomorrow?

My point is if were going to talk about rights across the board then you'll have to open up Pandoras Box, and that means giveing sexual Liberties for all whether we think it's moral or not. So I think we should leave marriage alone as it is already defined and established, and not cross that line because you may not like whats on the other side.

Except there is nothing about legalising homosexuality that’ll lead to any increased acceptance of bestiality. Nothing. It’s a nonsense.

Reply by: ungulateman - click to view full reply 

10326

Religion @ 2009/03/31 07:06:07

Post by: ungulateman

1-0 to Sebster. Good job.

Reply by: Orkeosaurus - click to view full reply 

9708

Religion @ 2009/03/31 07:24:48

Post by: Orkeosaurus

I'm not sure I see the significance of whether or not homosexuality is inborn, to be honest.

I like to eat meat. It's tasty. That's an inborn preference. (Or a preference instilled on me when I was very young, it makes no difference. I can't just decide that I don't like the taste of meat anymore.)

I could nonetheless be a vegetarian. My eating meat isn't an inborn trait, my liking meat is. If there was a pressing reason for me to not eat meat, I would have to do without.

Pedophiles and.. uh.. zooaphiles(?) may have inborn attractions themselves, the difference between them and homosexuals is they're not marrying/having sex with consenting* adults. That's the reason for what they do being illegal, it has nothing to do with whether or not those are inborn traits.

There's no real grounds for homosexuality to be treated in a different manner from heterosexuality; the sex of the people in a relationship doesn't make a difference in nearly any case, so there's no reason for homosexual couples to be inconvenienced by the lack ability to marry.

*Animals never count as consenting because they are not intelligent enough to make such decisions.

Reply by: Frazzled - click to view full reply 

221

Religion @ 2009/03/31 12:08:16

Post by: Frazzled

Ahtman wrote:

generalgrog wrote:Homosexuality was not only sin in the old testament levitical law, but it is also a sin under the New testement. There are all kinds of sexual sin, the problem I see is that people focus on homosexuality and forget about adultery, fornication and lust. Acording to the Bible they are all sins, whether you look at old testament or new.

Also you must remember that there were many many laws (100's 1,000's?) that went beyond the 10 commandments that were in the levitical Law.

GG

I can't remember something I haven't forgotten. I am well aware that the Torah has more laws than just the 10.

If you could find where in the New Testament is says the homosexuality is a sin that would be great. I've seen most of Jesus's sayings and he never mentioned.

Again you are falling into the contradiction of saying some things from the Old Testament should be kept but others you want to ignore. That is a bit of cherry picking don't you think? Maybe you should speak with a rabbi on it. After all it is his laws you are interpreting in this scenario.

I could be wrong Ahtman, but, ignoring the Paul part, I think it all links to Old Testament sections. If its not a supposed statement from the Jmeister, I tend to ignore it.

Reply by: Frazzled - click to view full reply 

221

Religion @ 2009/03/31 12:22:37

Post by: Frazzled

The following is for informational purposes only.

The question for me is why so many Christian groups are so fixated on the issue. Why was so much money spend lobbying for Prop 8 and the other constitutional amendments, and why wasn't that money spent on things the bible spends most of its time talking about, like caring for the poor and making sure there's another instalment in Max Payne games.

Only some sects actually, and often only segments within those sects. Many sects say, yea its wrong but we don’t give a BLEEP, we have bigger fish to fry. Other sects don’t care at all. I think you’re seeing the resurgence of the “we’ve got bigger fish to fry here” crowd, me included.

But you want fun, be in a parish hall when this stuff comes up. The “hardcores” and the “STFU we got good to do” crowds can really go at it. Sometimes its really hard not to say “you need to go BLEEP yourself” in church…

Orkeosaurus wrote:Eh.
Can someone enter into a legal contract with their dog?

Of course not, that's a line already in place. Adults capable of entering into legal agreements.
Two men are perfectly capable of doing this, that shouldn't change based on their gender.

No but a group of ten can. That’s the slippery slope argument, that you can’t limit the whole multiple wives thing, and that it gets hard to regulate underage marriage. The NAMBLA people have started making their rounds.

Another issue that comes up is less about gay marriage but the anything goes lifestyle. I know several people who don’t give a fig about gay marriage, but the freakout and often times antichristian stuff they see gives them pause.

Reply by: Ahtman - click to view full reply 

241

Religion @ 2009/03/31 14:56:53

Post by: Ahtman

Frazzled wrote:The NAMBLA people have started making their rounds.

So are you trying to imply that homosexuality and pedophilia are the same thing or at least so similiar that rational people will not make be able to make a distinction between the two?

Reply by: sebster - click to view full reply 

5470

Religion @ 2009/03/31 15:01:18

Post by: sebster

Frazzled wrote:Only some sects actually, and often only segments within those sects. Many sects say, yea its wrong but we don’t give a BLEEP, we have bigger fish to fry. Other sects don’t care at all. I think you’re seeing the resurgence of the “we’ve got bigger fish to fry here” crowd, me included.

But you want fun, be in a parish hall when this stuff comes up. The “hardcores” and the “STFU we got good to do” crowds can really go at it. Sometimes its really hard not to say “you need to go BLEEP yourself” in church…

Fair point, I didn't word my point that well. It implied all Christians in all groups were worried about this, and that's plainly not true. I should have said I wonder why any Christian groups worry about this, when it isn't anywhere near as big a part of their faith as charitable works.

No but a group of ten can. That’s the slippery slope argument, that you can’t limit the whole multiple wives thing, and that it gets hard to regulate underage marriage. The NAMBLA people have started making their rounds.

Yeah, and the NAMBLA people have made zero progress, because they have no case. Just as the legalisation of sodomy never led to any momentum at all for the NAMBLA people, because one is an act between consenting adults and the other is paedophilia. One does not lead to the other. And it's the same for bigamy, polygamy and anything else like that.

And the big thing is, you all know that, because it's very, very obvious.

Reply by: Frazzled - click to view full reply 

221

Religion @ 2009/03/31 15:41:56

Post by: Frazzled

Ahtman wrote:

Frazzled wrote:The NAMBLA people have started making their rounds.

So are you trying to imply that homosexuality and pedophilia are the same thing or at least so similiar that rational people will not make be able to make a distinction between the two?

Nope, not at all. Reasonable people are not the issue. I am saying NAMBLA is making the same legal arguments that the courts are using to overturn anti gay marriage legislation.

Anyone ever see the SouthPark episode where NAMBLA (National Association of Marlon Brando Look Alikes) is at the same hotel as NAMBLA, and commences to hunt them down like the dogs they are? A choice episode.

Yeah, and the NAMBLA people have made zero progress, because they have no case. Just as the legalisation of sodomy never led to any momentum at all for the NAMBLA people, because one is an act between consenting adults and the other is paedophilia. One does not lead to the other. And it's the same for bigamy, polygamy and anything else like that.

And the big thing is, you all know that, because it's very, very obvious.

1. Why the hostility? I'm not comparing it to gay marriage-I am saying the same legal arguments are being used by other parties, and some are gaining traction. It only takes one nutjob (read 9th circuit) court decision to make extravagantly bad law.
2. Thats not completely accurate. Their legal arguments have some merit. The next argument to gain traction will be the multiple spouses group which is indeed gaining traction, and its a simple step beyond. that.

Reply by: Orkeosaurus - click to view full reply 

9708

Religion @ 2009/03/31 16:01:09

Post by: Orkeosaurus

But you can still cut it off there.

No marrying children. Simple, direct.

Allow it to go as far as it can without putting others in harm's way, cut it off at that point and don't budge.

Reply by: Mad Doc Grotsnik - click to view full reply 

8725

Religion @ 2009/03/31 16:04:44

Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik

Adult + Child Sexual Relationship = Exploitation of a child.

Adult + Adult Sexual Relationship = Nobody elses bloody business so keep your neb and your opinions to yourself.

Reply by: Frazzled - click to view full reply 

221

Religion @ 2009/03/31 16:16:54

Post by: Frazzled

How about multiple spouses? Communal relationships?

Reply by: George Spiggott - click to view full reply 

4412

Religion @ 2009/03/31 16:18:50

Post by: George Spiggott

Indeed, what two consenting adults get up to in the privacy of their own bedroom is no business of the state.

[edit] Nobody is asking for multiple partners in the UK, it never crops up as a problem here.

Reply by: Orkeosaurus - click to view full reply 

9708

Religion @ 2009/03/31 16:19:47

Post by: Orkeosaurus

Frazzled wrote:How about multiple spouses? Communal relationships?

Fine by me. Doesn't seem like a very good idea, but it doesn't really affect anyone but the people who enter into it.

There's probably some tricky stuff legally though, when you're dealing with more than two people.

Reply by: sebster - click to view full reply 

5470

Religion @ 2009/03/31 16:21:10

Post by: sebster

Frazzled wrote:1. Why the hostility? I'm not comparing it to gay marriage-I am saying the same legal arguments are being used by other parties, and some are gaining traction. It only takes one nutjob (read 9th circuit) court decision to make extravagantly bad law.
2. Thats not completely accurate. Their legal arguments have some merit. The next argument to gain traction will be the multiple spouses group which is indeed gaining traction, and its a simple step beyond. that.

I didn't say you compared it to gay marriage, that was Ahtman. I'm not angry, it's just this same bonkers line of reasoning always appears and never goes away, despite how silly it is. You know the 9th circuit is not going to legalise paedophile marriage. You know it, it's very, very obvious. Just try saying it out loud 'I think the 9th circuit might possibly legalise paedophile marriage once gay marriage is allowed'... it's completely stark raving bonkers.

Why not go for gay marriage is a step closer to gay adoption. That is at least somewhat sensible.

Reply by: Frazzled - click to view full reply 

221

Religion @ 2009/03/31 16:22:32

Post by: Frazzled

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Frazzled wrote:How about multiple spouses? Communal relationships?

Fine by me. Doesn't seem like a very good idea, but it doesn't really affect anyone but the people who enter into it.

There's probably some tricky stuff legally though, when you're dealing with more than two people.

Yes it most certainly does. You're forgetting children. No children - meh who gives a fig. Children? The State has a compelling interest.

Way OT though, sorry.

Reply by: Frazzled - click to view full reply 

221

Religion @ 2009/03/31 16:24:55

Post by: Frazzled

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:1. Why the hostility? I'm not comparing it to gay marriage-I am saying the same legal arguments are being used by other parties, and some are gaining traction. It only takes one nutjob (read 9th circuit) court decision to make extravagantly bad law.
2. Thats not completely accurate. Their legal arguments have some merit. The next argument to gain traction will be the multiple spouses group which is indeed gaining traction, and its a simple step beyond. that.

I didn't say you compared it to gay marriage, that was Ahtman. I'm not angry, it's just this same bonkers line of reasoning always appears and never goes away, despite how silly it is. You know the 9th circuit is not going to legalise paedophile marriage. You know it, it's very, very obvious. Just try saying it out loud 'I think the 9th circuit might possibly legalise paedophile marriage once gay marriage is allowed'... it's completely stark raving bonkers.

Why not go for gay marriage is a step closer to gay adoption. That is at least somewhat sensible.

No the 9th circuit has a nice history of such maneuvers. Its the most ocverturned court in the US.

Whats wrong with gay adoption?

Reply by: Mad Doc Grotsnik - click to view full reply 

8725

Religion @ 2009/03/31 16:32:05

Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik

Frazzled wrote:How about multiple spouses? Communal relationships?

If it's all consensual, then what exactly is the problem? Bit beyond the norm, sure. The problem with the perception of such relationships is that they are typically linked to Cults and Cult Leaders, where the multiple side is somewhat limited to the man poking as much as he wants. And yes, people should be protected against such things. However there are just as many monogamous marriages which are equally abusive, with the woman having little say or rights.

And surely that is the crux of the matter. Religion totally aside, how would my choice of sexual partner(s) impact on anyones lives outside of those people? Consenting adults can do whatever they want. Thats the whole point of consent. And I for one am sick of people picking up what is essentially a random book and telling me I'm wrong, dirty, immoral etc for doing what I want to anyone who will allow it.

Reply by: Roze - click to view full reply 

11584

Religion @ 2009/03/31 16:42:00

Post by: Roze

I was under the impression that the god who struck people dead for spilling seed on the ground and blessed Lot for offering his 2 daughters to a rape Mob was not the same god he ended up being *in a growing change his mind way not swap gods*
And as a foot not The priest i spoke to after reading the bible told me that the "do not lay with another man" thing came about from god trying to re-populate the earth after his last flood tanturm. So if thats the case does it even still apply?

Just asking don't bite my head off if you disagree.

Reply by: Frazzled - click to view full reply 

221

Religion @ 2009/03/31 16:42:37

Post by: Frazzled

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Frazzled wrote:How about multiple spouses? Communal relationships?

If it's all consensual, then what exactly is the problem? Bit beyond the norm, sure. The problem with the perception of such relationships is that they are typically linked to Cults and Cult Leaders, where the multiple side is somewhat limited to the man poking as much as he wants. And yes, people should be protected against such things. However there are just as many monogamous marriages which are equally abusive, with the woman having little say or rights.

And surely that is the crux of the matter. Religion totally aside, how would my choice of sexual partner(s) impact on anyones lives outside of those people? Consenting adults can do whatever they want. Thats the whole point of consent. And I for one am sick of people picking up what is essentially a random book and telling me I'm wrong, dirty, immoral etc for doing what I want to anyone who will allow it.

If children aren't involved and the legal rights of all parties are clear, nothing.

Reply by: sebster - click to view full reply 

5470

Religion @ 2009/03/31 16:44:11

Post by: sebster

Frazzled wrote:No the 9th circuit has a nice history of such maneuvers. Its the most ocverturned court in the US.

Such manouvers? They are overturned, and have a history of stretching the constitution. But attempting to stop a public school giving a pledge including 'under God' is simply nothing like allowing paedophile marriage. It isn't a thought entertained by people who want to be taken seriously.

So let me just ask you this one last time... do you think there is any chance at all in the next fifty years that paedophile marriage will be in any way legally allowed in any part of the US?

Whats wrong with gay adoption?

In my opinion? Nothing? For the people who honestly think allowing gay marriage will lead to paedophile marriage? Probably a lot.

Reply by: Polonius - click to view full reply 

752

Religion @ 2009/03/31 16:46:34

Post by: Polonius

Well, the legal argument by NAMBLA might be the same as for Gay Rights groups, but that's ignoring the merit of the respective claims and all the corresponding law that surrounds it. Gay Sodomy laws were struck down because they violated equal protection, in that they punished some offenders (men) more than others (women). Gender is a semi-protected class, and there is no really good state purpose to allowing man on woman anal sex but not man on man.

Gay marriage laws are being challenged on similar grounds, but probably will (and frankly should) fail because there is a strong state purpose in only endorsing heterosexual marriages: the production of children and all that. Gay couples can adopt, or use surrogacy or donor sperm, but I think the argument that children born of the marriage are good for the state will be enough in Federal courts. Of course I think Gay marriage should be legal, but it should be an act of legislation, not of the courts.

The nambla argument is basically the same, except age is in no way a suspect class. our laws are riddled with discrimination based on age, and the courts have seldom lifted a finger.

As for Polygamy, the argument that there is a state reason to ban it is even stronger than for gay marriage: Polygamy is really bad for a community. If one man has five wives, than four guys have no wives. Additionally, there is no legal protection for wanting more wives. There is no protected class there.

The Ninth Circuit is notoriously liberal, and likes to read things into the constituion that aren't always there, but they also have done pretty exceptional work over the years in many areas of free speech and immigration law. It's also such a huge area with such a massive population that a lot of decisions are made. I'd imagine even if the 9th struck down a Polygamy ban on appeal, there would be an en bank decision affirming.

Reply by: whatwhat - click to view full reply 

9401

Religion @ 2009/03/31 16:46:58

Post by: whatwhat

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Frazzled wrote:How about multiple spouses? Communal relationships?

If it's all consensual, then what exactly is the problem? Bit beyond the norm, sure. The problem with the perception of such relationships is that they are typically linked to Cults and Cult Leaders, where the multiple side is somewhat limited to the man poking as much as he wants. And yes, people should be protected against such things. However there are just as many monogamous marriages which are equally abusive, with the woman having little say or rights.

And surely that is the crux of the matter. Religion totally aside, how would my choice of sexual partner(s) impact on anyones lives outside of those people? Consenting adults can do whatever they want. Thats the whole point of consent. And I for one am sick of people picking up what is essentially a random book and telling me I'm wrong, dirty, immoral etc for doing what I want to anyone who will allow it.

There are loads of people who have partners living in the same household as their wife. It's more to do with the rights involved with a marriage. + how exactly do you police the rule "you can do what you want with someone as long as each person consents"? Kind of leeway for a lot of dubiousness there.

Reply by: Frazzled - click to view full reply 

221

Religion @ 2009/03/31 16:47:31

Post by: Frazzled

sebster wrote:No the 9th circuit has a nice history of such maneuvers. Its the most ocverturned court in the US.

Such manouvers? They are overturned, and have a history of stretching the constitution. But attempting to stop a public school giving a pledge including 'under God' is simply nothing like allowing paedophile marriage. It isn't a thought entertained by people who want to be taken seriously.

So let me just ask you this one last time... do you think there is any chance at all in the next fifty years that paedophile marriage will be in any way legally allowed in any part of the US?

Not that all sure.

Whats wrong with gay adoption?

In my opinion? Nothing? For the people who honestly think allowing gay marriage will lead to paedophile marriage? Probably a lot.

Frazzled wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Frazzled wrote:How about multiple spouses? Communal relationships?

If it's all consensual, then what exactly is the problem? Bit beyond the norm, sure. The problem with the perception of such relationships is that they are typically linked to Cults and Cult Leaders, where the multiple side is somewhat limited to the man poking as much as he wants. And yes, people should be protected against such things. However there are just as many monogamous marriages which are equally abusive, with the woman having little say or rights.

And surely that is the crux of the matter. Religion totally aside, how would my choice of sexual partner(s) impact on anyones lives outside of those people? Consenting adults can do whatever they want. Thats the whole point of consent. And I for one am sick of people picking up what is essentially a random book and telling me I'm wrong, dirty, immoral etc for doing what I want to anyone who will allow it.

If children aren't involved and the legal rights of all parties are clear, nothing.

I don't get this protecting the kids thing. So what if I a kid has more than one person they call Mum or Dad? Many children these days do. Regardless of who is bonking who, where kids are concerned, surely the only thing to worry about is whether or not the kids are being loved? Would it really be any weirder than my upbringing, which was an extremely close knit family that shared parental duties, enabling various parents a weekend off? I was still surrounded my multiple adults? Do those adults need to be inter related? I think not.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Frazzled wrote:How about multiple spouses? Communal relationships?

If it's all consensual, then what exactly is the problem? Bit beyond the norm, sure. The problem with the perception of such relationships is that they are typically linked to Cults and Cult Leaders, where the multiple side is somewhat limited to the man poking as much as he wants. And yes, people should be protected against such things. However there are just as many monogamous marriages which are equally abusive, with the woman having little say or rights.

And surely that is the crux of the matter. Religion totally aside, how would my choice of sexual partner(s) impact on anyones lives outside of those people? Consenting adults can do whatever they want. Thats the whole point of consent. And I for one am sick of people picking up what is essentially a random book and telling me I'm wrong, dirty, immoral etc for doing what I want to anyone who will allow it.

If children aren't involved and the legal rights of all parties are clear, nothing.

I don't get this protecting the kids thing. So what if I a kid has more than one person they call Mum or Dad? Many children these days do. Regardless of who is bonking who, where kids are concerned, surely the only thing to worry about is whether or not the kids are being loved? Would it really be any weirder than my upbringing, which was an extremely close knit family that shared parental duties, enabling various parents a weekend off? I was still surrounded my multiple adults? Do those adults need to be inter related? I think not.

Scientific studies show unstable households, and that is a screamingly unstable household, leads to real problems for the kidlets. I don't care if you screw a goat, but if it impacts the kids your rights just got sublimated to the interests of the kid. Don't like it? Don't have children. Thats both stare decisis and legislated priority pretty much throughout the US.

But Dude, you are automatically assuming that a multiple partner household would be less stable than a single pair household.

I personally do not buy that! Surely a happy home is a happy home, regardless of how many people live in it?

Frazzled wrote:Not that all sure.

Really? We're talking NAMBLA here, brain breakingly repugnant, eight year olds marrying 30 year olds. You're not sure if that might happen. Come on.

I have no issue with gay marriage. If I have to be married everyone should suffer...
I DO think that using courts to legalize gay marriage sets up unforeseen impacts.

Lots of things have unforeseen impacts. But letting ourselves go silly and starting to predict the silliest, most fanciful futures is really no reason to deny a large number of people the right to stand up in front of their loved ones, get married and be miserable.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I don't get this protecting the kids thing. So what if I a kid has more than one person they call Mum or Dad? Many children these days do. Regardless of who is bonking who, where kids are concerned, surely the only thing to worry about is whether or not the kids are being loved? Would it really be any weirder than my upbringing, which was an extremely close knit family that shared parental duties, enabling various parents a weekend off? I was still surrounded my multiple adults? Do those adults need to be inter related? I think not.

What if there's a divorce, how does custody work? What happens with welfare and child support? If a child is neglected who is accountable?

I'm not opposed to these relationships on moral grounds, but they do get very tricky legally speaking.

sebster wrote:What if there's a divorce, how does custody work? What happens with welfare and child support? If a child is neglected who is accountable?

I'm not opposed to these relationships on moral grounds, but they do get very tricky legally speaking.

exactly. That was my point when i said...

whatwhat wrote:There are loads of people who have partners living in the same household as their wife. It's more to do with the rights involved with a marriage.

Ok... can we take the NAMBLA, polygamy discussions to another thread? Unless we are talking in a religious context(which I know polygamy can but the religious angle hasn't been mentioned yet) they are both fairly off topic.

thanks,

GG

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Not that all sure.

Lots of things have unforeseen impacts. But letting ourselves go silly and starting to predict the silliest, most fanciful futures is really no reason to deny a large number of people the right to stand up in front of their loved ones, get married and be miserable.

No thats not the silliest. Give me a minute and I'll think of something sillier.
High chance-no. Buts its something you have to watch for. thats the problem with using the law, precedent has unintended consequences, for good or bad.
I shouold note, from personal experience, I've been on the receiving end "there's no way a court could do that." I trust the US legal system as much as I trust the odds that Shuma is going to magically appear outside my window right now and we go cartwheeling down Main Street.

sebster wrote:

I have no issue with gay marriage. If I have to be married everyone should suffer...
I DO think that using courts to legalize gay marriage sets up unforeseen impacts.

Lots of things have unforeseen impacts. But letting ourselves go silly and starting to predict the silliest, most fanciful futures is really no reason to deny a large number of people the right to stand up in front of their loved ones, get married and be miserable.

Here's the thing: slippery slope arguments actually work pretty well in Law. If you get a court to say, for example, that banning primary education in any language other than english is a violation of people's ability to raise their children as they see fit. That is used as precdent against a law banning all contraception as discrimination because it interferes with their right to have or not have children. Then, you get a court to say that only allowing contraception to married couples discriminates needlessly against the class of non-married people. These arguments were all instrumental in creating the concept of Substantive due process, a mostly made up idea (although certainly a laudable one) that people have basic rights to self determination and family life that are not enumerated in the constitution. These arguments led to Roe v. Wade, and later Planned Parenthood v. Casey. So, in at least one line of cases, the right to have your kids taught in german lead to the right to have an abortion. By any measure, that's a pretty healthy stretch.

Speaking of Roe V. Wade, that's the exact reason we shouldn't rely on the courts to mandate gay marriage. When the court ruled on Roe, it galvanized opposition to abortion, removing it as a topic for political debate, and made it a major issue in the culture wars. I agree with the decision, but it's legally on pretty shaky ground and it's 37 years later, and the debate is still red hot. IMO, allowing gay marriage to become more socially acceptable and tolerated will allow states to begin authorizing it by law. If the nation trends to accepting homosexuality for another generation or two, DOMA will get nixed and then it simply becomes a matter of going to a state that allows gay marriage. Since all states want to money that the marriage industry brings in, they'll start changing the laws in a hurry.

generalgrog wrote:Ok... can we take the NAMBLA, polygamy discussions to another thread? Unless we are talking in a religious context(which I know polygamy can but the religious angle hasn't been mentioned yet) they are both fairly off topic.

thanks,

GG

Well, I suppose the argument has sort of become "why is homosexuality the whipping boy of the religious right," when even in scripture it's not notably worse than promiscuity, philandering, adultery, or a host of other things.

Yes, I know that the Right is theoretically against all of those things, but many of them are demonstrably bad, while homosexuality isn't, and my promiscuous lifestyle isn't attacked nearly as much as my gay friend's lifestyle.

I'm inclined to think that any three way relationship must be inherently uneven; three are after all a crowd. Therefore I don't think that polygamy could be included under any expanded marriage law.

I would describe myself as against gay marriage, chiefly because I am against the concept of marriage. I believe that a quasi-religious (by which I mean Christian) marriage law is flawed. I would not describe myself as opposed to gay and strait civil partnership laws being different or unequal in any way.

BTW: Are the multiple partner marriage groups in the US asking for any combination or number of people to be married or are they specifically asking for multiple wives?

About gay marriage, I had an aunt who was a lesbian, she was awesome. She was my favorite but she passed when I was 12. I didn't even know what lesbian was. But anywho I DON'T CARE about gay marriage, it doesn't affect me at all. Another one of my friends said this: "Technically gay rights are asking for an extra right. They already have the right to marry the opposite sex, but now they want the right to marry the same sex." I just thought this was hilarious and we all had a good laugh.

I think that the word marriage should be taken out of government as I think religion came to be around the same time as marriage and I think that everyone should just be given a certificate of domestic partnership.

Oh, and god,god,god,god!

Polonius wrote:my promiscuous lifestyle

Wow, Polonius is a playa!

Ozymandias wrote:

Polonius wrote:my promiscuous lifestyle

Wow, Polonius is a playa!

I do what I can. Or who I can, I suppose.

So yeah, this whole religious thing is fun. Its amazing that it escaped being locked so many times and its also amazing to see people getting along while offering different views and opinions. This is how the world should be, more like dakka.

halonachos wrote:So yeah, this whole religious thing is fun. Its amazing that it escaped being locked so many times and its also amazing to see people getting along while offering different views and opinions. This is how the world should be, more like dakka.

Maybe it will be...

Gee, Dakka, what are we going to do tonight?

The same thing we do every night, Warseer - try to take over the world!

Polonius wrote:Here's the thing: slippery slope arguments actually work pretty well in Law.

Thing is, a slippery slope fallacy isn’t merely saying one thing will lead to another. The idea that one thing will lead to another is kind of common sense, especially in law where precedent plays such an important part.

Something is a slippery slope fallacy when it assumes that each subsequent event is a given, or at least far more likely than it should be. If a person’s opposition to gay marriage is the chance that it’ll lead to paedophile marriage, it should be spelt out in no uncertain terms that the odds of legal paedophile marriage is stupidly, ridiculously, comically remote, and that if such a movement did arise it would be perfectly acceptable to oppose that on grounds entirely separate to gay marriage (legal age of consent anyone?)

I did offer gay adoption as an alternative, because the idea that legal gay marriage would lead to increased social acceptability of gay relationships is solid, and that in turn could increase the ease with which gay couples could adopt.

Speaking of Roe V. Wade, that's the exact reason we shouldn't rely on the courts to mandate gay marriage. When the court ruled on Roe, it galvanized opposition to abortion, removing it as a topic for political debate, and made it a major issue in the culture wars. I agree with the decision, but it's legally on pretty shaky ground and it's 37 years later, and the debate is still red hot. IMO, allowing gay marriage to become more socially acceptable and tolerated will allow states to begin authorizing it by law. If the nation trends to accepting homosexuality for another generation or two, DOMA will get nixed and then it simply becomes a matter of going to a state that allows gay marriage. Since all states want to money that the marriage industry brings in, they'll start changing the laws in a hurry.

It’s an interesting issue. I agree that a court solution isn’t ideal, better that it brought in through popular support at election. However, I don’t know that the politicisation and culture war around abortion was purely a result of its origin in a court ruling. There were folk keen to build the myth of the siege on Christian values, and abortion fit nicely. One of the major political parties was happy to use that support for political gain.

sebster wrote:
It’s an interesting issue. I agree that a court solution isn’t ideal, better that it brought in through popular support at election. However, I don’t know that the politicisation and culture war around abortion was purely a result of its origin in a court ruling. There were folk keen to build the myth of the siege on Christian values, and abortion fit nicely. One of the major political parties was happy to use that support for political gain.

Oh, the culture war isn't a result of the decision, but the decision made things far easier to paint in terms of activist judges, a liberal agenda, etc. Part of the problem now is that rather than being able to lobby government to change abortion laws, the groups that are committed tend to restrict themselves to lobbying during judicial appointmnets, or worse yet, to grass roots activism that plays out, at worst, in abortion clinic bombings and the protest/harassment of women going to abortion clinics.

I think that anung was trying to get us to get to a point in which we want to kill each other. He kept using "can't" alot in his O.P

Continueing my point on Gay Marriage and opening up Pandoras Box. Someone said that bestiality would not be excepted because it is illegal and that we don’t find dogs, cows, cat's and lions ect. entering into legal marriage contracts with one another. OK "yes" this is true. So what you are saying is forget those peoples rights who want to do this kind of behavior. And what about the secular groups that want to paractice polygamy ( marrying more than one person) this would be a contract between individuals right a contract that you had described earlier, basicaly for get there rights. or parents that sign off there 14 year old daughter too some Joe-smo to get married to, forget there rights also "huh". This is The BOX that you will be opeing. My point is where does it stop. iIs there NO line that we won't cross for individual freedoms and rights. What may be moral or unmoral to you and I may be perfectly moral to the other. There needs to be some ground rules or we will have total Chaos...

Greenlight1107 wrote:Continueing my point on Gay Marriage and opening up Pandoras Box. Someone said that bestiality would not be excepted because it is illegal and that we don’t find dogs, cows, cat's and lions ect. entering into legal marriage contracts with one another. OK "yes" this is true. So what you are saying is forget those peoples rights who want to do this kind of behavior. And what about the secular groups that want to paractice polygamy ( marrying more than one person) this would be a contract between individuals right a contract that you had described earlier, basicaly for get there rights. or parents that sign off there 14 year old daughter too some Joe-smo to get married to, forget there rights also "huh". This is The BOX that you will be opeing. My point is where does it stop. iIs there NO line that we won't cross for individual freedoms and rights. What may be moral or unmoral to you and I may be perfectly moral to the other. There needs to be some ground rules or we will have total Chaos...

I think if you read my posts, you'd actually see this very topic discussed pretty completely. You also have to keep in mind that there are many sources of law, so the way that Gay Marriage is made legal through court action has a different trajectory than if it's legalized by state law.

In terms of it simply being a state statute, passed by the state legislature and signed by the governor, the impediment to things like bestial marriages, polygamy, and child marriage lay with the people, just like any other decision. I think there are strongly distinguishable facts that separate gay marriage from the others, notably in terms of consent (neither children nor animals can legally consent to a marraige, although parent's may sign for their children and on their behalf) and in terms of social harm (polygamy isn't a good idea in a classless society). I know there are arguments for the social harm caused by gay marriage, but I think those are generally pretty weak and aren't supported by evidence the way, say, polygamy is.

Now, for the courts to rule that Gay marriage is a violation of equal protection, one of two legal arguments would need to succeed. One is that denying a person the right to choose their partner based on sex is gender discrimination. The courts would probably not listen, because the laws are full of discrimination based on gender. The other way is if a court is convinced that Homosexuality is an inherent and immutable characteristic, and laws that discriminate them are a violation of equal protection. The precedent here is that many states wouldn't allow non-marital children (bastards) to inherit by intestacy statutes. That was struck down, and illegitimacy is an immutable characteristic and there is no strong state reason to discriminate. There is, however, no protection for bestiality, polygamy, pedophilia.

Right now, the only states where Gay Marriage is legal are those in which law suits were filed based on State Constitutions, not the US constitution.

the problem with the slippery slope analogy here is that it relies on one of two things: either Gay Marriage being a social evil on it's own merits, or it being acceptable to deny people the right to marry because of potential social evils later on. The latter is simply unfair, and the former is I think one of the central divides in the culture wars. I argue, and I think I can successfully, that homosexuality in general and Gay Marriage in particular is not inherently immoral or a danger to society.

Polonius: Ok Let me make my position on the whole idea of it (This being a religious thread and all ) The bible does state man shall not lay with man. But if you take the sex out of homosexuality what do you have? A relationship, a friendship per say. I'm a guy who has had a friendship for six years with my two Guy buddies, if we had sex it would be a gay relationship. But thank God we don't that would be just plain gay which I'm not !!!! So just because homosexuals have a weird sexual fetish doesn't mean they should be granted same rights as man and woman.

Honestly I don't understand your second argument. But marriage was created for one purpose-- procreation.
AS IN the ability to have children is necessary to build a family. I agree with most of you, that legalizing gay marriage does not mean people will wake up and decide to be gay. However this is not a factor focused on in our up coming propositions. If you choose to be gay, be gay. It doesn't affect me. But I'm saying is for once we need to define marriage, this will help institute a foundation in our state. If we allow gay marriage we would surely see its effects.

Finally, the constitution is written "under God". God's doctrine states marriage is only valid between man and woman. We as a people have a right to vote on the issues. When it went to cout in various states such as California, the people voted, by changing this it would undermining the people's power of vote. The people spoke.

Leave the decision to the people. and they have made their decision. We Don't Want It!!!!

No, leave the decision to those it affects. They want it.

Also, calling homosexuality a 'weird sexual fetish' is insulting, childish and hideously outdated.

Also, homosexuality isn't some 'choice' people make. As someone said earlier, could you choose to be gay? No, if you're straight, you're straight. If you're gay, you're gay. And a million shades of grey inbetween.

The whole argument of behavioral VS genetics is still argumentative in it's self. What do you say to thousand of indivduals who thought they were gay and then realized they were not. Many people realize or think as early as age 11, 12, 13 that they are struggling with there sexuality and gender identity, many people live as a lesbian or gay until their adult and soon change or become disillusioned with their homosexual life and want to change.

Many people have come to make this decision. This is a process of many years, or several years for people going to counseling, professional counseling, connecting with Christian ministries or other help that they may receive to understand themselves which has helped many. If you talk with these men and women who had been on a similar journey, and was able to work through the issues in their life that contributed to homosexuality they will tell you that there decision to become gay was because of their mental issues, and are proud to say that they are now "Ex-Gay"
Now I say if it is not behavioral and is genetics, how is it possible for someone to change their sexual orientation? I know people who have changed from gay to straight? This was there "CHOICE" So yes I think people choose to be Gay..... On another note what answer do you have for those who are bisexual were they born to to sleep with every one genetics um" I think not i'm going to lean more towards behavioral..

Greebynog wrote:No, leave the decision to those it affects. They want it.

Also, calling homosexuality a 'weird sexual fetish' is insulting, childish and hideously outdated.

Also, homosexuality isn't some 'choice' people make. As someone said earlier, could you choose to be gay? No, if you're straight, you're straight. If you're gay, you're gay. And a million shades of grey inbetween.

This is the kinda lies you get from Trinity Broadcasting. I've known many many gay people and not a single one of them made the choice. The "ex-gay" and counseling stories are a house of cards built on delusion with no real credible sources (Protip: James Dobson's Focus on the Family isn't credible), as all the credible sources say the opposite. In fact the ones that are constantly told it is their fault and they are "choosing wrong" and that they can just not be that way by choice tend to be extremely miserable and often suicidal. If you think it is a choice, try choosing to be gay for a couple months and see how well that works out.

Elaborating more on my opinion on behavioral vs genetics. As we have seen lots of girls experiment with other girls such as kissing each other in front of guy's jsut to get a reaction out of the crowd, or a girl being dumped by their boy friend and then being consulted by their female friend which leads to sex. I can go on and on these are mental issues that lead to the sexual alternative. Are they gay I can not tell you, will this lead to them becoming gay ????

Many people feel attracted to people of the same sex, and wonder whether this means that they are gay. For many people these feelings can be very intense and alienating. Some people who are attracted to people of the same sex are gay and go on to have gay sexual relationships. Some people are bisexual and are attracted to both men and women, and have relationships with both. Some people are not attracted to anyone and wonder if this is a sign of homosexuality. Often it is only time that will resolve these uncertainties.

For what ever reasons they may have, it is their CHOICE, But other people who have gay feelings find that these change over time by CHOICE if it was not so they would be gay, those indivduals who experiment with the opposite sex would have no CHOICE but to be gay, People Choose their sexual orientation, they are not geneticaly pre-determined to be gay. This of course varies from person to person. Deciding you are gay often happens gradually, it may not be something you can initially put a name to, and it can feel very confusing at times, which is why I say it is a mental issue.

Furthermore biological differences between heterosexual and homosexual adults, suggesting that people are born with their sexuality already determined is a biological theory. Research tries to prove that homosexual orientation could be genetically transmitted to men on the x chromosome, which they get from their mothers. However when this study was duplicated it did not produce the same results. A follow-up study which Dean Hamer collaborated on also failed to reinforce his earlier results.

And additionally at the moment most reaserchers generally think that biological explanations of sexuality are insufficient to explain the diversity of human sexuality. meaning those who are BI, Straight Gay, loving animals, wanting young children, ect. The social or behavioral explanations offers more of a variety of factors that could contribute to the development of a person's homosexuality.

What's your explanation of homosexual animals then? Does a girl sheep kiss another girl sheep (ewe, gross!) and then gradually build up feelings for them?

BTW, two drunk girls kissing for a laugh isn't the same as two same sex people in a loving relationship.

Wow... just wow...

Insulting and Ignorant.

Also, if marriage is solely for procreation, what about couples who choose not to have kids? Or people who are sterile? Are they not allowed to be married?

Ozymandias wrote:Wow... just wow...

Insulting and Ignorant.

Also, if marriage is solely for procreation, what about couples who choose not to have kids? Or people who are sterile? Are they not allowed to be married?

The stability of my world is coming to an end.

I totally agree with Ozymandias.

Now we just need Polonius and HBMC to say the same thing and the seventh seal will be broken.

Jesus, as I've already said, it doesn't matter. Something being a choice does not justify discrimination against it regardless.

The lack of gay marriage laws greatly inconveniences a great deal of people, for very little, if any, gain. That's reason enough in itself.

Also, what happens in nature, among other species no less, doesn't really justify what humans do. There's a lot more cannibalism in nature than homosexuality.

It is obvious that I am a beliver in GOD So too the unbelivers I am willing to meet the gay individuals half 1/2 way. As you know I am all for religion in marriage. But people ought to be free to decide that for themselves.

How about we say no to mixing state and religion in marriage. We could have the system they have in France. You have a civil ceremony, and then if you want a religious wedding, you can get married in church. You get the legal meaning with and all of the extra percs for being married (which is why I think Gay's realy want to get married) the first and the religious meaning with the second. And if the Gay's choose they can leave out the word GOD in the civil ceremony all together.

Who could object to that? My biggest argument is for those to not diminish the role of the church in marriage.

Greenlight, almost every issue you raised was already raised, many by you, and they were all disputed. If you weren't convinced by any of the rebuttal, you should have quoted those points and argued them. What you've done here, basically ignoring the discussion as it was and just repeating your opening arguments is extremely rude.

But if you want we can just go through each point again.

Greenlight1107 wrote:Polonius: Ok Let me make my position on the whole idea of it (This being a religious thread and all ) The bible does state man shall not lay with man. But if you take the sex out of homosexuality what do you have? A relationship, a friendship per say. I'm a guy who has had a friendship for six years with my two Guy buddies, if we had sex it would be a gay relationship. But thank God we don't that would be just plain gay which I'm not !!!! So just because homosexuals have a weird sexual fetish doesn't mean they should be granted same rights as man and woman.

Except that sexual fetish is when you like someone wearing leather, or smoking. Standing up in front of your friends and family and telling them you love someone and want to spend the rest of your lives together is a completely different thing.

Honestly I don't understand your second argument. But marriage was created for one purpose-- procreation.

No, marriage was originally created to formalise issues of inheritance. Gay marriage would be very useful in fulfilling this purpose.

Elaborating more on my opinion on behavioral vs genetics. As we have seen lots of girls experiment with other girls such as kissing each other in front of guy's jsut to get a reaction out of the crowd, or a girl being dumped by their boy friend and then being consulted by their female friend which leads to sex. I can go on and on these are mental issues that lead to the sexual alternative. Are they gay I can not tell you, will this lead to them becoming gay ????

As I explained before (and that you chose to ignore); the fact that people experiment, or that some people have attraction to both sexes says nothing about biology. There is nothing in biology that says a person has to be entirely attracted to one sex or the other.

I’ll ask it again, could you choose to be gay? You pointed out earlier that you weren’t gay, and you even used three exclamation points to ensure it. So I’m guessing you really have no attraction to the same sex, just the same as me. Wouldn’t it be safe to say, given the complete lack of interest shown by others Given my complete lack of interest I’ve found it pretty intuitive to think that there is something fundamentally different about men who are attracted to other men. Is that not obvious to you?

How about we say no to mixing state and religion in marriage. We could have the system they have in France. You have a civil ceremony, and then if you want a religious wedding, you can get married in church. You get the legal meaning with and all of the extra percs for being married (which is why I think Gay's realy want to get married) the first and the religious meaning with the second. And if the Gay's choose they can leave out the word GOD in the civil ceremony all together.

Just to be clear, you realise what you’re saying here, aren’t you? You’re basically removing the church from the process entirely. At which point the state will join people in civil unions, and if people want religious ceremonies they will get them. At which point some churches will start wedding gay couples. At which point you will have gay marriage.

Ozymandias wrote:Wow... just wow...

Insulting and Ignorant.

Also, if marriage is solely for procreation, what about couples who choose not to have kids? Or people who are sterile? Are they not allowed to be married?

Well, we're closer to Hell freezing over, as I agree on all counts.

Greenlight1107 wrote:
For what ever reasons they may have, it is their CHOICE, But other people who have gay feelings find that these change over time by CHOICE if it was not so they would be gay, those indivduals who experiment with the opposite sex would have no CHOICE but to be gay, People Choose their sexual orientation, they are not geneticaly pre-determined to be gay. This of course varies from person to person. Deciding you are gay often happens gradually, it may not be something you can initially put a name to, and it can feel very confusing at times, which is why I say it is a mental issue.

You're confusing choice and awareness. People don't choose to be gay, they become aware of the fact that they are gay. This doesn't mean sexuality is entirely genetic, in fact I sincerely doubt that it is. It seems more likely to me that environmental factors (in the womb, social imprinting, etc.) play as significant a role as anything in the genetic code itself.

Keep in mind that when I note that sexuality may be in part imprinted I am not stating that it is anyway related to choice. Imprinting is not a conscious process, so no active choice can be made.

Greenlight1107 wrote:
And additionally at the moment most reaserchers generally think that biological explanations of sexuality are insufficient to explain the diversity of human sexuality. meaning those who are BI, Straight Gay, loving animals, wanting young children, ect. The social or behavioral explanations offers more of a variety of factors that could contribute to the development of a person's homosexuality.

Social and behavioral explanations do not necessarily relate to conscious processes.

Greebynog wrote:

Greebynog wrote:No, leave the decision to those it affects. They want it.

Also, calling homosexuality a 'weird sexual fetish' is insulting, childish and hideously outdated.

Also, homosexuality isn't some 'choice' people make. As someone said earlier, could you choose to be gay? No, if you're straight, you're straight. If you're gay, you're gay. And a million shades of grey inbetween.

Yea but what if you're color blind. Then everything's a million shades of grey

Modquisition on:
Gentlemen, if discussing religion and religious beliefs respect the posters therein and avoid insults-even if you disagree with them, else this thread will be immediately closed.

Greenlight1107 wrote:The whole argument of behavioral VS genetics is still argumentative in it's self. What do you say to thousand of indivduals who thought they were gay and then realized they were not. Many people realize or think as early as age 11, 12, 13 that they are struggling with there sexuality and gender identity, many people live as a lesbian or gay until their adult and soon change or become disillusioned with their homosexual life and want to change.

Many people have come to make this decision. This is a process of many years, or several years for people going to counseling, professional counseling, connecting with Christian ministries or other help that they may receive to understand themselves which has helped many. If you talk with these men and women who had been on a similar journey, and was able to work through the issues in their life that contributed to homosexuality they will tell you that there decision to become gay was because of their mental issues, and are proud to say that they are now "Ex-Gay"
Now I say if it is not behavioral and is genetics, how is it possible for someone to change their sexual orientation? I know people who have changed from gay to straight? This was there "CHOICE" So yes I think people choose to be Gay..... On another note what answer do you have for those who are bisexual were they born to to sleep with every one genetics um" I think not i'm going to lean more towards behavioral..

It's got sod all to do with the Counselling. The 'thousands' you quoted are simpy Bisexual. You know, half rice half chips, switch hitters, happy shoppers, ac/dc?

And Counselling, or Brainwashing? Where do you draw the line? If you teach someone to loathe who they are enough, they will change. Homosexuality, Heterosexuality, Bisexuality and Asexuality are not choices. At all. You either are, or you aren't. Simples.

If you define "choosing to be gay" as someone outright deciding that they're going to be gay today, it seems like there would be a question of motive.

Many people who say that they're gay have something to lose by doing so; at the very least they probably have little to gain.

Simply deciding to be gay seems kind of odd without a good reason to do so.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And Counselling, or Brainwashing? Where do you draw the line? If you teach someone to loathe who they are enough, they will change. Homosexuality, Heterosexuality, Bisexuality and Asexuality are not choices. At all. You either are, or you aren't. Simples.

Conceivably you could imprint yourself with homosexual behavioral patterns. Its also conceivable that you could imprint yourself with heterosexual behavior patterns. Both of these actions could then lead to a sexual attraction to the same/opposite sex. Most likely this would simply render you bisexual as overwhelming a previously imprinted behavior is incredibly difficult. But the question becomes: why would you want to? And, more importantly, why should we require people to do this? It seems like an awful lot of effort for, at most, a 1% increase in annual birthrate.

"Wow" was I lined up against the fireing squad or what.
Non-belivers (2) belivers( 0) " I need some reinforcements in here fellow Christians". I got a hard throwing Black eye that round. Good JOB fella's. But there will be more to come trust me.

Greenlight1107 wrote:Non-belivers (2) belivers( 0) "

Part of the problem is that you are arguing an "us versus them" when the rest of us aren't taking it that way. Disagreement doesn't mean people are your enemy. It also fails to take into account that yours is not the only Christian view, which your little diagram doesn't take into account. It isn't as simple as binary opposition.

halonachos wrote:I think that anung was trying to get us to get to a point in which we want to kill each other. He kept using "can't" alot in his O.P

Ehm..... ...if you say so

I didn't look in this thread for a week or so, but I'm happy it's still such a lifely discussion. Though I don't really have much to add on topic anymore since I said it already. I'm not sure if I have an opinion on the whole homosexuality thing. I'm not bothered by it and I don't see evil in it.

edit: oh, and just for protocol, I asked Frazz twice to re-open this thread, I'm not so sure he would do it a third time.

Greenlight1107 wrote:"Wow" was I lined up against the fireing squad or what.
Non-belivers (2) belivers( 0) " I need some reinforcements in here fellow Christians". I got a hard throwing Black eye that round. Good JOB fella's. But there will be more to come trust me.

Greenlight, I have been watching this thread and am on your side, but quite frankly the thread has turned into a Gay rights discussion which to me is more politics than anything.

I don't like partaking on political discussions too much, as it's all opinion backed up by half baked theories and I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject to scientifically disprove the things the Gay rights people say. All you can do is quote scripture and pray.

I know the Bible is right and I know that God doesn't make mistakes, homosexuality is a sexual perversion in the same light as porn addiction, nymphomania, pedophelia etc.

I compare homosexuality with other perversions like pedophilia because pedophiles, like homosexuals are so far gone with their sexual addiction that they can't help themselves. NAMBLA makes much of the same arguments that the homosexual lobby makes in trying to say thay they are "born pedophiles" and that they don't have a choice in being the way they are, etc.

People will jump up and down and call me all kinds of bad things for what I just typed because they have been indocrinated in political correctness, but the truth is still there and you can't pound the truth down peoples throats when they are not willing to receive it.

It's like earlier when one of the posters said that no where in the new testament is it mentioned that homosexuality is sin. I pointed out a few quotes from Paul( a new testament writer), and the person moved the target by saying, something like..."Ohh yeah....well Jesus never said that"

Now I'm off to church. :-)

GG

@generalgrog

People spend too much time wondering about the guy (or girl) next to them, when the real issue lies a lot closer to home.

Whether Homosexuality is considered a sin or not, is not in the scope of "mere" humans to decide.

The problem with "organised" or as I call it "group" religion, is that it tries to create neat boxes where everyone and everything has its place....some boxes are marked bad, evil, sinful etc and the others are good, holy, etc etc......now this isn't a bad thing in of itself....but we as humans walk around with one foot in each box, laughing and judging the guy next to us who essentially wearing a similar set of "shoes"!

I don't think you're wrong as such to have strong anti homosexual feelings, in the same way as its not necessarily wrong for the homosexuals to try to defend their choices.....the problem for me is the focus. If you're watching the homosexual, then who's watching you?

My own religious ideology doesn't own a badge or look up to a God as such. I do believe in universal unity of all things, and my considerations would probably share alot of the base concepts of Taoism. As such thoughts of the sexual nature of others becomes a very distant second to thoughts and uderstanding of my own sexual nature and the conditioning that brought me to it!

generalgrog wrote:
I don't like partaking on political discussions too much, as it's all opinion backed up by half baked theories and I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject to scientifically disprove the things the Gay rights people say. All you can do is quote scripture and pray.

I know the Bible is right and I know that God doesn't make mistakes, homosexuality is a sexual perversion in the same light as porn addiction, nymphomania, pedophelia etc.

People will jump up and down and call me all kinds of bad things for what I just typed because they have been indocrinated in political correctness, but the truth is still there and you can't pound the truth down peoples throats when they are not willing to receive it.

This post right here more or less distilled the fear and expectations of every secular, agnostics, and atheist person on the boards into one heady brew. You freely admit that you can't debate the subject politically or scientifically, but you know the Bible is right and the people that disagree are wrong and indoctrinated with "political correctness."

At it's core, this is the stuff that terrifies the rest of the world about the religious right: that you know you can't defend some of your beliefs as anything other than dogma, yet you continue to do so. You labeled homosexuals as the same as pedophiles for no other reason than the bible said so? It's one thing to hold that certain actions are sins, it's another to start using medical terms loosely and denying civic freedoms to people because of their sins. What next, are you going to mandate religious attendance?

Christianity has been a force of good in this world, and it did so because it combined practical morality with an absolute freedom of choice and the idea of complete redemption and salvation. Christianity preaches the ideas of tolerance and virtue, of helping your brother and treating those around you with kindness. Yes, there are rules, and there is the concept of sin, but put some of these writings in at least a bit of context before you completely swallow them whole.

This post has been deleted as being directly offensive to those who follow the Bible.

Polonius wrote:

generalgrog wrote:
I don't like partaking on political discussions too much, as it's all opinion backed up by half baked theories and I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject to scientifically disprove the things the Gay rights people say. All you can do is quote scripture and pray.

I know the Bible is right and I know that God doesn't make mistakes, homosexuality is a sexual perversion in the same light as porn addiction, nymphomania, pedophelia etc.

People will jump up and down and call me all kinds of bad things for what I just typed because they have been indocrinated in political correctness, but the truth is still there and you can't pound the truth down peoples throats when they are not willing to receive it.

This post right here more or less distilled the fear and expectations of every secular, agnostics, and atheist person on the boards into one heady brew. You freely admit that you can't debate the subject politically or scientifically, but you know the Bible is right and the people that disagree are wrong and indoctrinated with "political correctness."

At it's core, this is the stuff that terrifies the rest of the world about the religious right: that you know you can't defend some of your beliefs as anything other than dogma, yet you continue to do so. You labeled homosexuals as the same as pedophiles for no other reason than the bible said so? It's one thing to hold that certain actions are sins, it's another to start using medical terms loosely and denying civic freedoms to people because of their sins. What next, are you going to mandate religious attendance?

Christianity has been a force of good in this world, and it did so because it combined practical morality with an absolute freedom of choice and the idea of complete redemption and salvation. Christianity preaches the ideas of tolerance and virtue, of helping your brother and treating those around you with kindness. Yes, there are rules, and there is the concept of sin, but put some of these writings in at least a bit of context before you completely swallow them whole.

WORD!

Seriously Grog, that can't be your honest opinion. "I'm right. That is all." And there's a difference between being political correct and being polite and open-minded.

generalgrog wrote:
It's like earlier when one of the posters said that no where in the new testament is it mentioned that homosexuality is sin. I pointed out a few quotes from Paul( a new testament writer), and the person moved the target by saying, something like..."Ohh yeah....well Jesus never said that"

Paul was one of the authors of the NT, but he never actually wrote anything about homosexuality in the NT. The only way you can conceivably allow his other writings to have any bearing on the Bible (given your belief that the Bible is the word of God) is to canonize them as the word of God. At which point you have necessarily contradicted your belief that the Bible is the word of God, perfectly transcribed by man.

Grog, comparing homosexuals to paedophiles is so far beyond offensive it's sickening. Can you not see the difference between two same sex consenting adults falling in love and abuse of a minor (who by definition cannot consent)?

Isn't christianity about love for others not hate? Why spread such bilious doctrine? It's attitudes such as yours that seriously damage the image and reputation of religious groups, you are doing yourself and your faith a grave disservice.

Greebynog wrote:Grog, comparing homosexuals to paedophiles is so far beyond offensive it's sickening. Can you not see the difference between two same sex consenting adults falling in love and abuse of a minor (who by definition cannot consent)?

Isn't christianity about love for others not hate? Why spread such bilious doctrine? It's attitudes such as yours that seriously damage the image and reputation of religious groups, you are doing yourself and your faith a grave disservice.

Well, I think it's useful in a religious context to separate behavior that's sinful from behavior that is dangerous, unhealthy, etc. It's very easy to draw the conclusion from scripture that homosexual sex (like all non-procreative sex, natch) is sinful. Of course, envy of others is also a sin. As is lust in the heart. None of those things would be described in any serious context to be as bad in a social sense as pedophilia.

Without taking this discussion too far from its original point, you guys need to stop reacting to every statement.

While I don't necessarily agree with Generalgrog, I can grasp the point he's trying to make.

In his book, I guess, sin is sin....the "severity" of that sin is left unlooked at....and perhaps this is not a bad way to go.

What am I talking about? I can hear the crowd scream. Well, pedophilia and other tasteless acts, have only recently (last 100 years, maybe?) been deemed by the general population as "unsociable", the same as the creation of Eunuchs, slavery, rape, ritual sodomy, orgies, homosexuality, and the list goes on.....a "few" years ago, this was seen by the established society as THE pastime to involve oneself in....if you didn't...YOU were the freak of nature.

So its "funny" how times and general opinion change. Who's to say that 50, 100, 150 years from now things won't turn full circle and go back to where they were?

We like to think of ourselves as an enlightened society, that we have transcended the "mistakes" of our forefathers....but if you scratch the surface you'd be surprised at some of the distasteful acts we commit today, lawfully so, but you'd never consider them to be "bad" because they have been sanctioned by society.

Delephont wrote:....but if you scratch the surface you'd be surprised at some of the distasteful acts we commit today, lawfully so, but you'd never consider them to be "bad" because they have been sanctioned by society.

I agree almost completely with what you said, but, the way I see it, there are two ways to look at this. Either you believe in a set of universal, absolutist morals, such as any Christian SHOULD (they are clearly defined in the Bible, and you really can't ignore parts of it you don't like and still call yourself a Christian) or you believe that society sets moral values, and that, of course, these will change over time as attitudes change. Generally, subscribers to this second view also take a fairly optimistic view of human nature, as people won't morally sanction acts they would be afraid to have visited upon them given both an understanding of what they're being asked, and the power to affect the choice. Whilst it is entirely plausible that our moral values will revert (negative connotations unintended) to an earlier state of our (Western) society, it can, generally, be argued that our societal morality is both freer, and more responsible, than, say, 300 years ago. For example, it is rare to find people nowadays who argue in favour of slavery or retracting universal suffrage - these are [almost] universally considered positive steps in our development, and give us hope that the future will instead be better than today on the same scale.

Elessar wrote:
I agree almost completely with what you said, but, the way I see it, there are two ways to look at this. Either you believe in a set of universal, absolutist morals, such as any Christian SHOULD (they are clearly defined in the Bible, and you really can't ignore parts of it you don't like and still call yourself a Christian)

The status of any given person as a Christian varies from denomination to denomination, and does not necessarily turn on absolutist morality. For example, the Eastern Orthodox Church is based primarily on an appreciation of paradox whereby it can be acceptable for nominally immoral acts to serve good ends and thereby be considered moral.

Polonius wrote:

generalgrog wrote:
I don't like partaking on political discussions too much, as it's all opinion backed up by half baked theories and I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject to scientifically disprove the things the Gay rights people say. All you can do is quote scripture and pray.

I know the Bible is right and I know that God doesn't make mistakes, homosexuality is a sexual perversion in the same light as porn addiction, nymphomania, pedophelia etc.

People will jump up and down and call me all kinds of bad things for what I just typed because they have been indocrinated in political correctness, but the truth is still there and you can't pound the truth down peoples throats when they are not willing to receive it.

This post right here more or less distilled the fear and expectations of every secular, agnostics, and atheist person on the boards into one heady brew. You freely admit that you can't debate the subject politically or scientifically, but you know the Bible is right and the people that disagree are wrong and indoctrinated with "political correctness."

At it's core, this is the stuff that terrifies the rest of the world about the religious right: that you know you can't defend some of your beliefs as anything other than dogma, yet you continue to do so. You labeled homosexuals as the same as pedophiles for no other reason than the bible said so? It's one thing to hold that certain actions are sins, it's another to start using medical terms loosely and denying civic freedoms to people because of their sins. What next, are you going to mandate religious attendance?

Christianity has been a force of good in this world, and it did so because it combined practical morality with an absolute freedom of choice and the idea of complete redemption and salvation. Christianity preaches the ideas of tolerance and virtue, of helping your brother and treating those around you with kindness. Yes, there are rules, and there is the concept of sin, but put some of these writings in at least a bit of context before you completely swallow them whole.

OK I never said that I couldn't debate. I said I didn't like to debate these issues....I don't like to argue with a brick wall either. That doesn't invalidate that arguing with a brick wall is not a good idea. I.E. a waste of time.

And way to put yet more words into my mouth to try to make your hatefull pronouncement against what you call "the religious right". I never claimed that I wasn't defending my beliefs because it was "undefendable dogma" as you put it. I just said I wouldn't waste my time on trying to defend my beliefs because there is no way that Polonius and some other people will be convinced. So I choose to not engage and waste my time. I have allready quoted scripture pages and pages ago and provided a handy link that covered the subject. You probably ignored it, in favor of coming on here and spewing your rhetoric. Thats your right, but don't play the game of twisting my words to fit into your preconcieved idea of what a Christian is. In fact I think your a bit bigoted in the way you spew hate towards Christians, or what you call, "the religous right"

You twist what I said about homosexuality as well. I simply classed it in the same ball park as all other sexual sin. For that matter, God deosn't make distinctions between sin. To God, sin is sin, "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God"

I dare you find anything in my post that said anything about denying civic freedoms to gay people. I double dog dare you.

Your whole rant was nothing more than a smear tactic designed to make me out to be something that you hate. And you prove my point about wasting my time debating this issue, because you have allready determined that you hate me and my beliefs, so there is nothing I can do to make headway with you.


Now go back and read what I wrote and read what you wrote and if you have open mind as you claim, you will see the massive leaps you took in twisting my words to suit your agenda.

GG

Delephont wrote:@generalgrog

People spend too much time wondering about the guy (or girl) next to them, when the real issue lies a lot closer to home.

Whether Homosexuality is considered a sin or not, is not in the scope of "mere" humans to decide.

The problem with "organised" or as I call it "group" religion, is that it tries to create neat boxes where everyone and everything has its place....some boxes are marked bad, evil, sinful etc and the others are good, holy, etc etc......now this isn't a bad thing in of itself....but we as humans walk around with one foot in each box, laughing and judging the guy next to us who essentially wearing a similar set of "shoes"!

I don't think you're wrong as such to have strong anti homosexual feelings, in the same way as its not necessarily wrong for the homosexuals to try to defend their choices.....the problem for me is the focus. If you're watching the homosexual, then who's watching you?

My own religious ideology doesn't own a badge or look up to a God as such. I do believe in universal unity of all things, and my considerations would probably share alot of the base concepts of Taoism. As such thoughts of the sexual nature of others becomes a very distant second to thoughts and uderstanding of my own sexual nature and the conditioning that brought me to it!

Delephont. It appears that you are new to the thread? The subject of Homosexuality and sin was covered many many pages ago. I'm a bit saddened that this thread has been hijacked by people with a gay rights agenda and turned a thread called "religion" into a way to promote gay rights. Anyway I don't have "strong anti homosexual" fellings. I have strong anti sin feelings. The probelm I have is that people take the Bible out of context and are trying to promote a lie that the bible doesn't call homosexuality sin whe it is clearly called a sin in many many places in both the old and new testemant.

And by the way the only box that I know of, is that we have all fallen short of the glory of God, all have sinned. Mere humans didn't decide that, God did.

GG

generalgrog wrote:I double dog dare you.

Let's not go crazy here.

Talk like that will end up with Polonius' tongue stuck to a flag pole.

Elessar wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

I know the Bible is right and I know that God doesn't make mistakes, homosexuality is a sexual perversion in the same light as porn addiction, nymphomania, pedophelia etc.


... the truth is still there and you can't pound the truth down peoples throats when they are not willing to receive it.

And THAT'S why fewer people than you think will tell you just how wrong you are. Only people who are able to admit their beliefs may not be 100% correct are worth debating with. If you genuinely believe a text written over the course of 400 years, and translated hundreds of times over the last 2 millenia is still word perfect (apart from anything else) then you seriously need to read it cover to cover and examine your own beliefs. A book that orders you to "not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" [Leviticus 19:19] is faintly ridiculous anyway. The Bible also says "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable" [Leviticus 18:22] Seems pretty anti-gay to me.

Except that the dead sea scrolls were found in 1948. They were written almost 2,000 years ago and left in cave for almost those 2,000 years and they match almost 100% to the current bible.

This is yet another fallacy that is promoted that the bibile has somehow been tampered with, rewritten, redacted etc.


I suggest you do some research and you will see that the bible we have today is the same thing they had 2,000 years ago.


GG

Greebynog wrote:Grog, comparing homosexuals to paedophiles is so far beyond offensive it's sickening. Can you not see the difference between two same sex consenting adults falling in love and abuse of a minor (who by definition cannot consent)?

Isn't christianity about love for others not hate? Why spread such bilious doctrine? It's attitudes such as yours that seriously damage the image and reputation of religious groups, you are doing yourself and your faith a grave disservice.

Again you, like Polonious, are twisting my words. Homosexuality is sin, pedophilia is sin, adultery is sin.

I never said that homosexuality was somehow as distastefull as pedophilia. To God it may be, but to man you can't compare the two.
The only thing I know is that the Bible calls homosexuality an abomination. But it also calls adultery an abomination. People seem to forget the adultery part and focus on the homosexual part.
I suspect that you, like Polonious, have your mind made up that I'm the Christian bogeyman and that you are going to see what you want in my posts regardless of what I write.


GG

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:
It's like earlier when one of the posters said that no where in the new testament is it mentioned that homosexuality is sin. I pointed out a few quotes from Paul( a new testament writer), and the person moved the target by saying, something like..."Ohh yeah....well Jesus never said that"

Paul was one of the authors of the NT, but he never actually wrote anything about homosexuality in the NT. The only way you can conceivably allow his other writings to have any bearing on the Bible (given your belief that the Bible is the word of God) is to canonize them as the word of God. At which point you have necessarily contradicted your belief that the Bible is the word of God, perfectly transcribed by man.

Sorry dogma but your post makes no sense at all. ;-)


And as far as Paul goes, try reading Romans and 1st corinthians and you will see plenty of references to homosexuality and that they are considered sin.

GG

generalgrog wrote:
OK I never said that I couldn't debate. I said I didn't like to debate these issues....I don't like to argue with a brick wall either. That doesn't invalidate that arguing with a brick wall is not a good idea. I.E. a waste of time.

First off, if you asked around I think you'll find that I'm one of the more open minded and reasonable people here. I frequently and easily admit when I'm wrong, and I like to hear new and interesting ideas, theories and arguments. I think you'll find that I tend to agree with you more than you realize, so, I'm going to ignore the hostility of your post and see if we can't talk this one through.

And way to put yet more words into my mouth to try to make your hatefull pronouncement against what you call "the religious right". I never claimed that I wasn't defending my beliefs because it was "undefendable dogma" as you put it. I just said I wouldn't waste my time on trying to defend my beliefs because there is no way that Polonius and some other people will be convinced. So I choose to not engage and waste my time. I have allready quoted scripture pages and pages ago and provided a handy link that covered the subject. You probably ignored it, in favor of coming on here and spewing your rhetoric. Thats your right, but don't play the game of twisting my words to fit into your preconcieved idea of what a Christian is. In fact I think your a bit bigoted in the way you spew hate towards Christians, or what you call, "the religous right"

First, I'm not sure anything I said was really hateful. If you find the term religious right offensive, I apologize, but you appear to be a Christian with a fairly fundamentalist streak and conservative social values. I didn't want to use the term Christian on it's own, because I'm a Christian (Roman Catholic), and I disagree pretty strongly with some of your values.

My point with my comment was that when you said "I compare homosexuality with other perversions like pedophilia because pedophiles, like homosexuals are so far gone with their sexual addiction that they can't help themselves." it appeared that you were making a medical, psychological, or otherwise secular judgment. If you were speaking solely of the concept of sin, than you should be more careful, as it appears you are trying to defend social judgements, such as homosexuality being a mental disorder, with scripture. I'm well aware of how scripture sees homosexuality, but I'm also aware of how the medical community, the psychological community, etc. all view it. I mean, masturbation is a sin, but that's amazingly good for you.

I really don't think I was spewing hate towards christians. I think if you read this thread, you'll see my relentless defending the Christian faith.

You twist what I said about homosexuality as well. I simply classed it in the same ball park as all other sexual sin. For that matter, God deosn't make distinctions between sin. To God, sin is sin, "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God"

As I said above, I misread what you wrote. I think it was very unclear what you were saying, but I apologize for jumping the gun.

I dare you find anything in my post that said anything about denying civic freedoms to gay people. I double dog dare you.

I'm sorry. I messed up.

Your whole rant was nothing more than a smear tactic designed to make me out to be something that you hate. And you prove my point about wasting my time debating this issue, because you have allready determined that you hate me and my beliefs, so there is nothing I can do to make headway with you.

This is where you kind of go off the rails a bit. I don't' think what I wrote was a rant, or a smear tactic. I think I was trying to illustrate to an extent what the OP, and what many people find troubling. I certainly don't hate you or your beliefs.

Now go back and read what I wrote and read what you wrote and if you have open mind as you claim, you will see the massive leaps you took in twisting my words to suit your agenda.
GG

I did, and I was mistaken in some of my points, and on some points I think you were unclear enough that my interpretation wasn't totally out of line.

I think I would simply stress that make sure in these discussions to be clear when you are discussing policy and when you are discussing scripture. Words like "perversion" and "Sexual addiction" aren't just value judgments, they are terms of art with technical meanings. If you are using those terms, you need to understand that most of the scientific community disagrees. It's not all political correctness indoctrination or half baked theories, either. Those terms are condescending if not outright insulting to the scientists that work on this stuff.

generalgrog wrote:

Greebynog wrote:Grog, comparing homosexuals to paedophiles is so far beyond offensive it's sickening. Can you not see the difference between two same sex consenting adults falling in love and abuse of a minor (who by definition cannot consent)?

Isn't christianity about love for others not hate? Why spread such bilious doctrine? It's attitudes such as yours that seriously damage the image and reputation of religious groups, you are doing yourself and your faith a grave disservice.

Again you, like Polonious, are twisting my words. Homosexuality is sin, pedophilia is sin, adultery is sin.

I never said that homosexuality was somehow as distastefull as pedophilia. To God it may be, but to man you can't compare the two.
The only thing I know is that the Bible calls homosexuality an abomination. But it also calls adultery an abomination. People seem to forget the adultery part and focus on the homosexual part.
I suspect that you, like Polonious, have your mind made up that I'm the Christian bogeyman and that you are going to see what you want in my posts regardless of what I write.


GG

Oh really now. You directly placed homosexuality in the same category as paedophilia. You did it again just then. I made it bold to hep you find it.

I also strongly disagree with calling homosexuality an 'abomination', I think it's in poor taste.

The reason people 'forget the adultery part and focus on the homosexual part' is that adultery, I think most people would agree, is an immoral act, and one that hurts others. How is that the same as two people loving each other?

As for making my mind up that you're the Christian bogeyman, you can just take the word Christian right out of there. I have no problem with Polonius, and other Christian posters who don't make such objectionable remarks. I have no problem with people who have different beliefs to me, the world would be extremely dull without them. I do have a problem with those who attack people for their sexuality, race, gender or any other extraneous factor, including faith. I percieve calling someone's sexuality an abomination as an attack.

I will only see in your posts what you write. I have many talents, telepathy isn't one of them.

generalgrog wrote:Delephont. It appears that you are new to the thread? The subject of Homosexuality and sin was covered many many pages ago. I'm a bit saddened that this thread has been hijacked by people with a gay rights agenda and turned a thread called "religion" into a way to promote gay rights.

That’s a terrible mischaracterisation and given you were part of that discussion from the start I’m going to have to assume you’re being disingenuous. Myself, George Spiggott and holonachos were talking about modern interpretation of the bible, and were discussing issues such as eating pork, charity and homosexuality. We were discussing these issues in the context of their importance in the Bible and comparing it to the importance given to them by various religious groups.

Then you entered that to talk directly about the Bible’s commentary on homosexuality, and have continued to lead that conversation since. You have wanted to argue homosexuality from the start, the rest of us have just responded.

Now, you can argue for or against homosexuality and that’s fine - you’ve stuck to purely biblical arguments so I won’t argue that point. But like everybody else you do need to tell the truth and claiming this thread was hijacked by people with a homosexual agenda is not true. The homosexual debate was entirely your creation.

generalgrog wrote:
Sorry dogma but your post makes no sense at all. ;-)

If you believe the Bible to be the perfect revelation of God you cannot accept commentary on it as equivalent to it because such acceptance would mean that the Bible must be supplemented, and is thus imperfect.

generalgrog wrote:
And as far as Paul goes, try reading Romans and 1st corinthians and you will see plenty of references to homosexuality and that they are considered sin.

GG

By plenty do you mean 2? I'll even provide them for debate. Bold is mine.

Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet."

1 Corinthians 6:9-11: "Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God."

Personally, I don't even consider the Corinthians passage to be worthy of inclusion. I posted it for the sake of completeness. The phrase 'nor abusers of themselves with men' is hardly clear. It also isn't translated consistently. For instance, the King James Bible replaces the word 'men' with 'mankind'. That's what happens when you lose the meaning of the original Greek.

I also consider the Romans passage to be dubious. The translation is better, but it makes no reference to any specific sin. The phrase 'that which is unseemly' could very well denote any sinful act perpetrated in the company of men.

What do men do with each other that's due to burning with lust for one another and involves "leaving the natural use of the woman" that isn't homosexual?

generalgrog wrote:
Except that the dead sea scrolls were found in 1948. They were written almost 2,000 years ago and left in cave for almost those 2,000 years and they match almost 100% to the current bible.

That's a massive oversimplification. The scrolls (at least the ones written in ancient Greek) do show a large amount of agreement with other sources recorded in ancient Greek (esp. Codex Vaticanus). However, this isn't really all that shocking given that the Greek scrolls are only about 300 years older than Codex Vaticanus. What is surprising is the degree to which Codex Vaticanus is the product of selective canonization. Something which prevents the rate of agreement from coming anywhere close to 100%.

generalgrog wrote:
This is yet another fallacy that is promoted that the bibile has somehow been tampered with, rewritten, redacted etc.


I suggest you do some research and you will see that the bible we have today is the same thing they had 2,000 years ago.


GG

That's not only incorrect, but horribly misleading. There are over 50 different versions of the Bible. The actual points of variance are fairly consistent in location, and generally arise from a lack of knowledge surrounding the meaning of the original Greek. These differences in translation don't always have a massive affect on the actual meaning of scripture, but they are still there. Much more significant in terms of meaning are the massive variances with respect to canonization.

Orkeosaurus wrote:What do men do with each other that's due to burning with lust for one another and involves "leaving the natural use of the woman" that isn't homosexual?

Well, the point of that passage, at least according to the US Council of Catholic Bishops, is actually about idolatry. Essentially, the wicked turn from god to other pursuits, including the worship of false idols and lots of deviant sex. http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/romans/romans1.htm#foot13

My copy of the Oxford Annotated Bible also added that it's likely that in the original greek the stress was not on the orientation of the practice, but on the frequency and urgency. The key word there being "unnatural," implying that the intercourse itself was unnatural, not how it was with. That bible was worked on by a blue ribbon panel of experts from protestant, catholic, orthodox, and jewish traditions.

As for 1 Corinthians 6:9, the USCCB has that refering to boy prostitutes and those how frequent the boy prostitutes, not simply a banning of what we consider sodomites.

EDIT: I have deleted a post by Efarrer as offensive to those who believe the Bible.

1. Lets move off the gay issue on the thread. Its extremely divisive and will get the thread closed.
2. Lets also leave off posts deriding religious tracts. What you may think is a simple opinion can, in fact, be deeply offensive.

Thanks for re-opening the thread Frazzled.

coolio.

Well, I think the gay issue, while devisive, is sort of a good flashpoint for the central debate raised by the OP.

The struggle in terms of religion and society is the extent to which purely religious mores should be made part of a societies principles. In addition, there is the key sub-issue of the differentiating between scriptures as a source of "truth" and a source of "literal truth."

I believe the bible to be true in that I believe that God is responsible for creation, and that salvation is possible through Jesus, among many other things. I"m less certain about applying that level of truth to every chapter, verse, or word. Even in a perfect document, translation errors, cultural shifts, and the need for context make taking nearly any verse and claiming it to be literally true to be a sometimes treacherous decision.

I mean, I think Christians that take the bible and study it and learn from it and base their morality off of it are doing a good thing. The key, as always, is context. Knowing what was meant, what the possible translations are, even knowing that errors are possible allows a reader to gain a wider perspective of what is being related.

There is a form of tax protest built around a single code section, dealing with international tax, that says something along the lines of "only foreign income is taxes." They claim that code section forbids taxing domestic income. They do so despite the piles of code dealing with income, the court cases defining income, and the fact that the code section was dealing with international taxation. Sometimes we can all be like that, and cherry pick a single phrase from the scriptures, and forget that there is a whole book in there that means more than any one of it's components.

dogma wrote:

Elessar wrote:
I agree almost completely with what you said, but, the way I see it, there are two ways to look at this. Either you believe in a set of universal, absolutist morals, such as any Christian SHOULD (they are clearly defined in the Bible, and you really can't ignore parts of it you don't like and still call yourself a Christian)

The status of any given person as a Christian varies from denomination to denomination, and does not necessarily turn on absolutist morality. For example, the Eastern Orthodox Church is based primarily on an appreciation of paradox whereby it can be acceptable for nominally immoral acts to serve good ends and thereby be considered moral.

My apologies for the lack of clarity, and, with no intent to cause offence, my belief is that in order for someone to call themselves a Christian, they must subscribe to a number of core tenets, including:
1) The Bible is the word of God, and as such is to be obeyed in its entirety
2) Jesus is the Son of God, which really means that he isn't a human, because he was born without sin
3) Everyone would go to Hell if they died before becoming a Christian, even if they never got the chance
4) It's not up to people to decide what's right and wrong at all
5) Only the number mentioned in Revelations (14000?) get to go to Heaven, and even then, only at the End of Days
6) You must obey ALL books of the Bible, even the Apocrypha, or any other books removed at any point - how can a mere human judge what is the true Word?

I could probably think of some more, but you get the point.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who doesn't fit these is a theist with Christian values, not really a Christian. I'd like to state again, this post is a clarification of my thought process, not any attempt to cause offence. However, anyone who IS offended by this will not be getting an apology, because there's no power (that I believe in) that has the ability or authority to make me apologise for stating my beliefs in a calm, structured fashion.

@Polonius

Elessar wrote:

dogma wrote:

Elessar wrote:
I agree almost completely with what you said, but, the way I see it, there are two ways to look at this. Either you believe in a set of universal, absolutist morals, such as any Christian SHOULD (they are clearly defined in the Bible, and you really can't ignore parts of it you don't like and still call yourself a Christian)

The status of any given person as a Christian varies from denomination to denomination, and does not necessarily turn on absolutist morality. For example, the Eastern Orthodox Church is based primarily on an appreciation of paradox whereby it can be acceptable for nominally immoral acts to serve good ends and thereby be considered moral.

My apologies for the lack of clarity, and, with no intent to cause offence, my belief is that in order for someone to call themselves a Christian, they must subscribe to a number of core tenets, including:
1) The Bible is the word of God, and as such is to be obeyed in its entirety
2) Jesus is the Son of God, which really means that he isn't a human, because he was born without sin
3) Everyone would go to Hell if they died before becoming a Christian, even if they never got the chance
4) It's not up to people to decide what's right and wrong at all
5) Only the number mentioned in Revelations (14000?) get to go to Heaven, and even then, only at the End of Days
6) You must obey ALL books of the Bible, even the Apocrypha, or any other books removed at any point - how can a mere human judge what is the true Word?

I could probably think of some more, but you get the point.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who doesn't fit these is a theist with Christian values, not really a Christian. I'd like to state again, this post is a clarification of my thought process, not any attempt to cause offence. However, anyone who IS offended by this will not be getting an apology, because there's no power (that I believe in) that has the ability or authority to make me apologise for stating my beliefs in a calm, structured fashion.

And I'd proffer thats not the case. Some sects may believe that. Last I saw most fo the organized churches did not believe in 5 and especially 6. IIRC Historically #6 could cause you to have an unhappy intermingling with flammable materials.

Remember lads. No one expects the SPANISH INQUISITION!

Frazzled wrote:
Remember lads. No one expects the SPANISH INQUISITION!

RIP Monty Python

Of course, it's rarer, historically, for the main established churches to agree than disagree...but certainly I see your point. Of course, if God is real, Jesus his son etc etc, then only one church (if any) could be exactly right anyway.

Elessar wrote:

dogma wrote:

Elessar wrote:
I agree almost completely with what you said, but, the way I see it, there are two ways to look at this. Either you believe in a set of universal, absolutist morals, such as any Christian SHOULD (they are clearly defined in the Bible, and you really can't ignore parts of it you don't like and still call yourself a Christian)

The status of any given person as a Christian varies from denomination to denomination, and does not necessarily turn on absolutist morality. For example, the Eastern Orthodox Church is based primarily on an appreciation of paradox whereby it can be acceptable for nominally immoral acts to serve good ends and thereby be considered moral.

My apologies for the lack of clarity, and, with no intent to cause offence, my belief is that in order for someone to call themselves a Christian, they must subscribe to a number of core tenets, including:
1) The Bible is the word of God, and as such is to be obeyed in its entirety
2) Jesus is the Son of God, which really means that he isn't a human, because he was born without sin
3) Everyone would go to Hell if they died before becoming a Christian, even if they never got the chance
4) It's not up to people to decide what's right and wrong at all
5) Only the number mentioned in Revelations (14000?) get to go to Heaven, and even then, only at the End of Days
6) You must obey ALL books of the Bible, even the Apocrypha, or any other books removed at any point - how can a mere human judge what is the true Word?

I could probably think of some more, but you get the point.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who doesn't fit these is a theist with Christian values, not really a Christian. I'd like to state again, this post is a clarification of my thought process, not any attempt to cause offence. However, anyone who IS offended by this will not be getting an apology, because there's no power (that I believe in) that has the ability or authority to make me apologise for stating my beliefs in a calm, structured fashion.

First off thanks to Frazzled for reopening the thread.

Second even though this hasn't anything to do with Efarrers post(I didn't even see it), I did send Polonius a PM apologizing for being a little too aggresive in my responses. I can see how he could have misunderstood what I was saying.

Third onto Elessars post. You certainly have every right to believe what you believe, but I will postulate that those beliefs certainly aren't a requirement for "every Christian"

Specifically regarding:
Point #2. I for one believe that the Bible teaches that Jesus was both fully human and fully God.
Point #3. I'm not sure about this, I would agree that everyone that has heard the gospel and rejects it would fit the requirements of going to hell. I'm not sure at this point how God is going to deal with people that haven't heard the gospel. Maybe God deals with them differently, maybe he doesn't but I'm just not sure. To me that is one of the great mysteries that we may never know until the end.
Point #5 is a Jehovas Witness teaching, and is not supported by scripture.
Point #6 While I'm no expert on apocrypha, the books that have been canonized are perfectly fine with me. They work in harmony the way they are, and I doubt that apocrypha would add anything. I believe it was the council of Trent in 1546 where they decided on the cannon, and I think the motto was, "if in doubt, throw it out".

I also have a bit of a hard time with the use of the term "obey" when used to describe the Bible. I mean we don't live under the Law, we live under grace. Maybe I misunderstand you but, I think we border on legalism when we start using words like "obey" scripture, instead of "obey" God. Surely if you meant that we are to obey God as revealed by scripture then I would totally agree with you. Maybe I'm just using semantics but it can be important sometimes.

GG

A lot of Christian sects don't believe in number 3 either, and it's really pretty ridiculous to list that as a required qualification. What about all the people who came before Jesus in the Old Testament? Believing that everyone would go to Hell before becoming a Christian, even if they never got the chance, would mean that Noah, Moses, Abraham, Lot, and a ton of others all would have gone to Hell, since none of them were Christians.

I don't think there's a Christian anywhere who believes that. Claiming that that is or should be a Christian core belief is ludicrous.

In old Catholic doctrine, there was an event that happened where Jesus went to Hell and grabbed all the good Jews and heroes of the Old Testament and brought them to Heaven. The Scouring, or something like that (not to be confused with The Scouring of the 40k universe ). Also, unbaptized children were in the highest circle of hell, Limbo (Dante's Inferno). Not really a bad place, just not paradise.