Religious Tolerance & Religious Moderation Are a Joke

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

It is time to demand intellectual honesty across the board and to no longer tiptoe around the PC taboos which prevent us from openly criticizing religious ideas, beliefs, and practices.

 

There are essential rules which underpin progress in every other field of knowledge, say physics or economics. We are not expected to simply respect someone's views on, say, mathematics; instead, we both demand reasons and expect evidence. Anyone who fails to substantiate their point of view, or resents questioning is no longer taken seriously when it comes to conversation on these topics. The respect & esteem that we accord to religious ideologies is a double standard. In a world in which people routinely blow themselves up, murder their neighbors, & refuse to give condoms to victims of AIDS--all in the name of faith--we ignore this double standard at our own peril.

 

Furthermore, the current state religion in the United States is a national embarrassment. 44 percent of Americans believe that Jesus will probably return within the next fifty years. This is roughly the same number who think that creationism should be taught in schools, to the complete exclusion of evolution; or that God has literally promised the land of Israel to the modern-day Jews. There are profound & disastrous public policy outcomes related to this silliness.

 

The taboo against criticizing religion muddles the greatest present threat to world civilization: Islam. The primary response in the US & Europe to terrorist attacks such as that of 9/11 has been to pronounce Islam a "religion of peace", while simultaneously declaring a "war on terror". Islam is demonstrably not a "religion of peace" (nor is Christianity) and the "war on terror" moniker is meaningless. We need a war against religious dogma.

 

Replacing religious conservatism & religious fundamentalism with religious moderation would be a huge step forward, but religious moderation is also a problem in & of itself. This is primarily because religious moderates embrace "toleration" of religious views, which, in reality, has shielded the religious whackos from criticism. If a reasonable person declares that it is asinine to believe that Mohammed flew to heaven on a winged horse or that Jesus was born from a virgin, we are being intolerant.

[Henry Spencer 0]

Hey, I agree one hundred percent. Hug!

[Ripper 0]

thats a whole bunch of generalizing there. And alot of bullshit too.

[World's Worst Man 0]

It seems like religion is gradually taking a backseat in many civilized countries, although perhaps it's different in the US, I don't know. I also never really understood why one's religious beliefs were off-limits to criticism, as it is essentially an opinion, unlike one's race or ethnicity. With that being said, I'm not one to go out and attack the common folk for some benign religious views, but I've no such compunctions when dealing with obnoxious dogmatists, or gross fundamentalists/extremists, nor do I have a problem with letting it be known that religion should have absolutely nothing to do with our governmental bureaucracy. It's quite dangerous to give that sort of credence to something that isn't grounded on reality, especially with certain religions that directly preach violence and intolerance in their holy books.

 

Religious intolerance doesn't necessarily have to be a problem either. I can think that Christianity is a load of nonsense without letting that opinion dictate how I treat people who subscribe to that faith. It's simply a difference of opinion, mine just happens to be based on logic, reason and reality, while their's is based on dogma. And I don't mean that in a snide way, as people are free to believe what they want, the key term being "believe". Obviously some people take their beliefs to fanatical and insane levels, and that's where the real problem lies. So with religion, as with anything else, it's really about a person's actions, rather than their characteristics.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Let's take the case, for instance, of people who want to put the Ten Commandments up all over public buildings, because these are, presumably, the greatest moral code ever constructed.

 

Commandments 1-4 have nothing to do with morality at all. 5-9 are all reasonable enough and probably ascribed to in most societies around the world. And apparently Yahweh thought some rule about coveting a donkey was important enough to etched into stone and given to a prophet. Are these really all that phenomenal? I think society could benefit way for from some Jain texts or, hell, maybe even some Zen, than this stuff. Or how about we post the Bill of Rights or the Letter From a Birmingham Jail, instead? Shoot, maybe a little Adam Smith or John Stuart Mill?

 

Oh, and can we post the Biblically-ascribed penalty for breaking the commandments too while we're at it (hint: the penalty for breaking one is usually death)?

[Conspiracy_Victim 0]

So, in other words, people who believe in God, Allah, Yahweh, or a Flying Spaghetti Monster are cretinous louts stuck in the Dark Ages. VERY progressive thinking.

 

I don't think people have been limited in their ability to criticize religion at all. People have been openly critical of organized religion for quite a while. As to your assertion that people who disparage organized religion are labelled "intolerant", I suggest that you watch TV, listen to radio, or go to almost any website that encourages commentary by it's readers (such as Fark.com). It seems to me that people who espouse a belief in an entity greater than themselves are the ones who are treated as social outcasts and backwards thinkers. Someone states that they believe that Jesus was the Son of God, and they are immediately thought of as a "whacko" or "nutjob". A crucifix covered in feces or immersed in a jar of urine as seen as "art", and religious characters on TV or movies are frequently portrayed as either fanatics or militants.

 

Even those who decry intolerance of religion do so in a very selective manner. Someone draws a picture of Allah with a bomb for a turban? That's insensitive. Kanye West is on the cover of Rolling Stone with a crown of thorns? Well, that's just freedom of expression. What's the difference? Islam is seen by many of the intelligensia and "cultural elites" as a religion for the poor brown folks while Christianity is a religion for the rich white folk. Therefore, Islam needs to be protected while Christianity needs to be exposed as intolerant, hypocritical, or whatever fits the view of the people involved.

 

By the way, where does this "Christianity is violent" belief come from? Jesus disavowed violence and preached "turning the other cheek" and tolerance. Oh, I forgot, the Crusades. A series of wars fought in response to Islamic encroachment and violence a thousand years ago forever marks Christianity as a religion of violence and cruelty. Of course. Any nutjobs who preach violence and use excerpts from the Bible take passages out of context or outright lie about its meaning in order to sway people uneducated about the subject to their way of thinking.

 

As to your belief that there needs to be a "war against religious dogma", what dogma should we be at war against? The Ten Commandments? Those form the basis for much of the moral and legal thinking in Western Civilization, and include such controversial statements as, "Thou shalt not kill" and "thou shalt not steal". Yeah, I can see why those sorts of things should be thrown right out the window.

 

Basically, I don't know why you decided to type out this manifesto. Did you intend to rally people to your Crusade (uh oh, religious imagery, can't have that)? Stir up thought and discussion? Or just see who you could piss off? Personally, I'm offended by your insinuation that religion is what's wrong with the world and think people could do with a bit more religion in their lives, not less. The world has been separating itself from religion for decades, and what have we gotten? Skyrocketing crime rates, widespread abuse of mild altering substances, the erosion of the family unit, and basically a gentrification of society based on ethnicity, income, and world view. Religion could be used as a common bond to bind people from all cultural groups together. It's only when people begin stating that THEIR religion is better than the next person's religion that the trouble starts. But again, how is that different from someone stating that their color is better, or their income level? Moderation is key, not extremism (in any direction).

[MrRant 0]

It is time to demand intellectual honesty across the board and to no longer tiptoe around the PC taboos which prevent us from openly criticizing religious ideas, beliefs, and practices.

 

There are essential rules which underpin progress in every other field of knowledge, say physics or economics. We are not expected to simply respect someone's views on, say, mathematics; instead, we both demand reasons and expect evidence. Anyone who fails to substantiate their point of view, or resents questioning is no longer taken seriously when it comes to conversation on these topics. The respect & esteem that we accord to religious ideologies is a double standard. In a world in which people routinely blow themselves up, murder their neighbors, & refuse to give condoms to victims of AIDS--all in the name of faith--we ignore this double standard at our own peril.

 

Furthermore, the current state religion in the United States is a national embarrassment. 44 percent of Americans believe that Jesus will probably return within the next fifty years. This is roughly the same number who think that creationism should be taught in schools, to the complete exclusion of evolution; or that God has literally promised the land of Israel to the modern-day Jews. There are profound & disastrous public policy outcomes related to this silliness.

 

The taboo against criticizing religion muddles the greatest present threat to world civilization: Islam. The primary response in the US & Europe to terrorist attacks such as that of 9/11 has been to pronounce Islam a "religion of peace", while simultaneously declaring a "war on terror". Islam is demonstrably not a "religion of peace" (nor is Christianity) and the "war on terror" moniker is meaningless. We need a war against religious dogma.

 

Replacing religious conservatism & religious fundamentalism with religious moderation would be a huge step forward, but religious moderation is also a problem in & of itself. This is primarily because religious moderates embrace "toleration" of religious views, which, in reality, has shielded the religious whackos from criticism. If a reasonable person declares that it is asinine to believe that Mohammed flew to heaven on a winged horse or that Jesus was born from a virgin, we are being intolerant.

 

 

This entire post is as Ripper said, generalized BS. Every organized group of people is more or less governed by the collectives moral guidance. Whether that is common sense or religion based.

 

Religion has been anything but protected from criticism. You see people blasting it at every turn, hence why there is a bunch of pissed off people come Christmas time (including me) when some dick can't stand to have Santa in school play because it has a quasi connection to Christ. And I'm not even Christian, but I want my daughter to fucking be able to draw Frosty the Snowman in class rather than Judy the Non Denominational Christmas Icicle.

[World's Worst Man 0]

By the way, where does this "Christianity is violent" belief come from? Jesus disavowed violence and preached "turning the other cheek" and tolerance. Oh, I forgot, the Crusades. A series of wars fought in response to Islamic encroachment and violence a thousand years ago forever marks Christianity as a religion of violence and cruelty. Of course. Any nutjobs who preach violence and use excerpts from the Bible take passages out of context or outright lie about its meaning in order to sway people uneducated about the subject to their way of thinking.

 

Read the bible, it's in there. Most people are smart enough to realize it's not to be taken literally, but it's there.

[Guest George's Box]

I'm not even Christian, but I want my daughter to fucking be able to draw Frosty the Snowman in class rather than Judy the Non Denominational Christmas Icicle.

Judy the Non Denominational Christmas Icicle, and Benton the Unadulterated-by-Stolen-Pagan-Rituals Evergreen.

[Conspiracy_Victim 0]

Let's take the case, for instance, of people who want to put the Ten Commandments up all over public buildings, because these are, presumably, the greatest moral code ever constructed.

 

Commandments 1-4 have nothing to do with morality at all. 5-9 are all reasonable enough and probably ascribed to in most societies around the world. And apparently Yahweh thought some rule about coveting a donkey was important enough to etched into stone and given to a prophet. Are these really all that phenomenal? I think society could benefit way for from some Jain texts or, hell, maybe even some Zen, than this stuff. Or how about we post the Bill of Rights or the Letter From a Birmingham Jail, instead? Shoot, maybe a little Adam Smith or John Stuart Mill?

 

Oh, and can we post the Biblically-ascribed penalty for breaking the commandments too while we're at it (hint: the penalty for breaking one is usually death)?

 

Since the Old Testament was written several thousand years ago and says "donkey" instead of "car" or "plasma screen TV" as an example of what you're not supposed to covet, it should automatically be disregarded? The Commandments are supposed to be a guideline that Christians could use to lead a life that their personal God would find pleasing. Why is that wrong?

 

As to your belief that society could benefit more from Jainism, let's take a look at it. First, it's religious, which I thought you were against in the first place. Second, they teach nonviolence, truth, chastity, aversion to stealing, and non-possessiveness. How different is that from the Commandments, which teaches that you should not steal or murder, covet your neighbor's goods (stealing) or commit adultery (chastity)? The only one that seems to be missing is non-possessiveness, but considering Jesus preached charity and tithing, I would consider that covered as well.

 

You also mention Adam Smith. Adam Smith was in fact a Deist (who hold that God does in fact exist, and can be seen in the natural world). He only rejected religious extremism. He still believed that morality is the key to an effective society, which would not seem out of place with religion.

 

Without addressing the other brought up by smitty (it's late and I have to get up early for work), I personally believe in the "clockwork universe" in which the Universe was created by a divine being (God) and set in motion by Him. Everything else is up to the mechanism. All this "God is watching" and "God guides us" always seemed to conflict with the belief of free will and a person's right to choose. This seemed to be the best arrangement I could agree with. Therefore, I personally have no problem with combining other works (even works from other religions) with Christian works to create a moral society. I just don't think excluding Christianity is a good idea.

[Conspiracy_Victim 0]

By the way, where does this "Christianity is violent" belief come from? Jesus disavowed violence and preached "turning the other cheek" and tolerance. Oh, I forgot, the Crusades. A series of wars fought in response to Islamic encroachment and violence a thousand years ago forever marks Christianity as a religion of violence and cruelty. Of course. Any nutjobs who preach violence and use excerpts from the Bible take passages out of context or outright lie about its meaning in order to sway people uneducated about the subject to their way of thinking.

 

Read the bible, it's in there. Most people are smart enough to realize it's not to be taken literally, but it's there.

 

Again, we're taking a work that's several thousand years old and using it in today's world. It's a different time and different circumstances. I'm sure you oculd find elements of the Magna Carta that are outdated as well. Does that mean it should be disregarded? Of course not. But it should be adapted to fit in with today's society, because it can still serve as a valuable tool today.

 

Now, when I go to church, my preacher doesn't talk about burning down houses and killing unbelievers. Instead, I hear about the "brotherhood of man", tolerance, and understanding. That's about as far from violence as you can get. And yet people take a passage declaring God commands them to take up the sword against invaders written when the Israelites were fighting for their very lives and decry the whole Bible as "violent". That just seems close minded.

[World's Worst Man 0]

My argument was that the Christian bible preaches violence and intolerance, not the modern Church. I've no problem admitting that modern Christianity has for the most part, not taken to that subject matter. And I don't think the bible should be adapted to fit in to today's society, unless you mean completely throwing out everything except the reasonable moral guidelines, ie morals that benefit society. Otherwise it leads to things like not allowing gays to marry, or women to get abortions because "it goes against God's will". I'm not just talking about extreme fundamentalism either. I've seen many examples of people who are neither extremists nor strict fundamentalists, making arguments that boil down to "because the bible says it's wrong". Using one's religion as a personal moral compass is fine. Trying to force society as a whole to adopt those guidelines based solely on the fact that they're in the bible, is wrong on many levels.

[Mike wanna be 0]

By the way, where does this "Christianity is violent" belief come from? Jesus disavowed violence and preached "turning the other cheek" and tolerance. Oh, I forgot, the Crusades. A series of wars fought in response to Islamic encroachment and violence a thousand years ago forever marks Christianity as a religion of violence and cruelty. Of course. Any nutjobs who preach violence and use excerpts from the Bible take passages out of context or outright lie about its meaning in order to sway people uneducated about the subject to their way of thinking.

 

Read the bible, it's in there. Most people are smart enough to realize it's not to be taken literally, but it's there.

 

Again, we're taking a work that's several thousand years old and using it in today's world. It's a different time and different circumstances. I'm sure you oculd find elements of the Magna Carta that are outdated as well. Does that mean it should be disregarded? Of course not. But it should be adapted to fit in with today's society, because it can still serve as a valuable tool today.

 

Now, when I go to church, my preacher doesn't talk about burning down houses and killing unbelievers. Instead, I hear about the "brotherhood of man", tolerance, and understanding. That's about as far from violence as you can get. And yet people take a passage declaring God commands them to take up the sword against invaders written when the Israelites were fighting for their very lives and decry the whole Bible as "violent". That just seems close minded.

So basically what you're saying is that society knows better than God does, and you can just screw with what he said 2000+ years ago to make it work for whatever agenda your particular sector of the religion wants to go after.

 

And while I'm on the topic of screwing with God's word, let's have us a look-see at the Crusades.

I'm not even talking about the Bible, I'm taking two things and putting them together:

Thou shalt not kill, and "Hey, Muslims took the holy land, let's get them!"

Where in these Ten Commandments does it say "Thou shalt kicketh the ass of those who taketh thine Holy Land"? Where's the escape clause of Thou shalt not kill? Hell, technically they aren't supposed to covet the things their neighbors have; isn't that about as close to God saying "Let the Muslims have the holy land" as you can get?

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

I'm an agnostic leaning towards atheism but I understand the problem with religion is usually not the system of belief but the actions of people. It's not as if secular nations aren't capable of just as much evil.

 

The majority of christians (and muslims, sikhs, hindus, etc.) I've personally known were good people. Some of the best neighbors I've ever had were deeply religious Christians.

 

And while I'm on the topic of screwing with God's word, let's have us a look-see at the Crusades.

I'm not even talking about the Bible, I'm taking two things and putting them together:

Thou shalt not kill, and "Hey, Muslims took the holy land, let's get them!"

Where in these Ten Commandments does it say "Thou shalt kicketh the ass of those who taketh thine Holy Land"? Where's the escape clause of Thou shalt not kill? Hell, technically they aren't supposed to covet the things their neighbors have; isn't that about as close to God saying "Let the Muslims have the holy land" as you can get?

 

What great analysis, you must be a religious scholar of some kind? All this shows is that the problem is with human beings not the religion. It's not as if secular nations never commit atrocities.

[EricMM 0]

Soviet Union much? Ukraine says hello! Of course secular states can commit atrocities.

 

But I don't think bos was speaking directly to that. I have to agree with his stance that waaay too many people let the bible dictate the way they vote, decide laws, etc. I mean, while things have improved recently, it was not too long ago (Reagans time) that pollution was just not seen as a problem to many christians because God would not allow it to happen, or even worse, that by polluting the world they were bringing us all closer to the Rapture.

 

Of course that second bit still happens today. The wars in the middle east are seen by some preachers as precedents of the end times, so of course they're going to support them.

 

And as said before, we really really should not be having an "Intelligent Design" debate in this country. Similarly a government sponsored marriage license should not be based upon religious norms.

[Ripper 0]

Religion has the same problem that race issues have.

 

People can meet a million peaceful, loving good Muslims, but one blows something up and ISLAM IS THE RELIGION OF HATE. You just shoved BILLIONS of people into one group despite it being painfully obvious that it isn't true.

 

Billions of christians worldwide and people take aim at the Fred Phelps and Jerry Falwells of the religion. If nothing else, look at how all the "face of the religion"s are at each others throats. Billy Graham and Falwell didn't like each other. No one likes Phelps and he hates everyone. Why? BECAUSE THEY ARE PEOPLE THAT BELIEVE DIFFERENT THINGS.

 

Taboo to critisize religion? Since when? If anything religion is nothing but a big ass bullseye right now.

 

To say too many people let the bible decide how they vote, live and things like that, fuck off, who are you to tell people how to live their lives? You have a set of moral beliefs that you obtained from somewhere, but because yours didn't come from the Christian bible doesn't make yours greater or lesser.

 

And Eric...MANY Christians thought that pollution was a good thing because it brought us closer to the Rapture? REALLY? You can't spout weird, borderline extremist views and say "many". Once again, we are talking about a group of people that is in the billions. There are going to be diffenent views. And some will be...in a word...insane. But to apply that to the entire religion is pigheaded and wrong.

 

Something you can't deny is that some of the greatest and most infulential people to ever walk this earth have been guided by their religion.

 

And before you start saying that "X" teaches intolorance and violence, stop repeating what you heard and read the fucking thing. Its fun to take passages out of context of a overall lesson and say "SEE..INTOLORANCE~!" but I find it even more fun to know what you are talking about.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Here's what I took from the original post:

 

"If you believe in a big man in the sky, you're a neanderthal."

[EricMM 0]

Well, when figures in the Reagan administration were using those lines, Ripper, I don't really care how many people subscribe to it, obviously it was enough to affect the Republicans at the time.

[Brett Favre 0]

And before you start saying that "X" teaches intolorance and violence, stop repeating what you heard and read the fucking thing. Its fun to take passages out of context of a overall lesson and say "SEE..INTOLORANCE~!" but I find it even more fun to know what you are talking about.

 

This is the reason why my friend wants the US to be ruled by religious belief because government officials use the Bible to promote ideas that aren't even in the Bible. If everyone knows what's going on in the Bible, there's not much that can get passed people. Not that I agree with him, but just wanted to mention it, since we actually had a discussion about this a week ago.

 

I'm under the belief that morals came from religion (generally, not any specific religion), so it's necessary to have religion in society. Not mandatory for everyone to believe in it, but to have it there is a good thing.

[World's Worst Man 0]

I just like the idea that the intolerance and violence in the bible is part of some supposed lesson and should be taken in context. Hilarious stuff really, considering how much is in there, and how much is fairly cut and dry. It really reeks of a near complete lack of understanding of what is actually in the book. Belligerent and ignorant attitudes are a big reason why religion is looked down upon by some. Thankfully, not all theists are flawed in such a way.

[Ripper 0]

I just like the idea that the intolerance and violence in the bible is part of some supposed lesson and should be taken in context. Hilarious stuff really, considering how much is in there, and how much is fairly cut and dry. It really reeks of a near complete lack of understanding of what is actually in the book. Belligerent and ignorant attitudes are a big reason why religion is looked down upon by some. Thankfully, not all theists are flawed in such a way.

 

Repeating yourself doesn't help. Pointing out something would. And since there is so much cut and dry, non contextual violence and intolorance in the bible, it should be easy to point out.

[hyperchord24 0]

So, people want proof that God exists? If you don’t see it you don’t believe it? People are stupid for believing in something that they can’t prove? Let me say that I’ve been grappling with the existence of a higher power for quite some time now. And I don’t know what to believe. I do have some responses to the whole “proof” argument. Why does God have to prove his existence to you? Whether you believe in him or not has no bearing on whether he exists or not. And another thing – if God showed himself to the world and showed us heaven, hell and every secret in the world and answered every question we had, what would happen? Suicide rates would increase b/c essentially when we realize there are two worlds in which to exist (the here and now and heaven), you could basically choose which one to “live” in. Another way of putting this is if a God were to exist, would he show us that he existed or would he let us figure things out for ourselves? Does a parent constantly hold on to his/her child when he/she is learning how to ride a two-wheeler or do they let them try, fall, get up, then try again?

 

There’s a lot philosophical mumbo jumbo in there, but I hope it gets my point across. Asking for proof that there is a higher power and not believing when none is given is a very closed-minded mindset.

 

As far as I’m concerned, why not believe in God? If you don’t and you’re wrong, that’s very bad. If you do and you’re right, great! If you do and you’re wrong, what’s the harm? Better safe than sorry.

[Guest panthermatt7]

So, in other words, people who believe in God, Allah, Yahweh, or a Flying Spaghetti Monster are cretinous louts stuck in the Dark Ages. VERY progressive thinking.

 

I don't think people have been limited in their ability to criticize religion at all. People have been openly critical of organized religion for quite a while. As to your assertion that people who disparage organized religion are labelled "intolerant", I suggest that you watch TV, listen to radio, or go to almost any website that encourages commentary by it's readers (such as Fark.com). It seems to me that people who espouse a belief in an entity greater than themselves are the ones who are treated as social outcasts and backwards thinkers. Someone states that they believe that Jesus was the Son of God, and they are immediately thought of as a "whacko" or "nutjob". A crucifix covered in feces or immersed in a jar of urine as seen as "art", and religious characters on TV or movies are frequently portrayed as either fanatics or militants.

 

Even those who decry intolerance of religion do so in a very selective manner. Someone draws a picture of Allah with a bomb for a turban? That's insensitive. Kanye West is on the cover of Rolling Stone with a crown of thorns? Well, that's just freedom of expression. What's the difference? Islam is seen by many of the intelligensia and "cultural elites" as a religion for the poor brown folks while Christianity is a religion for the rich white folk. Therefore, Islam needs to be protected while Christianity needs to be exposed as intolerant, hypocritical, or whatever fits the view of the people involved.

 

By the way, where does this "Christianity is violent" belief come from? Jesus disavowed violence and preached "turning the other cheek" and tolerance. Oh, I forgot, the Crusades. A series of wars fought in response to Islamic encroachment and violence a thousand years ago forever marks Christianity as a religion of violence and cruelty. Of course. Any nutjobs who preach violence and use excerpts from the Bible take passages out of context or outright lie about its meaning in order to sway people uneducated about the subject to their way of thinking.

 

As to your belief that there needs to be a "war against religious dogma", what dogma should we be at war against? The Ten Commandments? Those form the basis for much of the moral and legal thinking in Western Civilization, and include such controversial statements as, "Thou shalt not kill" and "thou shalt not steal". Yeah, I can see why those sorts of things should be thrown right out the window.

 

Basically, I don't know why you decided to type out this manifesto. Did you intend to rally people to your Crusade (uh oh, religious imagery, can't have that)? Stir up thought and discussion? Or just see who you could piss off? Personally, I'm offended by your insinuation that religion is what's wrong with the world and think people could do with a bit more religion in their lives, not less. The world has been separating itself from religion for decades, and what have we gotten? Skyrocketing crime rates, widespread abuse of mild altering substances, the erosion of the family unit, and basically a gentrification of society based on ethnicity, income, and world view. Religion could be used as a common bond to bind people from all cultural groups together. It's only when people begin stating that THEIR religion is better than the next person's religion that the trouble starts. But again, how is that different from someone stating that their color is better, or their income level? Moderation is key, not extremism (in any direction).

 

I agree one million percent.

 

For example, as silly of an example as this may be: Does anyone remember the 'Cartoon Wars' episodes of South Park last year? Comedy Central freaked out on Trey Parker and Matt Stone when they wanted to display an image of Mohammed, and ultimately wouldn't let them do it. What was their response? Show an animation of Jesus crapping all over President Bush and several other American figures. Why is one okay, while one isn't?

 

I also agree with Ripper's comments regarding generalizing large groups of people with televangelists. I work at a church which has over a thousand members. NONE of them watch the televangelists, nor do they like them at all. The "emerging church" movement in modern Christianity is to rid ourselves of those figures, as well as the bad stigma that comes with them. The majority of the Christians I know are liberal or at least left-leaning moderates, who vote primarily Democratic and think fairly progressively. AND I LIVE IN IOWA.

[Brett Favre 0]

As far as I’m concerned, why not believe in God? If you don’t and you’re wrong, that’s very bad. If you do and you’re right, great! If you do and you’re wrong, what’s the harm? Better safe than sorry.

 

Pascal approves of this.

[World's Worst Man 0]

I don't really want to go down this road, but I'll post a very select few examples.

 

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." -- Leviticus 20:13. This is basically God speaking to Moses, laying out some rules. That's the whole context, and there's nothing there to suggest that one not take it literally, other that one's own common sense of course.

 

"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city." -- Mark 6:11. Here's Jesus preaching to a city.

 

"Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven" --Genesis 19:24. And here's what happened to Sodom and Gomorrha.

 

Seriously though, there's a ton of this stuff, and it's not hard to find. Now, I've not said that the majority of Christians believe this type of nonsense, but it is in the bible, and it isn't really ambiguous. I would personally not base any dogmatic beliefs on a book that contained content of that nature, or a book in which so much of it had to be outright ignored or contextualized, but that's just me. Some people do and that's their prerogative. C'est la vie.

 

There’s a lot philosophical mumbo jumbo in there, but I hope it gets my point across. Asking for proof that there is a higher power and not believing when none is given is a very closed-minded mindset.

 

This is laughable and closed-minded itself. Some people choose to not believe in something that has no direct, tangible effect on the world, what's wrong with that? I get what you're saying, but saying that it's closed-minded is a bunch of bullshit.

 

If a god exists yet has no effect on the world, no presence, no proof of existence, then what difference does it make? Rhetorical question.

[Guest panthermatt7]

I don't really want to go down this road, but I'll post a very select few examples.

 

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." -- Leviticus 20:13. This is basically God speaking to Moses, laying out some rules. That's the whole context, and there's nothing there to suggest that one not take it literally, other that one's own common sense of course.

 

"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city." -- Mark 6:11. Here's Jesus preaching to a city.

 

"Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven" --Genesis 19:24. And here's what happened to Sodom and Gomorrha.

 

Seriously though, there's a ton of this stuff, and it's not hard to find. Now, I've not said that the majority of Christians believe this type of nonsense, but it is in the bible, and it isn't really ambiguous. I would personally not base any dogmatic beliefs on a book that contained content of that nature, or a book in which so much of it had to be outright ignored or contextualized, but that's just me. Some people do and that's their prerogative. C'est la vie.

 

There’s a lot philosophical mumbo jumbo in there, but I hope it gets my point across. Asking for proof that there is a higher power and not believing when none is given is a very closed-minded mindset.

 

This is laughable and closed-minded itself. Some people choose to not believe in something that has no direct, tangible effect on the world, what's wrong with that? I get what you're saying, but saying that it's closed-minded is a bunch of bullshit.

 

I'm going to reply to this as fast as I can before lunch -- I only go on this site at work, it helps the day go faster. I hate insurance.

 

Leviticus is old testament, which also contains references to Jewish law regarding the slaughter of animals, specifics on sacrifices, not eating specific meals on specific days, etc. Many Christians I know disregard the whole thing except for as a tool to learn what was going on historically at the time.

 

The Mark passage is talking about people not accepting the word of God, via the disciples' mouths, as well as turning them back when they attempted to enter the city. This is simply a reference to rejecting the word of God... don't forget, the Bible's overall message is pretty simple: don't accept Christ, and you go to hell.

 

Sodom and Gomorrah had been given generation after generation, warning after warning to repent and stop worshipping false idols. They did not, they were punished thusly. And keep in mind -- this punishment was 100% supernatural, it was not manmade (a la war).

 

Keep serving them up, and I'll address 'em...

[World's Worst Man 0]

On Leviticus, I understand what you've said, but the point is that the content is there. Some people believe that such content is not there, when it clearly is, and is quite unambiguous.

 

On the last two - well that's kind of the point of bringing it up. Non-believers are going to hell and deserve to be punished with violence? That is the height of intolerance, to kill people for not thinking the same way as others. And again, I'm sure the majority of Christians don't believe that, or at least act on it, but it does seem to be a central theme in the bible.

[Ripper 0]

And the context of the man shall not lay with a man. They were walking in a fucking desert for years. They could not afford for people to not procreate. That was pretty much the point. Every man had to bear a child or children for the race to survive. If anyone started gaying it up, then there would be no children. No children means death of a race. There is a obvious reason that is written as such.

 

"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city."

 

I think you misreading it. Basically it is sayin gthat if they don't want to believe what you are telling them...well...fuck'em. Don't worry about it. God will handle it.

 

Sodom and Gomorrah...dude. They were raping travelers, worshipping goats, murdering whoever the fuck they wanted. And god didn't say, go kill those fuckers for doing it either. So how can you say the bible is teaching to kill those that don't believe. If anything your examples are saying that all that is left to God.

 

The overall theme there seems to be live your life according to God and you will be alright.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I don't think any mainstream Christian believes that we should kill gays. The Bible is quite clear that homosexuality is considered a sin, though. Just wanted to clear that up.

[Mike wanna be 0]

And the context of the man shall not lay with a man. They were walking in a fucking desert for years. They could not afford for people to not procreate. That was pretty much the point. Every man had to bear a child or children for the race to survive. If anyone started gaying it up, then there would be no children. No children means death of a race. There is a obvious reason that is written as such.

So now that the race isn't about to die off, it's ok to ignore God's word and queer it up?

 

(As for the statement itself, I admit to being slightly confused; does it mean you should kill someone who's gay, or that "gay sex kills" in a propaganda-like attempt to keep them from doing it?)

 

In any case, if it's all the word of God, I don't understand how you or anybody else can just pick and choose which passages are acceptable to follow in the here and now and which ones "need modifying due to contextual changes".