Religious Tolerance & Religious Moderation Are a Joke

[NoCalMike 0]

To me it is kind of irrelevent anyway. I mean it seems "homosexuality" is treated as an ULTIMATE SIN rather then just merely another sin like the bible says. I am not a bible scholar, but I thought that there is no level of sin, so it kind of amazes me how much emotion and effort people put into hating gays yet at the same time could care less about gambling, shellfish, and other so-called sinning that is amongst them on a daily basis. I think the religious right knows that enough non-religious people are homophobic and/or hate gays merely because the idea of gay male sex makes them sick, that they have enough support to piggy-back the wedge issues into the mainstream political agenda.

 

Again, I am not sure how two gays having sex and/or getting married affects YOUR religious beliefs.

[Jingus 0]

Yeah, it's weird how some conservatives obsess on fags to a suspicious degree. Don't you have more important things to worry about, like maybe the Muslims who're trying to kill us all?

 

 

As to the "Bible don't preach intolerance towards gays"... aw, did I kill the discussion dead by using actual factual references? Sorry guys, but the Bible says quite plainly that homosexuals should be stoned to death. (Yet another reason why I'm not a Christian.)

[Guest]

This is probably the only post I'm going to make in this thread, just to let that be known before I say this. I think this is the best verse to describe my faith and how what is said in Leviticus needs to be construed as. I didn't just choose this passage because it was in the book named after the prophet that I'm named after, mind you.

 

"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." Jeremiah 31:31-34

 

What I bolded is a reference to the Old Testament, and more specifically the things stated in Numbers, Leviticus and Deuteronomy. That is the Old Covenant. Does that render everything said in there dead, not necessarily. The New Testament is the New Covenant. NOT what is said in Leviticus. Seriously guys, what's so hard to understand.

 

Now, do I think that all homosexuals should be killed, no. Do I hate homosexuals? No, I do not. Do I strongly dislike homosexuality, which I feel to be a sin? Yes, I do. I don't hate people because they're gay. That's not what the Bible teaches. Love the sinner, hate the sin. I don't care whether or not a person is a homosexual. That's not my business. It's also not my business to judge them for what I feel is wrong. I will never walk up to a person and deride them just because they are a homosexual. It's not my place to do so, as it is no other person's place to do so.

 

I am aware that homosexuality is not always a choice. I also believe that God makes concessions for those people that do not choose to be a homosexual. I also believe that homosexuals get into Heaven just the same as heterosexuals. A person's sexuality is not the end-all-be-all of their person.

 

If someone responds with something other than the strawman garbage that has been thrown around in the majority of this thread, I'll have no problem with continuing this discussion. But otherwise, count me out.

[Jingus 0]

What I bolded is a reference to the Old Testament, and more specifically the things stated in Numbers, Leviticus and Deuteronomy. That is the Old Covenant. Does that render everything said in there dead, not necessarily. The New Testament is the New Covenant. NOT what is said in Leviticus. Seriously guys, what's so hard to understand.

 

And don't give me the "well that's only in the Old Testament, that's not what Christianity really is" argument, because they keep going way into the NT as well. Romans 1:27, Corinthians 6:9, Timothy 1:10, and various others are very, very clear in their condemnation of buttfucking and pillowbiting.

[Guest]

I fail to see what is so terrible and condemning about these passages.

 

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 of their error which was meet.- Romans 1:27

 

1 Cr 6:9Know 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,

1Cr 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

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

I think you needed to read the whole thing. Am I right. Clearly you are not of the belief that the passage is specifically about homosexualiy, but rather a number of things and most importantly, accepting God into your heart. Nobody's perfect, and not only that, but this was a message written to the Christian Church of the time.

 

As far as Timothy 1:10 goes, read this

 

http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1Ti/1Ti001.html

 

and keep reading until the point turns into something else. Hopefully you can tell when that is.

 

Pointing out specific passages is always going to lead to falsehoods and misinterpretations. The Bible is not something to be picked at and quoted, it (more importantly the New Testament) is something to be looked at as a whole. It's better to read the whole book or look through the book until you find where the writing about the subject originates from instead of picking and choosing.

 

Nothing in those passages is hellfire and brimstone, ye must change lest ye be certainly cast into the fires of Hell type writing, as you would so have everyone believe. There is no condemnation in any of those quotes.

[Guest George's Box]

Believing in God is half the battle (there's only one)

Bob Rohrman?

[Guest panthermatt7]

I fail to see what is so terrible and condemning about these passages.

 

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 of their error which was meet.- Romans 1:27

 

1 Cr 6:9Know 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,

1Cr 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

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

I think you needed to read the whole thing. Am I right. Clearly you are not of the belief that the passage is specifically about homosexualiy, but rather a number of things and most importantly, accepting God into your heart. Nobody's perfect, and not only that, but this was a message written to the Christian Church of the time.

 

As far as Timothy 1:10 goes, read this

 

http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1Ti/1Ti001.html

 

and keep reading until the point turns into something else. Hopefully you can tell when that is.

 

Pointing out specific passages is always going to lead to falsehoods and misinterpretations. The Bible is not something to be picked at and quoted, it (more importantly the New Testament) is something to be looked at as a whole. It's better to read the whole book or look through the book until you find where the writing about the subject originates from instead of picking and choosing.

 

Nothing in those passages is hellfire and brimstone, ye must change lest ye be certainly cast into the fires of Hell type writing, as you would so have everyone believe. There is no condemnation in any of those quotes.

 

I agree. It's just as easy to quote Bible verses individually as a tool for disproving it, as it is to pick and choose verses that can be misinterpreted into manipulating hatred towards specific sects of people. (Essentially, you're doing the same thing that people condemn terrorists for doing, when they convince people to join their cause based on out-of-context verses.)

 

Not only that, but a lot of references to "they will surely die" do NOT actually mean that humans should put them to death. It simply means that they will not live an eternal life in heaven (i.e., dying).

 

I missed out on this stuff yesterday as stuff was too busy at work, but I'm bored again today, so I'll be around -- I look forward to chatting.

[Guest panthermatt7]

I thought everyone agreed but you.

 

What a stunning and relevant insight. I guess that makes me wrong!!!!

 

I would put forth the idea that modern Christianity, meaning people in my generation (18-25), have a BETTER understanding of how to apply the Bible to real life. The baby boomer generation, and above, are the ones that have a really f'ed up view from time to time -- it's usually them that you hear talking about killing the gays. My generation has a generally peaceful and progressive view of faith, except for the bad apples of course.

 

And Catholics don't count, because let's be honest... they worship the Pope & Virgin Mary, NOT Christ. Okay, that's a generalization, but I like it.

 

Oh absolutely. Some of Christendom seems to be becoming more liberal and less intrusive, with people realizing that spirituality doesn't need to be some overbearing, intensely serious thing.

 

Also, your avatar is outstanding for this sort of discussion.

 

Nah, I was just saying if there isn't at least one party on each side of the spectrum, there wouldn't be much discussion.

|

v

 

Thanks, I like the avatar too!

 

If I may -- I'm glad that there are differing opinions, otherwise this would be a really boring debate, not to mention forum.

[Guest Tzar Lysergic]

Believing in God is half the battle (there's only one)

Bob Rohrman?

 

Just so you're aware, I'm the one person here who gets that reference. Porter might, too.

[DrVenkman PhD 0]

I'm a little late on this one but I'm pretty sure the fact that passages WWM posted had to be put into context ("blood on the stones really means this....", "That's from the Old Testament...") only proved the point he was trying to make about how - word for word without using common sense to put them in context - such things could technically be promoted by the Bible.

 

I don't really discuss religion with people, but I will say the closest I came to going to the athiest side was reading a Jack Chick tract that had a palentologist holding up a dinosuar bone being called a "God hater". As soon as I read that I momentarily decided all religious people are insane, but I realized that would be a very broad generalization.

[Jingus 0]

Pointing out specific passages is always going to lead to falsehoods and misinterpretations. The Bible is not something to be picked at and quoted, it (more importantly the New Testament) is something to be looked at as a whole. It's better to read the whole book or look through the book until you find where the writing about the subject originates from instead of picking and choosing.

I have read the whole book. When the world at large can even agree on one English translation, let me know. Til then, I'd say it's a work of man and pretty damn fallible.

 

Nothing in those passages is hellfire and brimstone, ye must change lest ye be certainly cast into the fires of Hell type writing, as you would so have everyone believe. There is no condemnation in any of those quotes.

 

1 Cr 6:9Know 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,

"Fags go to hell." (Along with anyone who isn't a Christian or has nonmonogamous sex.) How else do you interpret "not inherit the kingdom of God?"

[EricMM 0]

effeminate = gay?

 

What about Lesbians?

 

Hmm...

[Gary Floyd 0]

Believing in God is half the battle

"Now we believe!'

 

"And believing is half the Battle."

 

 

 

G.I. Job!

[Guest George's Box]

Believing in God is half the battle

"Now we believe!'

 

"And believing is half the Battle."

 

 

 

G.I. Job!

You don't suck. Never change. Friends forever.

[Gary Floyd 0]

Believing in God is half the battle

"Now we believe!'

 

"And believing is half the Battle."

 

 

 

G.I. Job!

You don't suck. Never change. Friends forever.

aww shucks.

 

 

I don't know why, BUTT his thread is bringing back memories of back when I was seven years old and realized that Creationism is bullshit. I got into a lot of arguments with a lot of adults over that.

[2GOLD 0]

Believing in God is half the battle

"Now we believe!'

 

"And believing is half the Battle."

 

 

 

G.I. Job!

You don't suck. Never change. Friends forever.

aww shucks.

 

 

I don't know why, BUTT his thread is bringing back memories of back when I was seven years old and realized that Creationism is bullshit. I got into a lot of arguments with a lot of adults over that.

 

I pretty much abandoned creationism when I realized we would all have to be related for it to be true. And the idea of all of humanity coming about from Adam and Eve having lots and lots of sex and then their children having lots of sex with each other was just incredibly disturbing.

 

I've yet to figure out why people want to support that idea. I'd rather be descended from poop flinging monkeys than incest family. Too damn creepy for me.

[Jingus 0]

What about Lesbians?

As far as I can remember, they're never mentioned. Of course, this is the Bible we're talking about, women are mostly portrayed as being men's property.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

The Bible has plenty of heroines in it (at least from a Christian perspective).

[TheBigSwigg 0]

How about we make a deal to figure this out when we're all dead and gone? If there is a God, and the Bible's right, we'll find out afterwards.

 

And WWM, the Bible being the Word of God does not mean that God created it Himself, it means that he inspired those who wrote it. How it was inspired is up to debate. If you don't believe in God, then it doesn't matter, does it? And you shouldn't worry about people who do believe in it because you don't believe in it. Otherwise you're just as bigoted and intolerant as the Fundamentalists.

 

Also, to re-affirm what others have said, religion is neither inherently intolerant or violent. People are. The Bible does not tell us(general humanity) to kill outside of the laws set forth in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and those were laws for a nation.

 

And Jingus, I could debunk some of those "inconsistencies." But it would require you to believe in the Bible, or be open to understanding the Christian mindset.

[Guest]

It would require Jingus to be in possession of a functioning brain.

 

And no, I'm not saying that because he's not a Christian, he's an idiot. I think he's an idiot regardless of his religious beliefs.

[EricMM 0]

The Bible has plenty of heroines in it (at least from a Christian perspective).

What is that perspective then? They're faithful yet still chattel?

 

And Jingus, I could debunk some of those "inconsistencies." But it would require you to believe in the Bible, or be open to understanding the Christian mindset.

To in order to ignore the inconsistancies in the bible, you just have to want to ignore them. Fascinating.

 

This still reminds me of a logics class I had in college.

 

Prof: Somebody try to prove to me the soul exists.

Student: It says so in the bible.

P: What if the bible is wrong?

S: ...The bible is the word of God, it cannot be wrong.

P: What if God doesn't exist? Would you still believe in souls?

S: Whatever, if you won't listen to logic...

 

etc.

 

If you cannot prove the bible's truths without the bible, then where's the truth?

[Brett Favre 0]

You can't disprove the truths either. If we're going into an existence of God argument here, there's a bunch of arguments for and against it.

[World's Worst Man 0]

Also, to re-affirm what others have said, religion is neither inherently intolerant or violent. People are. The Bible does not tell us(general humanity) to kill outside of the laws set forth in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and those were laws for a nation.

 

Religion isn't inherently violent or intolerant, but Christianity and Islam sure are. And while most people have wised up and ignored that content, the fact of the matter is that religious intolerance is a central, recurring theme in the bible. You could correctly say that most modern followers of the religion don't believe, or at least don't act on those teachings, but that's not really relevant to the point at all. The point is that the only thing of substance that the Christian faith is based off of contains large amounts of content that has to be ignored in order to live in a civilized society. Knowing that, I can come to my own conclusion on the nature and credibility of the bible, and by extension, the whole faith.

 

Here's some logic -

 

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he's not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?

Then he's malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?"

[Brett Favre 0]

Here's some logic -

 

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he's not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?

Then he's malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?"

 

Of course he's omnipotent. But that doesn't entail he's evil because he allows evil to take place. What makes us better than angels (yes, I know you don't believe in angel) is that we are allowed to make decisions. Angels are naturally good, and we naturally have the choice to choose good which makes us better. When he gives us the choice to do good, it comes with the possibility of doing evil. Think of it as free will. I mean think about it. How would he separate the good people from the bad people if he's choosing for them? And how will there be good in the world if there is nothing for the good to do to prove themselves good if there is no evil?

[World's Worst Man 0]

If God is omniscient (which would be a by-product of omnipotence, although Christians tend to attribute it separately), free will doesn't exist and he knew evil would result in his actions. That would make him malevolent.

[Brett Favre 0]

Omniscient isn't directly correlated with free will. He knows that we have choices, and it's up to us to make the right choice. Think of it as different worlds. Each choice you make is a different world with a God who is omniscient. Lets say you choose between going home or going to your next class. He knows that you have a choice of either one, and when you make the choice, lets say you go to class, it's a different world than going home, and when you make the choice he knows that you're going to class. Just because God knows what's going to happen, doesn't mean he's choosing for you.

[Gary Floyd 0]

The Bible has plenty of heroin in it.

William Burroughs wrote the Bible? Funny, I must have missed the parable about shooting your wife in the head.

[World's Worst Man 0]

Omniscience entails that there is no free will, because all of our choices would be pre-determined. If something knows all of our choices before we've made them, the we don't really have free will. It might be the illusion of free will, but that's not really the same thing. So God is either not omniscient and by extension, omnipotent, or humans don't have free will.

[Brett Favre 0]

Omniscience would entail that God has all the knowledge. No where in the definition does it say that choices are pre-determined. Which is why free will still takes place.

 

Let me use an example. If I know this guy who comes to work everyday, and I say tomorrow that he will come to work, and he does come to work, does that mean i'm Omniscient? You could use that as an example of someone knowing something yet not doing the action, or pre-determining the action for them. The guy still had free will.

[World's Worst Man 0]

You're not understanding the concept of omniscience. Knowing is different than guessing or assuming. You might think you know that hes coming into work, but you really don't. Knowing would mean you would be right about the outcome if the situation was repeated an infinite number of times. Suffice to say, you would not be right in every scenario. In any case, my argument stands.