the rest of the people arent talking about how they are heterosexual and making extremely heterosexual comments in 50% of their posts
forum
Religious Freedom
posted
Total Posts
582
Maybe he just wants attention...but that's his way of dealing with things...he still has the right to express himself however he wants,doesn't he?
im not against it, animask has been the same for ages and nobody seems to be bothered by it.
I never said you were,I'm still new here and clearly don't have the right to say anything against you...I was just saying that he shouldn't be the main point of the discussion,since everyone has their own opinion about a certain individual.
Wojjan you of all people should know that OT doesn't work like thatWojjan wrote:
That's not how a discussion works. We don't want a pile of cards, we want a deck.tyrael6192 wrote:
I'm not seeking to dispute the opinion of anyone else here, i just wanted to throw my cards on the table.
so in the spirit of things, i made a post semi-relevant to the title of the thread without relating it to any previously-made post... i'm not asking you to read it or draw anything from it :I
But OT should be better than that.
It should at least be one of those fancy chrome-plated trash cans that open when you get close to them.
It should at least be one of those fancy chrome-plated trash cans that open when you get close to them.
You must be new here -_-
I'm really glad that this place devolved into Reddit.
you can just go back into that box you came from if you're going to be like that misterPokebis wrote:
I'm really glad that this place devolved into Reddit.
lol, I was just asking for a post dissection with that weak argument. Nah, I totally agree with most of your points; if I were to impose my atheistic beliefs unto others it would be hypocritical of me, because I hate Christians (singling them out, because they're notorious for this but to other religions as well) that have that "holier than thou" mindset.Ephemeral wrote:
good-ass points
The way I see it, they can be holier than thou. I'm fine with being smarter than thoumathexpert9981 wrote:
I hate Christians (singling them out, because they're notorious for this but to other religions as well) that have that "holier than thou" mindset.
Any Christian that'd be honest with themselves can't adopt that mindset without being hypocrites. Basically what Matthew 7:1 says: "You shall not judge, lest you be judged." Because some people deem it more important to call others out for their sins without dealing with their own problems first.
nail, meet hammer.Brian OA wrote:
Any Christian that'd be honest with themselves can't adopt that mindset without being hypocrites. Basically what Matthew 7:1 says: "You shall not judge, lest you be judged." Because some people deem it more important to call others out for their sins without dealing with their own problems first.
that is the core of the "bible-basher" attitude that you commonly see in extremist Christians.
i don't really know how to explain it properly, but a lot of religious extremism extends from the fact that people seem to feel the need to prosecute others in order to appear pious or whatever, hence when religion becomes intrusive and repulsive
This thread isn't even popcorn-worthy
It started nice tho...but then it just went in a completely wrong direction,which is to be expected of such a delicate topic.Kanye West wrote:
This thread isn't even popcorn-worthy
In any case, I had fun reading this thread. It was interesting seeing so many similar and different viewpoints.
Some interesting quotes regarding religion:
"In the 'bullshit department' a businessman can't hold a candle to a clergyman."
- George Carlin
"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
- Richard Dawkins
"Lighthouses are more helpful then churches."
- Benjamin Franklin
"It isn't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand"
- Mark Twain
"What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of “humility.” This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism."
- Albert Einstein
"In the 'bullshit department' a businessman can't hold a candle to a clergyman."
- George Carlin
"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
- Richard Dawkins
"Lighthouses are more helpful then churches."
- Benjamin Franklin
"It isn't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand"
- Mark Twain
"What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of “humility.” This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism."
- Albert Einstein
Well then it's probably time to post a George Carlin clip, huh?
Nah.
Funny as it is, it's not enough to keep the discussion going. It's like trying to argue against Nietszche's "Needle and Barbs" section in--ah God what was it... Twilight of the Gods. It's satire; arguing against jokes always end on a sour note. That said, if there's any particular point he made in the video you want me to address, I will.
Funny as it is, it's not enough to keep the discussion going. It's like trying to argue against Nietszche's "Needle and Barbs" section in--ah God what was it... Twilight of the Gods. It's satire; arguing against jokes always end on a sour note. That said, if there's any particular point he made in the video you want me to address, I will.
Oh, here's something that annoys me about Christianity, especially Roman Catholics.
The churches are just ridiculous. The protestants do it right, where it's a simple building to bring the community together. The Roman Catholics on the other hand... everything has to be gilded with stained-glass windows and gold and idols (!!) everywhere. It's a tremendous waste of money to "show people the glory of God" or whatever.
Surely it'd be better to actually help people with the money they spent on furnishing the churches like that.
The churches are just ridiculous. The protestants do it right, where it's a simple building to bring the community together. The Roman Catholics on the other hand... everything has to be gilded with stained-glass windows and gold and idols (!!) everywhere. It's a tremendous waste of money to "show people the glory of God" or whatever.
Surely it'd be better to actually help people with the money they spent on furnishing the churches like that.
This is an interesting statement, because consciousness doesn't differ from religion to religion, but from person to person. There are people out there who can do pretty terrible things, up to murder, and not lose any sleep over it. Would they be allowed into heaven? They don't feel guilt because they can justify it as eye for an eye or whatever, but what they did is still ethically wrong.Brian OA wrote:
I believe you're judged bases on your consciousness, meaning you're not going to be condemned if you have nothing to feel guilt or shame for. Meaning any good Shintoist, atheist, or pagan has as much of a shot of getting in Heaven as a Christian would, assuming said Heaven exists.
Didn't follow the discussion well but, I must say, there are tribes that expects you to kill your own father.
It's "wrong" to you and "norm" to them.
It's "wrong" to you and "norm" to them.
Why not?I surely enjoy more looking at the magnificent structures that are churches and cathedrals than waste my money on,for example,helping the poor african children.... *sarcasm*DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
Oh, here's something that annoys me about Christianity, especially Roman Catholics.
The churches are just ridiculous. The protestants do it right, where it's a simple building to bring the community together. The Roman Catholics on the other hand... everything has to be gilded with stained-glass windows and gold and idols (!!) everywhere. It's a tremendous waste of money to "show people the glory of God" or whatever.
Surely it'd be better to actually help people with the money they spent on furnishing the churches like that.
Which is exactly why morality is entirely relative... the carthaginians believed in infanticide and shit, but that doesn't mean it's 'right'. Even the term 'right' is entirely relative to the circumstance and the social context. And this, my friends, is why asserting one religion over another is bullshit.Aeidxst wrote:
Didn't follow the discussion well but, I must say, there are tribes that expects you to kill your own father.
It's "wrong" to you and "norm" to them.
tyrael6192 wrote:
Which is exactly why morality is entirely relative... the carthaginians believed in infanticide and shit, but that doesn't mean it's 'right'. Even the term 'right' is entirely relative to the circumstance and the social context. And this, my friends, is why asserting one religion over another is bullshit.
It'd be good for people to basically invent their own religion, their own idea of what created the Universe (keeping science in mind). The issue with this is that it's asocial, there's no community aspect.
I wish I was religious, though. I agree with Buddhism's teachings a LOT, but it'd be wrong to call myself one since I'm completely atheist.
Yeah, I agree. Though at this point it can't really be helped, and some of those cathedrals are beautiful, mind you. Then yet again if I had to make a list of everything that annoys about Roman Catholics, I'd have to put it in a book, not a forum post. And it's not like I'm exempt from some of that shit anyway. Regardless, it's not like those structures have stopped them from actually helping others.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
Oh, here's something that annoys me about Christianity, especially Roman Catholics.
The churches are just ridiculous. The protestants do it right, where it's a simple building to bring the community together. The Roman Catholics on the other hand... everything has to be gilded with stained-glass windows and gold and idols (!!) everywhere. It's a tremendous waste of money to "show people the glory of God" or whatever.
Surely it'd be better to actually help people with the money they spent on furnishing the churches like that.
Yeah good point, I forgot about that.Wojjan wrote:
This is an interesting statement, because consciousness doesn't differ from religion to religion, but from person to person. There are people out there who can do pretty terrible things, up to murder, and not lose any sleep over it. Would they be allowed into heaven? They don't feel guilt because they can justify it as eye for an eye or whatever, but what they did is still ethically wrong.Brian OA wrote:
I believe you're judged bases on your consciousness, meaning you're not going to be condemned if you have nothing to feel guilt or shame for. Meaning any good Shintoist, atheist, or pagan has as much of a shot of getting in Heaven as a Christian would, assuming said Heaven exists.
I doubt people are born insensitive to human suffering like that, enough to be able to kill, cheat, and steal without caring about it. That is to say, those people weren't always like that--they needed to condition themselves to be that way. I don't think we're born morally good, but we're not born morally evil either. I think we're born essentially good. A rapist, tyrant, and murderer is made, not born. They had to, at some point, drown out a voice saying "this is wrong" and eventually forgot about it as the years went by. Tempering yourself to ignore your good judgement doesn't clear you for Heaven.
Mmm, what if good judgement is developed through nurture and an acquired understanding of what society requires in order to function? In this case, it wasn't that their 'good judgement' was 'lost' or 'drowned out', but simply never acquired due to how they were raised or the experiences they did or did not undergo. If we play some sort of devil's advocate and attribute this to bad parenting, then is it truly even the fault of the person?
Assuming good judgement is acquired that way, yes. Only thing is that bad parenting would only take partial blame, not total blame as the person still has free will and it's not practically possible to adhere to one set of morals (or lack thereof) without it.
I find this debate to be more interesting than this thread.
And I can name thirty books more interesting than this thread.
Do it please D:Brian OA wrote:
And I can name thirty books more interesting than this thread.
Twilight of the Idols, Ball and the Cross, Abolition of Man, Man against Mass Society, The Tunnel, The Grand Inquisitor, Therese Raquin, Brothers Karamazov, The Gulag Archipelago, Remembering, Miracles, The History of Rasselas, Shadow of the Wind, Mutual Aid; A Factor of Evolution, Gorgias, The Consolation of Philosophy, The Four Loves, The Quest of the Holy Grail, The Idylls of the King, and fuck that's all I got.
That's not thirty 
1984, Brave New World, The Lights of September, To Kill a Mockingbird, The Canzionere, Troilus and Cressida/Criseyde, The Republic, Henry IV, De Regno, The Divine Comedy, and In Memoriam.
That's thirty now go away
That's thirty now go away
Brave New World was kinda boring for the first 80% or so
still more interesting than this thread
Still pretty interestingawp wrote:
Brave New World was kinda boring for the first 80% or so
I just realized the thread has been derailed.
I beg to differ, as the entertainment to time ratio is significantly lower.silmarilen wrote:
still more interesting than this thread
BNW takes up a lot more time than this thread does
But BNW was actually interesting, especially for a book of its age. Conditioning, mass breeding, and drugs, man. Besides, I think it has more truth in it than 1984, although 1984 was right on the dot about what would happen to language more than BNW.awp wrote:
I beg to differ, as the entertainment to time ratio is significantly lower.silmarilen wrote:
still more interesting than this thread
BNW takes up a lot more time than this thread does
books are only more interesting than debate threads if you're as passive as a fucking doorknob and have the intellectual capacity of a peanut
you learn from books, and you grow from debates, two totally separate things
you learn from books, and you grow from debates, two totally separate things
I don't want to grow
I'm already wearing size 13 shoes that's fucking inconvenient man
I'm already wearing size 13 shoes that's fucking inconvenient man
you'll put people out of a job if you dont grow
what are you a fuckin communist
what are you a fuckin communist
if that's what it takes to stop my feet from growing
What, a religious debate topic discussing books and no one mentions The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe? I am disappoint.
If you're going that route then I could make a convincing argument that at least 99% of Americans should be stoned to death for various reasons. Hell, at least 99% of anybody who lives in a developed country for that matter.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
Honestly, I think that you can't say Christianity isn't homophobic. If you only believe the "core beliefs" of the Bible, then that means you're just cherry-picking the parts that make sense, which to me just seems ridiculous. IMO, if you're a "Christian", you should believe all of the Bible since you believe is "God's word". If you don't think it's "God's word", then why do you trust the New Testament?
@Ekaru: which is why I made the argument that people should just use their common sense rather than some book written like a million years ago.
Basically all stories have morals, doesn't mean we should take them all at face value. And how come I don't see people worshipping the Canterbury Tales or the Tale of Genji?
Basically all stories have morals, doesn't mean we should take them all at face value. And how come I don't see people worshipping the Canterbury Tales or the Tale of Genji?
have you ever noticed America's the same way when it comes to the Founding Fathers?Kanye West wrote:
@Ekaru: which is why I made the argument that people should just use their common sense rather than some book written like a million years ago.
A lot of them are like "this country is going to hell, it isn't what the founding fathers would have wanted"
do you honestly believe people who lived hundreds of years ago could accurately perceive and account for the fucking future? I'm sorry but it's 2013 I wouldn't recommend taking advice from someone who was born in the 1800s or whatever they don't even know what a fucking computer is because they didn't exist back then, you short-sighted fuck
Exactly, societies evolve, and laws and morals should also evolve. Following old religious texts is like electing George Washington for the presidency in 2016 or making Genghis Khan a modern-day military generalawp wrote:
have you ever noticed America's the same way when it comes to the Founding Fathers?Kanye West wrote:
@Ekaru: which is why I made the argument that people should just use their common sense rather than some book written like a million years ago.
A lot of them are like "this country is going to hell, it isn't what the founding fathers would have wanted"
do you honestly believe people who lived hundreds of years ago could accurately perceive and account for the fucking future? I'm sorry but it's 2013 I wouldn't recommend taking advice from someone who was born in the 1800s or whatever they don't even know what a fucking computer is because they didn't exist back then, you short-sighted fuck
Morals don't evolve, though.
Two thousand years and murder is still bad; no questions there. Where said morals may be applied have drastically changed, but the principles are still there.
Two thousand years and murder is still bad; no questions there. Where said morals may be applied have drastically changed, but the principles are still there.
Principles change too (slavery etc.). Obviously not everything changes (theft, murder), but it would be pretty stupid to say that we should follow the same ethics that we did hundreds of years ago.
I'm not religious. I'm totally fine with people practicing it as long as they don't shove it on me/make others miserable because they don't believe in what they do. It's wrong and it's cruel.
Religion though is a pretty powerful thing, and I respect that. I just don't find myself believing in any of it.
Religion though is a pretty powerful thing, and I respect that. I just don't find myself believing in any of it.
Apex edited his posts before I could read them. I presume they're just idle trolling? Anyway I'll just deal with some ideas brought up in no particular order.
Moral relativism is a logical fallacy which confuses an unknown truth with a non-existent truth. If you believe something is true, it is, according to your worldview, true for everyone. However, instead of foisting your beliefs on everyone else indiscriminately, you must acknowledge the unproovability of your beliefs and respect those who have other beliefs, even if you quite reasonably assume they are wrong.
I think we can all agree that extremists/fundamentalists are an embarrassment, and falsely portray theists as self-important bigots.
One of the biggest problems we face is a lack of respect on both sides of the debate. They like to vilify their opponents and fail to consider that an opponent's view might be reasonable, just different from their own.
Religious views are widely varied. Some are unreasonable nonsense. Many more are very logical and totally compatible with science.
@DCV: Nowadays most church construction is privately funded. In the middle ages, the Roman Catholic Church was rife with corruption. That was then and I don't believe it would have broken Apostolic Succession.
Moral relativism is a logical fallacy which confuses an unknown truth with a non-existent truth. If you believe something is true, it is, according to your worldview, true for everyone. However, instead of foisting your beliefs on everyone else indiscriminately, you must acknowledge the unproovability of your beliefs and respect those who have other beliefs, even if you quite reasonably assume they are wrong.
I think we can all agree that extremists/fundamentalists are an embarrassment, and falsely portray theists as self-important bigots.
One of the biggest problems we face is a lack of respect on both sides of the debate. They like to vilify their opponents and fail to consider that an opponent's view might be reasonable, just different from their own.
Religious views are widely varied. Some are unreasonable nonsense. Many more are very logical and totally compatible with science.
@DCV: Nowadays most church construction is privately funded. In the middle ages, the Roman Catholic Church was rife with corruption. That was then and I don't believe it would have broken Apostolic Succession.
Well, according to the bible Jesus himself didn't feel homosexuality was a topic worth addressing two thousand years ago, so that is one old example we should follow.Kanye West wrote:
Principles change too (slavery etc.). Obviously not everything changes (theft, murder), but it would be pretty stupid to say that we should follow the same ethics that we did hundreds of years ago.
But it's not like we've evolved though since that implies that we've changed or even progressed. Our morality hasn't changed like a fin changes to a wing or an arm. At its core it's still the same thing it's always been.
I feel everyone has the right to decide who they love. Love is still one of those things we can't quite explain and I don't think we ever will be. Religious groups should drop the subject as honestly, what impact does it have on them? I'm not religious nor homosexual, but I feel like everyone should be treated as an equal still religious/homosexual or not. I'm very happy with my current girl friend, so why should anyone be bothered by people just doing what people do naturally. Love.Ekaru wrote:
Well, according to the bible Jesus himself didn't feel homosexuality was a topic worth addressing two thousand years ago, so that is one old example we should follow.Kanye West wrote:
Principles change too (slavery etc.). Obviously not everything changes (theft, murder), but it would be pretty stupid to say that we should follow the same ethics that we did hundreds of years ago.
Moral truths don't change. Human knowledge does.
It's not the knowledge that changes, it what is taught and told. We all know right from wrong still, but the decision to apply it or not is still up to the individual.mm201 wrote:
Moral truths don't change. Human knowledge does.
Jesus: "Love everybody, even those who you see as sinners."Potato wrote:
I feel everyone has the right to decide who they love. Love is still one of those things we can't quite explain and I don't think we ever will be. Religious groups should drop the subject as honestly, what impact does it have on them? I'm not religious nor homosexual, but I feel like everyone should be treated as an equal still religious/homosexual or not. I'm very happy with my current girl friend, so why should anyone be bothered by people just doing what people do naturally. Love.
Extremists: "LET'S IGNORE WHAT JESUS SAID!"
Yeah knowledge isn't the right word to use since this stuff has all been figured out thousands of years ago by many different civilizations.
What changes most is human culture and the "preferred" morals glorified by it.
What changes most is human culture and the "preferred" morals glorified by it.
does that accommodate for dire situationsEkaru wrote:
Jesus: "Love everybody, even those who you see as sinners."
like if someone starts beating me to death I'm probably not going to respond with unconditional love and I wouldn't expect you to, either
Keywords: HomosexualityPotato wrote:
I feel everyone has the right to decide who they love. Love is still one of those things we can't quite explain and I don't think we ever will be. Religious groups should drop the subject as honestly, what impact does it have on them? I'm not religious nor homosexual, but I feel like everyone should be treated as an equal still religious/homosexual or not. I'm very happy with my current girl friend, so why should anyone be bothered by people just doing what people do naturally. Love.
Love =/= Sexual Attraction
Both of them can be felt for a person, either individually or at the same time, but they're not interchangeable terms. Frodo and Sam love each other, but that doesn't mean Sam wants to stick it in Frodo, and that doesn't mean they're gay either.
Though yeah, the discrimination does get on my nerves too. Even if homosexuality would be a sin for a Christian, there's no reason to prioritize it over all the other wrongs.
He says you should turn the other cheek, but he'd forgive you if you beat the shit out of them so I'd go with beating the shit out of them.awp wrote:
does that accommodate for dire situationsEkaru wrote:
Jesus: "Love everybody, even those who you see as sinners."
like if someone starts beating me to death I'm probably not going to respond with unconditional love and I wouldn't expect you to, either
@ Brian OA: Being sexually attracted to someone of the same sex is not a sin. The debate is about whether or not sticking your penis in someone's anus is a sin, and it can be argued both ways.
Well Mother Theresa responded to an assailant using unconditional love. She got raped though. Plus she's a saint--even though she would've still been allowed self-defense.awp wrote:
does that accommodate for dire situationsEkaru wrote:
Jesus: "Love everybody, even those who you see as sinners."
like if someone starts beating me to death I'm probably not going to respond with unconditional love and I wouldn't expect you to, either
In dire situations you can overlook that, but in an ideal world (where everyone loves each other) there wouldn't be anyone with the gall to beat anyone else to death.
It's not the people who follow the Bible who I dislike, it's those who take the teaching of the Bible and twist it, trying to make up their own truths, feeding off the power and royalty that Jesus has provided to the religion and trying to make them seem righteous, when really when we look at it all, all humans are equal, no matter the social status or what we've done with the world. We're all brought into this world the same way and we all eventually leave it like it or not. All humans live and die, the two things that are the most important to life. I think that means we're all equal.Ekaru wrote:
Jesus: "Love everybody, even those who you see as sinners."Potato wrote:
I feel everyone has the right to decide who they love. Love is still one of those things we can't quite explain and I don't think we ever will be. Religious groups should drop the subject as honestly, what impact does it have on them? I'm not religious nor homosexual, but I feel like everyone should be treated as an equal still religious/homosexual or not. I'm very happy with my current girl friend, so why should anyone be bothered by people just doing what people do naturally. Love.
Extremists: "LET'S IGNORE WHAT JESUS SAID!"
People (such as the all hated Westboro Baptists) are what I see wrong with religion. They twist the teachings of the Bible and try to make themselves feel righteous, and the way the show it is completely wrong and horrid. That's not religion, that's pure hate. Christians (or, really, any follower of the Bible) would know that the true teachings are to treat thy neighbor well. Going about and ruining funerals or peaceful protests against the government, trying to stop gay marriage... that's not treating your fellow peers well.
EDIT:
tl;dr (kindly provided by awp)
"it's people who use faith/religion as an excuse to do morally reprehensible things that I dislike"
dude you could have just said
"it's people who use faith/religion as an excuse to do morally reprehensible things that I dislike"
woulda saved time
"it's people who use faith/religion as an excuse to do morally reprehensible things that I dislike"
woulda saved time
That's not even the point I'm making and you can't argue that Christianity doesn't view it as a sin. Whether it is one or not universally is another matter. My point is that it isn't an interchangeable term with love, that is all.Ekaru wrote:
He says you should turn the other cheek, but he'd forgive you if you beat the shit out of them so I'd go with beating the shit out of them.awp wrote:
does that accommodate for dire situations
like if someone starts beating me to death I'm probably not going to respond with unconditional love and I wouldn't expect you to, either
@ Brian OA: Being sexually attracted to someone of the same sex is not a sin. The debate is about whether or not sticking your penis in someone's anus is a sin, and it can be argued both ways.
Loving someone doesn't mean being a complete moron. When someone pulls a knife on you, you defend yourself. When you see that person 20 years later dying of a terminal illness they caught in the slums, you show compassion.
Edit: About the homosexuality thing. If you want to get picky, the church considers heterosexuality a "sin" in exactly the same way, in that they consider celibacy a virtue. Choosing not to indulge in the flesh can bring you closer to God or something. I don't understand it very well myself. Either way, it's not what I'd consider part of the basic morals and certainly wouldn't expect non-Christians to remain celibate for any reason.
Edit: About the homosexuality thing. If you want to get picky, the church considers heterosexuality a "sin" in exactly the same way, in that they consider celibacy a virtue. Choosing not to indulge in the flesh can bring you closer to God or something. I don't understand it very well myself. Either way, it's not what I'd consider part of the basic morals and certainly wouldn't expect non-Christians to remain celibate for any reason.
I just said that it can be argued the other way. And it can.Brian OA wrote:
you can't argue that Christianity doesn't view it as a sin.
Out of the 6 passages used to argue against homosexuality, one actually doesn't have anything to say in the matter - 20 passages in the bible that reference that particular passage clear this up - and two are the result of bad translation and actually don't say anything on the matter. That leaves 3 passages. Two are from Leviticus, which are irrelevant after Jesus' death, and if you put the one from Romans into its proper historical and biblical context then it can easily be argued that it doesn't say anything on the matter.
At the time the bible was written, the idea of homosexuality did not exist. That is why the bible doesn't really say anything about it, or at least anything concrete. It was believed that when a guy fucked another guy there were only two reasons why that occurred:
1) They let their lust go out of control to the point where ordinary sex could not satisfy them.
2) Idol worship. (Both explain the Leviticus passages)
Clearly, none of these even come close to what people talk about when they reference homosexual sex nowadays. You can argue that the Christian base as a whole thinks homosexuality is a sin, but that's different from it actually being a sin, so it's up for debate.
EDIT: It's a pointless debate, though, since even if homosexuality is a sin it is forgiven.
But if you say it's pointless then we'd have to stop
It was just getting interesting
It was just getting interesting
Having an interesting, reasonable debate with logical arguments would cause OT to explode.Brian OA wrote:
But if you say it's pointless then we'd have to stop
It was just getting interesting
This is a really annoying attitude of some Christian denominations, "I don't need to lead a good life since I'll be forgiven anyway." lolno.Ekaru wrote:
EDIT: It's a pointless debate, though, since even if [whatever] is a sin it is forgiven.
I dont like religion
It divides people and causes conflicts.. imo
It divides people and causes conflicts.. imo
This actually lead to me becoming an atheist but SHHHH don't tell anybody.mm201 wrote:
This is a really annoying attitude of some Christian denominations, "I don't need to lead a good life since I'll be forgiven anyway." lolno.Ekaru wrote:
EDIT: It's a pointless debate, though, since even if [whatever] is a sin it is forgiven.
Being ethically correct is the important thing, though, and what I meant was that homosexuality has little to do with being ethically correct and, as such, isn't a big deal.
and why do religious debates/discussions always end up veering toward the subject of homosexuality
I get that some Christians hate gays, but isn't that just kind of their thing? Or do the other "major religions" hate gays as well?
And besides, things you want to stick your penis in are completely different from your moral and ethical beliefs and people should stop combining the two.
After all isn't religion just supposed to be a framework around which you derive your moral/ethical beliefs from? I always thought of it that way. Religion is a tool for teaching you things. Good and bad, wrong and right. Then again I guess if your religion teaches you "homosexuality is wrong" that still fits the definition. You just picked a lousy religion, that's all!
Still don't see the logic in hating something that in no way causes you or anyone else harm.
I never really thought of the stories in religious books as "things that really happened". Just inspirational stuff
I get that some Christians hate gays, but isn't that just kind of their thing? Or do the other "major religions" hate gays as well?
And besides, things you want to stick your penis in are completely different from your moral and ethical beliefs and people should stop combining the two.
After all isn't religion just supposed to be a framework around which you derive your moral/ethical beliefs from? I always thought of it that way. Religion is a tool for teaching you things. Good and bad, wrong and right. Then again I guess if your religion teaches you "homosexuality is wrong" that still fits the definition. You just picked a lousy religion, that's all!
Still don't see the logic in hating something that in no way causes you or anyone else harm.
I never really thought of the stories in religious books as "things that really happened". Just inspirational stuff
Please read the thread before posting ignorant statements.Yuu-Chii wrote:
I dont like religion
It divides people and causes conflicts.. imo
How is this different from mythology?awp wrote:
After all isn't religion just supposed to be a framework around which you derive your moral/ethical beliefs from? I always thought of it that way. Religion is a tool for teaching you things. Good and bad, wrong and right. Then again I guess if your religion teaches you "homosexuality is wrong" that still fits the definition. You just picked a lousy religion, that's all!
Mythology is testable.
In this case it was because of the OP.awp wrote:
and why do religious debates/discussions always end up veering toward the subject of homosexuality
Typically, though, it's because a bigot tries to manipulate the discussion into giving them an excuse to justify their bigotry. Note that Jesus makes it very clear that things like being a bigot are not O.K., but they do it anyways. While most Christians aren't bigots, you can tell who is a bigot because they'll always start off with, "I'm not a bigot, but..." and then ramble on about how homosexuals are horrible, horrible people.
It's either that or because a gay marriage vote is coming up. This isn't the season for the latter, though.
Religion can go as far as science will let it go. The sun used to be a god, so was the moon, there used to be a god for every god damn thing we couldn't understand. From the moment you begin to comprehend how something works, some god disappears.
Religion is fine but it shouldn't stop any kind of development. Hasn't there been like a 1500 years lapse where science didn't really evolve at all cause "lol it's all god".
Religion is fine but it shouldn't stop any kind of development. Hasn't there been like a 1500 years lapse where science didn't really evolve at all cause "lol it's all god".
God of the gaps.Wishy wrote:
Religion can go as far as science will let it go. The sun used to be a god, so was the moon, there used to be a god for every god damn thing we couldn't understand. From the moment you begin to comprehend how something works, some god disappears.
Religion is fine but it shouldn't stop any kind of development. Hasn't there been like a 1500 years lapse where science didn't really evolve at all cause "lol it's all god".
Yes, that was called the Dark Ages.
God of the Dark Ages.
I thought lewa was god of the dark ages.
yeah just how is "religion creates division IMO" an ignorant statement, please clarify... because you know i'm pretty sure it does and there are a host of common sense arguments that don't really need to be mentioned
It is said that people who have seen the light, spread the most darkness.
Pretty much why extremely religious people make me puke. Anyone else is just fine, though!
Pretty much why extremely religious people make me puke. Anyone else is just fine, though!
This is a common misconception. Rather, the dark ages were caused by the collapse of the Roman Empire. During this period, in the west, monasteries were among the only places where classical Roman knowledge was retained and advanced.Wishy wrote:
Religion is fine but it shouldn't stop any kind of development. Hasn't there been like a 1500 years lapse where science didn't really evolve at all cause "lol it's all god".
As has already been discussed, war and strife happen because of worldly motivations like wealth and power. One of Christianity's founding principles is to bring people together and live in peace. (I can't speak on behalf of other religious systems.) Religion is used as a scapegoat for war by non-religious people so they can feel like they aren't part of the problem.tyrael6192 wrote:
yeah just how is "religion creates division IMO" an ignorant statement, please clarify... because you know i'm pretty sure it does and there are a host of common sense arguments that don't really need to be mentioned
I think you missed the entire point of the crusades.mm201 wrote:
This is a common misconception. Rather, the dark ages were caused by the collapse of the Roman Empire. During this period, in the west, monasteries were among the only places where classical Roman knowledge was retained and advanced.Wishy wrote:
Religion is fine but it shouldn't stop any kind of development. Hasn't there been like a 1500 years lapse where science didn't really evolve at all cause "lol it's all god".As has already been discussed, war and strife happen because of worldly motivations like wealth and power. One of Christianity's founding principles is to bring people together and live in peace. (I can't speak on behalf of other religious systems.) Religion is used as a scapegoat for war by non-religious people so they can feel like they aren't part of the problem.tyrael6192 wrote:
yeah just how is "religion creates division IMO" an ignorant statement, please clarify... because you know i'm pretty sure it does and there are a host of common sense arguments that don't really need to be mentioned
Oh, and if Christianity (and other faiths) is meant to bring people together, then why am I supposedly going to hell because I'm not Christian? Isn't that segregation?
Hey my post wasnt directed to anyone...mm201 wrote:
Please read the thread before posting ignorant statements.Yuu-Chii wrote:
I dont like religion
It divides people and causes conflicts.. imo
I was just saying how I felt....
If you were offended or anything...
Religion does cause conflict, that is entirely true. If it didn't we wouldn't be having a thread discussing religious freedom.Yuu-Chii wrote:
Hey my post wasnt directed to anyone...
I was just saying how I felt....
If you were offended or anything...
I'm not sure why his jimmies were rustled from your comment.
It's just that we had already covered that, so there would be no point in bringing it up again.Yuu-Chii wrote:
Hey my post wasnt directed to anyone...
I was just saying how I felt....
If you were offended or anything...
I agree; there've still been cases of religious prosecution as far as the Catholic Church is involved. I don't think the same can be said about religion in general though.Kanye West wrote:
I think you missed the entire point of the crusades.
Oh, and if Christianity (and other faiths) is meant to bring people together, then why am I supposedly going to hell because I'm not Christian? Isn't that segregation?
As for the whole "Hell" thing, there's always Judgement Day. Still, this is a pretty vague topic since there's no clear cut way on how it all works--Dante put it one way and even made up a few things not even mentioned in the Bible (perhaps in one of the Apocrypha, but vague nonetheless), and C.S. Lewis did the same as well. Some say you have one last chance before you go into Hell, others say there's this level called "Limbo", etc.
Only thing I can say about Hell is that you're not "thrown" there. You go in there out of your own accord.
Yes, religion can cause conflict. But I don't think that's a good argument as to why religion is bad. If we didn't have religion, we would find some other silly way to divide ourselves and fight over that. This is because humans have an inherent urge to feel superior to others.
@Brian: I agree with you, I wasn't trying to generalize that way. I agree in that your actions and deeds are more important than your religion in determining the value and meaning of your life. I just don't like the attitude of some (not all, mind you) Christians when they say I'm going to hell because I don't accept Jesus as my savior or w/e. I think that's discriminatory and elitist.
@Brian: I agree with you, I wasn't trying to generalize that way. I agree in that your actions and deeds are more important than your religion in determining the value and meaning of your life. I just don't like the attitude of some (not all, mind you) Christians when they say I'm going to hell because I don't accept Jesus as my savior or w/e. I think that's discriminatory and elitist.
But if its okay....
Theres one thing i would like to say...
Because of my religious friends/family and what i hear in church(i get dragged along once in a while)...
The thing that really makes me dislike religion is....
When people talk about religion and stuff....
I get the feeling that they are trying shove it in my face... "If you don't believe in god, you go to hell"
Like when they say... You have to ask for forgiveness... to get into god's "good record" and stuff or wtv
I hate that concept so much
I mean... why cant i choose to not believe in god...
Why cant i do what i like...
I see so many people commiting crimes and getting away with it...
And im a completely record-free civillian
And they are trying to tell me that I will go to hell just because I do some petty sins that doesnt even impact anybody but myself...
Thats sounds intimidating to me
I mean... the way they say it...
Its kinda like
"You are doing it wrong!!"
"My way is the right way... If you dont do it this way.. You wont die peacfully"
minus the the straightforwardness
Theres one thing i would like to say...
Because of my religious friends/family and what i hear in church(i get dragged along once in a while)...
The thing that really makes me dislike religion is....
When people talk about religion and stuff....
I get the feeling that they are trying shove it in my face... "If you don't believe in god, you go to hell"
Like when they say... You have to ask for forgiveness... to get into god's "good record" and stuff or wtv
I hate that concept so much
I mean... why cant i choose to not believe in god...
Why cant i do what i like...
I see so many people commiting crimes and getting away with it...
And im a completely record-free civillian
And they are trying to tell me that I will go to hell just because I do some petty sins that doesnt even impact anybody but myself...
Thats sounds intimidating to me
I mean... the way they say it...
Its kinda like
"You are doing it wrong!!"
"My way is the right way... If you dont do it this way.. You wont die peacfully"
minus the the straightforwardness