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.
forum
Religious Freedom
posted
Total Posts
582
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