Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

No

Only Judeism

Only Islam

Yes to both Judeism and Islam

[Helgoland]

People, America != the entire world. Just because a significant portion of your Christians are zealots with an unhealthy fixation on sexuality doesn't mean every Christian everywhere is.

[smeeprocket]

People, America != the entire world. Just because a significant portion of your Christians are zealots with an unhealthy fixation on sexuality doesn't mean every Christian everywhere is.

#Notallchristians

No, I was referring to the direct word of the bible. The thing christians are supposed to follow. That's the god I am talking about. I refer directly to the source.

[Telgin]

People, America != the entire world. Just because a significant portion of your Christians are zealots with an unhealthy fixation on sexuality doesn't mean every Christian everywhere is.

Absolutely, but... since the Bible does say that being gay is a sin worth death it's kind of hard to ignore.

[Helgoland]

We went over that a couple of pages back. Having the bible as the One True Source Of Everything is a rather protestant idea: For Catholics, the Vatican takes precedence. And even that is mostly theoretical: Religion is not about what's written down or what some old dudes say, but about what actually goes on at Church.

So yeah, _supposed_ to follow, in a certain sense. Most don't though, and that's a good thing.


Also, fear of TEH GAY is not that strongly supported by the bible: IIRC there's only a couple of bits about sodomy in the OT, and that's kinda non-binding for non-Jews.

[smeeprocket]

Old Testament was pretty binding when I was christian. I was Quaker and they are pretty laid back, too.

Really, Catholicism wouldn't be the sect I would have referred to, since it is a big part of oppression of women in many, especially third world, countries. As well as being pretty awful throughout history.

This current Pope is an anomaly, and the flock isn't exactly listening to him.

I would consider Catholicism a large part of the problem.

I would have used like Episcopalians or something. Is that right? I think they are the more open-minded ones.

[Frumple]

Also, fear of TEH GAY is not that strongly supported by the bible: IIRC there's only a couple of bits about sodomy in the OT, and that's kinda non-binding for non-Jews.

And even to the extent it is condemned, it's not like most christians don't happily ignore similar strictures. Presence in the bible is of arguable importance a lot of the time, heh.

E: Though the OT being binding is something of an anomaly, so far as I'm aware. Most christian denominations I've encountered hold at least some variation of its laws and whatnot being inapplicable after Streaker J did his thing. New convent, etc., etc.

[Telgin]

Also, fear of TEH GAY is not that strongly supported by the bible: IIRC there's only a couple of bits about sodomy in the OT, and that's kinda non-binding for non-Jews.

It's still awfully mean for gay Jews, of course.  I'm also almost positive that there is at least one passage in the new testament against it too, but I actively try to avoid paying attention in church these days so I couldn't begin to tell you where it is.  I'm sure more knowledgeable folks will come along at some point.

Anyway, I'd like to agree that disregarding the Bible as absolute truth is a great start and that what people do is more important, but that's not well supported by the Bible itself.  Scripture seems to be quite important, and doesn't the Bible itself threaten anyone who dares change the word of God?  Or, well, I guess if you don't count the Bible as the word of God then that doesn't matter.

How much can you safely disregard though?

[smeeprocket]

Right but that kind of defeats having faith in a higher power if you have to override the orders of said power to do the right thing.

That's not really faith, you are going off your own, (better,) moral compass as opposed to the word of your God.

Don't get me wrong, ALL Christians do that. The bad ones and the good ones. Some of the demands are just silly. But that would make me question the validity of the man upstairs.

And if the Bible isn't his words, why did he let it get out and be presented like that? If he is not the malevolent deity he appears to be via those texts, why give that impression and create this long history of human suffering?

Is he testing us? Are we just a big science experiment? But doesn't he already know the results?

[Rolan7]

People, America != the entire world. Just because a significant portion of your Christians are zealots with an unhealthy fixation on sexuality doesn't mean every Christian everywhere is.

I do think the discussion is more likely to survive if we try to ignore the more extreme Christians who are threatening our liberties.  That issue has more to do with hatred and politics than Christian beliefs.  Though certain parts of Christian dogma do encourage it...  But there are reasonable Christians here to talk to, and arguing about that stuff got us nowhere but angry last time.

Fakedit:  But, maybe we can continue to discuss this calmly 
Here's a reference to mentions of homosexuality in the Bible: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm
(This is that annotated Bible which is easy to navigate, with a focus on passages categorized by discussion topic)
Paul says, in 1 Romans:

1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
1:27 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.

And Timothy says, in 1 Corinthians:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

So maybe not "fear" of TEH GAY, but it'll keep you out of heaven and is vile.  Even being "effeminate".

[MetalSlimeHunt]

People, America != the entire world. Just because a significant portion of your Christians are zealots with an unhealthy fixation on sexuality doesn't mean every Christian everywhere is.

If we want to talk about zealotry, it would be more accurate to focus on African Christians than American ones. But even so, anybody who really considers and believes in the word of the Bible is going to have to dismiss secularism and most societal revisions. I'll give the Euro Christians credit, they dress it up much better, but then, they also have the most experience in that regard.

[smeeprocket]

Right but I'm asking reasonable Christians, why are you Christian?

Either your fate has already been sealed one way or another, and believing or not believing is irrelevant to your location after death (omnipotent, omniscient,) so it seems unnecessary and burdensome, or your God is kind of a jerk, and it would only be worth following him out of fear.

[Helgoland]

Well, I'm Catholic because I believe a) that religion is a natural urge of man, just like hunger or wanting company, so it should be satiated in a controlled, non-harmful manner, b) that religion, when applied the right way, is a very useful tool to bring people together, especially in increasingly individualist times such as our own, c) that the particular religion of an area or of a people is a tradition that should be upheld like any tradition that does not harm people, and d) that Catholicism is a better means of achieving said goals than Protestantism, because it's eassier to keep our crazies under control.

As you may have noticed, I'm not Catholic because I believe~

[smeeprocket]

Well, I'm Catholic because I believe a) that religion is a natural urge of man, just like hunger or wanting company, so it should be satiated in a controlled, non-harmful manner, b) that religion, when applied the right way, is a very useful tool to bring people together, especially in increasingly individualist times such as our own, c) that the particular religion of an area or of a people is a tradition that should be upheld like any tradition that does not harm people, and d) that Catholicism is a better means of achieving said goals than Protestantism, because it's eassier to keep our crazies under control.

As you may have noticed, I'm not Catholic because I believe~

That makes no sense, why not be part of a more loose, morally motivated religion? You can still support people's right to believe and it's benefits without signing on. (Plus, you technically still end up in hell.)

[scrdest]

a) that religion is a natural urge of man, just like hunger or wanting company, so it should be satiated in a controlled, non-harmful manner

I would question that.

[smeeprocket]

a) that religion is a natural urge of man, just like hunger or wanting company, so it should be satiated in a controlled, non-harmful manner

I would question that.

yea I thought there was a god spot but maybe there isn't, after all.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/20/god-spot-in-brain-is-not-_n_1440518.html

Well, in that case, no one has a good excuse anymore.