|
|
|
Re:Religion
|
|
Date: 2008/03/19 04:47
|
By: BravoLima
|
Status:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not saying cling to some of what the church believes, I'm saying to either accept it, or reject it. Not to come up with this 'convenient' little alternatives that just so happen to suit his sexuality.
For fuck's sake Dan, give it up. The whole idea of it was to pose the point that it's silly to just change little parts of a religion that's generally anti-gay to 'suit yourself'. You should either become something else, or just reject Catholicism altogether.
This is why I started out asking him who taught him to believe in God. And just look at his answer, how telling of the way things work. You think you know about God? You think you know if he's tolerant of you being gay? Prove it. But sure, people will always reinterpret the Bible to mean what they want it to. This is why the Bible isn't worth the paper it's printed on (someone think of the trees  ). We haven't moved from the dark ages due to 'reinterpretation' of the Bible, your religiously centric ideas are astounding. We've moved from the dark ages due to laxing the influence the Church has had on the law.
Vladimir Lenin was the first to legalise homosexuality when the Bolsheviks came into power. This wasn't because he was gay, this wasn't because of advancements in science that proved that gay was as valid a sexual orientation as heterosexuality, it was to remove the Church as an authority. The law that existed stated that homosexuality was illegal because it was immoral. This was changed, it was legalised. This is how progression has happened; Lenin never turned around and said (in Russian mind you), 'Well, shucks, the Bibles not 100%, so I think blah blah blah...', the Communist party completely tore down the religious influence on the law. Then came Stalin, barely a commie, and went with the mainstream conservative strain of thought and re-illegalised it, based on his own religious morals.
The Bible doesn't need re-interpretation, it needs a bin.
You should always respect one's religious beliefs, however imaginary friends, delusional behaviour, a belief in a two thousand year old folk-lore should be treated by a professional.
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
 |
|
Re:Religion
|
|
Date: 2008/03/19 12:43
|
By: Dan69
|
Status:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If religion had not changed with society, then it would have held back society as it is doing today.
The reason behind peopel being against homosexuality back then have nothign to do with morals. It was a simple fact of survival. Wars, diseases, both were much more common back then, so they needed more offspring to keep their countries strong, this is also why girls were married as soon as they could reproduce. If a man was gay, more than likely he would not reproduce, which in turn caused problems for the government. The church put their own spin on it to make more people want to believe it, but the root of the problem was elsewhere.
Now then... The law may have been changed because they thought it would weaken the religion's power there, but if the law had not been made, religion wouldn't have opposed it in the first place, and we would not have the problems we have today.
On another note.. if you want to make a debate out of this. Take it to the debate section. You have no right to tell people what they can and cannot believe. Nor do you have the right to say that he is wrong to choose what he believes of his religion's teachings. No matter what anyone tells you, there is no one on the planet that believes 100% of the things written in their chosen holy books.
No those pants don't make your butt look big. It doesn't need any help looking big.
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
|
Re:Religion
|
|
Date: 2008/03/20 04:21
|
By: BravoLima
|
Status:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You make it sound like 'religion' changed willingly. Over time, it has only changed once there was enough opposition to it.
'The reason behind peopel being against homosexuality back then have nothign to do with morals. It was a simple fact of survival.'
Show me something that proves that their law making against homosexuality was based on survival, rather than the Church's instilled sense of homosexuality being an immoral sin.
Besides, apparently the Celts were known for socially constructed male-male relationships. Kind of like a Celtic translation of paederastia.
Christianity is notorious for being anti-gay. Not just now, but since it's inception. If you want me to believe otherwise, you'd have to show me some pretty good proof. And not something coming out of the office of Il Papa.
'On another note.. if you want to make a debate out of this. Take it to the debate section. You have no right to tell people what they can and cannot believe. Nor do you have the right to say that he is wrong to choose what he believes of his religion's teachings. No matter what anyone tells you, there is no one on the planet that believes 100% of the things written in their chosen holy books.'
And you have no right to tell me what I can and can't tell people. Consequently, I can tell someone whatever the hell I want to... circular logic?
I never told the dupe what he can believe, my time would be wasted, I don't control him. I tried to engage his mind, something you haven't understood.
Of course I can argue that his interpretations of the 'religious teachings' is incorrect.
If he can just reinterpret religion willy nilly then a terrorist bomber can say that he's just performing the will of Allah. He's just following Islam as he's interpreted it. So you see, there is a limit to what religion really can be reinterpreted.
Heck, at the end of the day, he could reinterpret his silly book to mean that he can kill hookers if he wants to, and that would be up to him and his deluded beliefs.
You should always respect one's religious beliefs, however imaginary friends, delusional behaviour, a belief in a two thousand year old folk-lore should be treated by a professional.
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
 |
|
Re:Religion
|
|
Date: 2008/03/20 09:04
|
By: dangreen
|
Status:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bravo I am sick of you constantly insulting religions on here. It has got to stop. We all know your opinions on religion and they are closed minded and bigoted. This board is for talking about religion not blindly condemning it. When you want to contribute in a positive way to the topic please do so, but until then keep your opinions to yourself if you cannot keep your conversations polite.
Dan Green
Forum/Chat Mod
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
 |
|
Re:Religion
|
|
Date: 2008/03/20 20:43
|
By: Steely Dan
|
Status:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BravoLima wrote:
So then, you're saying that Hitler actually wanted sex with Jews? 
Yes. You see Bravo, we need to re-interpret Hitler's words otherwise Germans would still be stoning whores.
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
 |
|
Re:Religion
|
|
Date: 2008/03/21 17:44
|
By: Lalu
|
Status:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BravoLima, I'm sorry fanatical, fundamental Catholics tried to indoctrinate you, so you clearly hate the establishment of the church. Like I said, and I'm sure a lot of other Catholics will tell you, the ESTABLISHMENT has been horrid forever.
Yes, the Church gave me the idea of God, but they never forced me to follow it. I follow Christianity because I think it gives good lessons living your life. I'm not forced to go to church, I and a whole lot of other people like living a Christian life, so get it out of your head that it's all forced. No shit someone else introduced me to religion, just like they did to every other thing I do, but it's my own fucking choice what I do and what I don't.
Jesus tells you to love everyone and be faithful to the ones that love you. Number one lesson. That means homosexuals too. We know that Jesus loved all adulterers and prostitutes, so if homosexuality hadn't been so freakin' underground in 27 AD, I'm sure we would have heard about his love for sodomites too.
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
|
Re:Religion
|
|
Date: 2008/03/28 12:52
|
By: Steely Dan
|
Status:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
he was willing to forgive adulterers and prostitutes, implying it was a sin to him; right there you can see Jesus is a pretentious fuckhead who needs to come down to earth. There is no sin and I don't need an Arian to forgive me in order to get through life.
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
|
Re:Religion
|
|
Date: 2008/03/28 16:39
|
By: BravoLima
|
Status:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dangreen:
So nice of you to define what is contribution and what isn't. Glad your voice is mute and doesn't actually define anything.
Lalu:
I've only once met a fanatical, fundamental Catholic before. Seriously, he was messed up. He thought a soul was a literal, physical, tangible object within the human body. I guess he's never talked to a surgeon before. So I really don't know where you pull that one from. Regular christians are bad enough, if you must know.
Ah-hah. You see, the Church gave you the idea of God. By your own admission, you say that you never discovered God yourself, he never proved himself to you, you had no logical reason to believe in him. An establishment taught you a God; a God as in the Bible, a God that dislikes gays. You went and twisted their story just a little to suit yourself. Do you still not see this?
How do you know what Jesus said? Who said that Jesus said these things? Did the Church tell you he said these things? If so, who are you to reinterpret them to suit yourself?
If a fundamental Islamic (read in post 9/11, terrorist), reinterprets the Holy Kuran to justify his sacrifice as being in the name of Allah, do you accept that he is indeed a Muslim? Many would say no, because he went against the actual teachings of the religion, and that his idea of Islam is only a twisted and incorrect one.
So why do you still call yourself Catholic, if you go against the mainstream Catholic teachings? How do you know you're just not a very 'reinterpreting' protestant?
You should always respect one's religious beliefs, however imaginary friends, delusional behaviour, a belief in a two thousand year old folk-lore should be treated by a professional.
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
 |
|
Re:Religion
|
|
Date: 2008/04/03 21:13
|
By: Tessen
|
Status:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The way i see it, both sides have a point. They just aren't getting it across efficiently. Why not? Experience. the emotions get all caught up nd ppl start screaming lol.
Im pretty sure your cultural environments/personalities, etc. aren't both the same. You don't share the same urges. In my case, I kinda identify with Bravo because religion has hurt me personally more than helped. I am therefore less likely to accept the interpretation of god/the bible, as accepting of homosexuals. Derb, however, has had a stronger(?) overall religious experience, and feels he needs to hold on to that. That is his motive for his interpretation (correct me if wrong...just assuming for arguments sake).
So you have "interepretation of god as a threat" vs. "interpretation of god as friend" and thats simply where you have to leave it.
..or better yet, those are the implicit footholds. so thats where you start discussing from i guess
--
Prt. 2
Heres my opinion on "The bible is meant to be interpreted, not taken literally"
In its essence, I do not believe this is correct. The bible asserts that it is some sort of final authority, because it contains "Gods word." and that God/his word are the truth. right? So why would "truth" be so malleable? 2+2=4 right?
bah...sry, too many words.. im about to contradict myself 
edit: lol...logged off then had to log back on..
But here's the contradiction: The bible's survival depends on accomodating change/interpretation.
So while people accept that authority, they change it as culture changes, as their own needs change.  i smell doublethink!(?)
agree or disagree?
Post edited by: Tessen, at: 2008/04/03 21:17
Post edited by: Tessen, at: 2008/04/03 21:33
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
|
Re:Religion
|
|
Date: 2008/04/09 06:03
|
By: Dan69
|
Status:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, lets just suppose you are right, that everything in the bible is meant to be taken litterally. Does that mean that Sampson must have existed? And that he really did get super strength as long as he didn't cut his hair? Of course not. That story was a lesson to keep the promises you make, but also a message that forgiveness can be gained.
It is writen that Jesus loved everyone, if you take this as true, then anything in the bible (which is supposedly his message) that says anything even close to hate, would not be true. That is to say, mankind wrote those words themselves out of fear of what they do not understand, and they have nothing to do with the real message.
As the saying goes, it is easier to beg forgiveness than to ask permission. So wrong or not, believe in what makes you happy. If the god of the bible is real, he will forgive you for whatever you do in this life. And if he's not.. Well, I guess you'll see what happens later.
No those pants don't make your butt look big. It doesn't need any help looking big.
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
|
Re:Religion
|
|
Date: 2008/04/09 09:54
|
By: Steely Dan
|
Status:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the God of the bible is real he'll be asking our forgiveness.
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
 |
|
Re:Religion
|
|
Date: 2008/04/10 08:58
|
By: the_crampo
|
Status:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steely Dan wrote:
If the God of the bible is real he'll be asking our forgiveness.
Why?
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
|
Re:Religion
|
|
Date: 2008/04/11 21:09
|
By: Steely Dan
|
Status:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the_crampo wrote:
Steely Dan wrote:
If the God of the bible is real he'll be asking our forgiveness.
Why?
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
|
Re:Religion
|
|
Date: 2008/04/12 06:01
|
By: the_crampo
|
Status:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wrong - those crimes were committed by humans.
if you read the bible, the whole point of God in the new testament is that he doesn't interfere he gives us choice. which is how i like it thank you very much.
so God shouldn't ask us for forgiveness, because we humans committed those crimes.
its all about the wider context of the christian belief, which you really need to know before you say such things that can incite a lot of anger.
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
|
Re:Religion
|
|
Date: 2008/04/12 08:22
|
By: Steely Dan
|
Status:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wow God is totally full of shit eh?
so God sees a child dying of AIDs and says, 'well, if you didn't want to die of aids, why did your aids infected father rape your mother? It's not MY fault because I choose not to interfere'
thank you Lord for free will. Amen.
you do realise that God would have been the one creating humans in the first place?
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
|
Re:Religion
|
|
Date: 2008/04/13 03:34
|
By: the_crampo
|
Status:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your sarcastic, Im so right I can look down on you, attitude is pointless, pathetic and indicative of someone who really doesn't have much to say.
Im not seeing an argument, Im seeing someone who blindly thinks he is right. There is no point having a discussion with you.
But I will try.
First of let me make it clear that I am not a christian, but i still support their freedom to believe what they want.
Second, you have just ignored what I have said and reiterated your argument.
You said basically "God is evil because there is evil"
I said "God is not evil because they are human evils"
Then you said "God is evil because there is evil"
I am going to help you by giving your argument structure. What you are trying to say is this formulation, which is quite famous -
If a perfectly good god exists, then there is no evil in the world.
There is evil in the world.
Therefore, a perfectly good god does not exist.
What this argument completely ignores is the benefit of suffering. The benefit of free will. The benefit of freedom. And the benefit of there actually being choice.
You are basically saying that the world would be a much better place if it was all perfectly good. This is a stupid and often misguided conception. The world would be boring and everything in it would be very very pointless if it was all perfect. In fact if everything was perfect, there would be no humans, no planet. Just an existence of pleasurable feelings felt by conscious sentience. If that.
Do you seriously think that that is better than choice, freedom and the kind of existence we have?
If we accept freedom and our humanity as better alternatives than perfection, then we have to accept evil as well. Because that is what choice is, the ability to decide between acts of various levels of benefit.
You wouldn't have any experiences, any hardship, any suffering - suffering can be utter and complete and destructive. But suffering in most cases makes human beings stronger, more capable and more adapted to life. People move on and are better for it, because they can only experience life and all its joy once they know how ugly it can be.
---
That isnt the argument most people take, they mostly say that evil is a necessary opposite (i agree) and that god is not there to make life simple, he is there to make it hard, he sets down the moral law and we can follow it or not.
---
Remember that they are human evils. No caused by God, but allowed by God...
And all you can do is be sarcastic.
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
 |
|
Re:Religion
|
|
Date: 2008/04/13 04:14
|
By: Sxcriley
|
Status:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not that this is a poll (and even if it was, I'm totally biased): I give my vote to the_crampo
"It doesn't take much to see that the problems of three little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world." - Rick
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
|
Re:Religion
|
|
Date: 2008/04/13 04:27
|
By: BravoLima
|
Status:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A baby is born, born with AIDS,
Next day it dies,
Baby decays.
So what life lesson did God apparently teach that baby? If all life is equally important, why didn't the prick give that baby a chance?
If there is a God, he's weaker than the Japanese yen, and so we don't need to listen to him.
You should always respect one's religious beliefs, however imaginary friends, delusional behaviour, a belief in a two thousand year old folk-lore should be treated by a professional.
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
|
Re:Religion
|
|
Date: 2008/04/13 07:23
|
By: the_crampo
|
Status:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BravoLima wrote:
So what life lesson did God apparently teach that baby? If all life is equally important, why didn't the prick give that baby a chance?
Who said anything about life lessons?
Anyway, as that baby did no wrong it would have gone to heaven. An eternity of happiness puts a sock in your argument.
If there is a God, he's weaker than the Japanese yen, and so we don't need to listen to him.
You dont need to, because you think you know everything. But a lot of people do.
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
|
Re:Religion
|
|
Date: 2008/04/13 08:13
|
By: Steely Dan
|
Status:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
then why not just skip to the heaven part for everyone?
P.S.
I said basically "God would be evil because there's evil which he could stop but won't"
You said "God is not evil because they are human evils"
Then I said "God didn't have to make evil people, and even if evil were nessesary it doesn't need to be taken to the extremes it is."
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
