Thread practicing #1- Religion

[Nick_Da_Wizard]

I'm talking about religion. If I see Jesus or a giant dude up in the sky ill believe it

 

[sub]

Blatant intolerance annoys me. Farcical behavior annoys me more. You're batting two for two.

Some ideas deserve blatant intolerance, mainly those that are intolerant ideas themselves. If I hold the belief that all gays should be denied marriage, or that women shouldn't be allowed to vote, or whatever, then perhaps we should be intolerant towards me because those are oppressive beliefs. I think this is where Avenger and Fortnox are coming from - they hold the belief that religion is intolerant in nature and thus qualifies as an idea which should not be tolerated itself.

If you were to expand on this, the question that you should ask yourself is not if god is real, but whether religion promotes intolerance in others or not.

I all ready know that you're going to say that there are a great many religious people who are not intolerant at all, but perhaps they're the ones who pick and choose what they want their beliefs to be. It says clear cut in the bible that we should stone (or was it sell into slavery) any women who is not a virgin on her wedding night. Hard to justify statements such as that by saying that it's a metaphor, or that we're living in different times, or whatever. All a moral person can do is ignore it, pretend it doesn't really say that.

Hell, the very idea that only people who believe in Jesus Christ or Allah or Zeus will be rewarded in the afterlife is intolerant itself.

 

[DiebytheSword]

Some ideas deserve blatant intolerance, mainly those that are intolerant ideas themselves. If I hold the belief that all gays should be denied marriage, or that women shouldn't be allowed to vote, or whatever, then perhaps we should be intolerant towards me because those are oppressive beliefs. I think this is where Avenger and Fortnox are coming from - they hold the belief that religion is intolerant in nature and thus qualifies as an idea which should not be tolerated itself.

If you were to expand on this, the question that you should ask yourself is not if god is real, but whether religion promotes intolerance in others or not.

I all ready know that you're going to say that there are a great many religious people who are not intolerant at all, but perhaps they're the ones who pick and choose what they want their beliefs to be. It says clear cut in the bible that we should stone (or was it sell into slavery) any women who is not a virgin on her wedding night. Hard to justify statements such as that by saying that it's a metaphor, or that we're living in different times, or whatever. All a moral person can do is ignore it, pretend it doesn't really say that.

Hell, the very idea that only people who believe in Jesus Christ or Allah or Zeus will be rewarded in the afterlife is intolerant itself.

While those rules hold fast for those of Jewish faith, they are invalidated later in the gospel of the Christ. He changes the rules. You can't stone her unles you, yourself, would like to be stoned. You can't judge her because there is only one judge of the quick and the dead. You, who are with sin, cannot cast the first stone. You must treat your significant other as part of your own body; I wouldn't stone my arm to death. People who hide behind Leviticus don't understand that it is not valid any longer for a multitude of reasons. That covenant with God has ended. I agree, intolerance has no place in modern religion, but I can clear cut point to where that law is later countermanded in at least four different chapters off the top of my head.

 

[Zeonix]

Some ideas deserve blatant intolerance, mainly those that are intolerant ideas themselves. If I hold the belief that all gays should be denied marriage, or that women shouldn't be allowed to vote, or whatever, then perhaps we should be intolerant towards me because those are oppressive beliefs. I think this is where Avenger and Fortnox are coming from - they hold the belief that religion is intolerant in nature and thus qualifies as an idea which should not be tolerated itself.

And so should we become a nation that bans speech we do not like? Should KKK rallies no longer be tolerated because they preach hate? Should any idea that collides with our (and to whom does "our" apply? The majority?) moral sensibilities be demolished with prejudice? I understand where you're coming from, and sometimes I agree with that notion. But if we are to preserve what our nation stands for, once stood for or wants to stand for, those whose opinions contradict our own, those whose opinions make us feel violently ill, should not be suppressed provided they aren't harming others. I view this much like I view an argument. If we're having a war of words, that's all well and good. But I'll never get so angry as to harm you because, in the worst case scenario, you've only momentarily hurt my feelings. But if you were to attack me out of anger or fear or whatever drives a man to attack another as an alternative to using ones words, all bets are off as you've violated my sovereignty. This applies to those who would voice opinions that conflict with my own. What you're suggesting isn't what the original design of our nation supported. And so the question is no longer, "Is this what the founding fathers wanted?" but "Is it time to change the vision of our nation?".

However, combating certain opinions is certainly necessary, to include the ones you listed. You do that by fighting fire with fire. Counter protests, keeping those people from passing laws that would benefit them and harm others, etc. These are legitimate ways to not only remain civil and tolerant of their behavior, but to also keep them from gaining the upper hand over you while maintaining a balance of sorts.

As for the comparison between Avenger/Fortnox and people who view fighting to make same-sex marriage illegal, I think the difference is in tact. Calling someone an idiot or crazy isn't productive. There are ways to meet in the middle without having to resort to attacks, be it verbal or otherwise.

If you were to expand on this, the question that you should ask yourself is not if god is real, but whether religion promotes intolerance in others or not.

I don't view God and religion as being mutually exclusive. You can have God without religion. You can have religion without God. Whether or not religion promotes intolerance has no bearing on whether or not a supreme deity exists.

I all ready know that you're going to say that there are a great many religious people who are not intolerant at all, but perhaps they're the ones who pick and choose what they want their beliefs to be. It says clear cut in the bible that we should stone (or was it sell into slavery) any women who is not a virgin on her wedding night. Hard to justify statements such as that by saying that it's a metaphor, or that we're living in different times, or whatever. All a moral person can do is ignore it, pretend it doesn't really say that.

And what is wrong with picking and choosing? Can one not adhere to certain beliefs, the best parts of a religion, without succumbing to the worst parts, as well? Religion is essentially philosophy with bells, whistles and ceremonies. You can agree with certain parts of a particular philosophy without having to agree or abide by the rest.

Hell, the very idea that only people who believe in Jesus Christ or Allah or Zeus will be rewarded in the afterlife is intolerant itself.

Perhaps, but it's passive intolerance. As a side note, belief in Zeus wasn't required to be affected by the pantheon of the Gods. Zeus was not a supreme deity in the way God was in Genesis. He is one of many, and was not the first. If anything, he is a superhuman, as he has all the flaws of a human, is physically human, but has powers to go along with it. Obviously not your point, but its essential to understand that which you don't agree with.

Words.

 

[Avenger]

If none of you are seeing that Zeo's trolling now, I am lost for words, and will petition the world's governments to introduce mandatory rhetoric courses in school.

 

[DiebytheSword]

Obviously not your point, but its essential to understand that which you don't agree with.

Understand thy enemy, and understand thyself, and you will need not fear the result of a thousand battles.

I agree with this sentiment. If you are going to disagree with something, you must understand it completely from multiple angles. A good example is politics, I don't read just right leaning media, or I would lose a valid vantage point in the argument. I would then only harm my own understanding of the topic.

 

[Zeonix]

If none of you are seeing that Zeo's trolling now, I am lost for words, and will petition the world's governments to introduce mandatory rhetoric courses in school.

I'm sorry you feel that way. A genuine dialogue can not begin if you feel that I intend to make a fool of you.

 

[sub]

God dammit. I wrote out a reply but left my computer for a bit and came back and closed out firefox. I don't know if I have the will to type it out again.

edit: I feel bad for not retyping my post so I'll leave this here. http://i.imgur.com/uQxXN.jpg

 

[Zeonix]

What a ****tease.

 

[Chakra-X]

And what is wrong with picking and choosing? Can one not adhere to certain beliefs, the best parts of a religion, without succumbing to the worst parts, as well? Religion is essentially philosophy with bells, whistles and ceremonies. You can agree with certain parts of a particular philosophy without having to agree or abide by the rest.

Ideally this would be fantastic, for people to interpret it how they feel helps their lives without hurting others. It's the dogmatic tendencies of "doing it this way or you are going to hell" are what I personally think is counterproductive to growth.

 

[Zeonix]

This is basically how most Christians are, anyway. You start mentioning shellfish and slaves, and no one knows what you're talking about because no one actually reads the Bible or goes to church. Everyone likes the love your neighbor parts, and their parents were probably religious, so they combat roll under that umbrella. Kind of like how kids tend to like the same sports teams as their parents.

 

[DiebytheSword]

That's why I work so hard not to be that Christian. And I don't appreciate christians who distort what they are supposedly following because they don't understand the source material. Its like a bad remake or adaption, lol.

 

[sub]

Because this is the internet, I want to be clear that I say this without any snarkiness or malcontent whatsoever.

That's why I work so hard not to be that Christian. And I don't appreciate christians who distort what they are supposedly following because they don't understand the source material. Its like a bad remake or adaption, lol.

So what is the Bible to you then? What are you actually following? Is the Bible the source of modern day morality, a book to be looked at for wisdom and guidance?

For me, I think you must pick and choose if you want to be a good Christian. I have a hard time looking at the Bible and saying that it is a good thing, or that it is a book that you can read to your kids and have them absorb the moral teachings. I don't see it as a relevant or moral book for modern day society.

 

[DiebytheSword]

Because this is the internet, I want to be clear that I say this without any snarkiness or malcontent whatsoever.



So what is the Bible to you then? What are you actually following? Is the Bible the source of modern day morality, a book to be looked at for wisdom and guidance?

For me, I think you must pick and choose if you want to be a good Christian. I have a hard time looking at the Bible and saying that it is a good thing, or that it is a book that you can read to your kids and have them absorb the moral teachings. I don't see it as a relevant or moral book for modern day society.

Oh the bible is the source material. People forget that there are contradictions for a reason. The covenant with god has changed, more than once, and thus the rules are different. Leviticus should be understood for what it was, an old covenant, when it contradicts the new testament, new testament trumps. For instance, we've brought up Shellfish, homosexuality, selling daughters into slavery, stoning neighbors for cursing. All those things are outlawed in Leviticus, and can be allowed to go without terrestrial punishment thanks to the 4 gospels. Homosexuality is between that individual and god, I am not to judge (per gospel, I have sin, and thus, cannot judge) and I am not to persecute because I would not appreciate someone hating me for being who I am, thus invoking the golden rule. This is all clear in the bible if you don't follow it with your ass cheeks flanking your neck. Further, you are to be judged by your measure, thus a person who is gay might not actually be sinning, it is his way of life, all he knows, why would god punish for that? It took me a while to find that last loophole, but I never stopped studying and questioning. We aren't meant to be spoonfed, Jesus always asked the disciples to understand what they were being told, not to just follow it. And from what I've studied its quite possible even the disciples might not have gotten the message, hence Catholic church. But hey, its not the evil men do, its the book or the pontiff right?

 

[Avenger]

The covenant with god has changed, more than once, and thus the rules are different.

I take it you don't believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing God then, 'cause you'd think the guy would have figured out how to get people to write things down properly otherwise.

On the topic of the New Testament, you are incorrect to assume that all the things you mentioned there cease to be outlawed/sins.

Homosexuality is frequently referenced in the Bible, either directly or indirectly, and is very rarely looked upon with any kind of kindness. Certainly, it does not (as often) incite murder or corporeal punishment, but to a Christian, an incorporeal punishment (such as not being able to go to Heaven) might be considered far worse.

 

[DiebytheSword]

I take it you don't believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing God then, 'cause you'd think the guy would have figured out how to get people to write things down properly otherwise.

I don't believe in an all knowing god. All powerful is a different story. If you read and understand the bible and apocrypha you would never make the assumption that god is omniscient. He is fooled multiple times, one particular example is Genesis where he was unaware of the serpent's activities as well as the fact that we had obtained the fruit of the tree of knowledge, those things were hidden from him until he had observed the change in Adam and Eve's behavior. The Catholic Church sells him as perfect, my god is an angry and jealous god, his own words, he is not this perfect vision that is claimed by people. He is simply the creator to me, the father of the savior, he sets things in motion and watches where they go. He wants children who love him of free will, not children who are preprogrammed to love him like the first two creations, again, things people generally don't think about.

On the topic of the New Testament, you are incorrect to assume that all the things you mentioned there cease to be outlawed/sins.

Oh no, I'm quite correct on this one. Thou shall not judge lest ye be judged yourself. There is only one judge of the quick and the dead. Even if they are still sins, the punishments handed out by the community are strictly forbidden by the new testament. I could not stone someone, because I would ill appreciate being stoned. I can't hate gays, because I would ill appreciate being hated for my choice of lover. I can't sell my daughter into slavery because I would not wish for her to do so to me. I cannot kill my wife for infidelity because she is my own flesh cleaved whole and I wouldn't want her to kill me because she didn't fulfil my needs, I would not murder my own arm. I can't kill my neighbor for cussing because I've let fly a few F-Bombs myself. If you are going to criticise my bible and its views, at least understand that things in the back of the book trump things in the front. Things said by God or Jesus, trump things said by men, and when the Father and Son have an argument, the Son is right.

Homosexuality is frequently referenced in the Bible, either directly or indirectly, and is very rarely looked upon with any kind of kindness. Certainly, it does not (as often) incite murder or corporeal punishment, but to a Christian, an incorporeal punishment (such as not being able to go to Heaven) might be considered far worse.

By men. God only makes mention once, then countermands with the rules set forth by Jesus Christ. It is still considered a sin, but a sin does not instantly make you destined for hell. In fact, hell is never mentioned for people. Its current interpretation is questioned in Christian circles. In my definition, Hell would be distance from god extended into your afterlife. People who don't want God won't get God. Should work out for you then. Despite this, people who want God but are in sin are covered by Christ. In the case of gays, I think that their sins are forgiven because it is the weakness of their flesh. Those sins will be forgiven, just like my wrath and pre-marital sex will be forgiven, because they were weakness of my flesh. In my opinion, we are all with sin, and we are called upon to live as Christlike a life as possible. The threat of hell is greatly overplayed. Because I share weakness with them, I stand with them against their detractors. What they do is between them and god, it is not for me, but it is also not for me to judge.

 

[Shonnie]

I'm christian but I don't believe what the bible says. Nor do I want to believe it that much. What I do want to believe is that there is something or someone that helps me get through life.
If you don't believe then you can't imagine.

 

[Dokutayuu]

By men. God only makes mention once, then countermands with the rules set forth by Jesus Christ. It is still considered a sin, but a sin does not instantly make you destined for hell. In fact, hell is never mentioned for people. Its current interpretation is questioned in Christian circles. In my definition, Hell would be distance from god extended into your afterlife. People who don't want God won't get God. Should work out for you then. Despite this, people who want God but are in sin are covered by Christ. In the case of gays, I think that their sins are forgiven because it is the weakness of their flesh. Those sins will be forgiven, just like my wrath and pre-marital sex will be forgiven, because they were weakness of my flesh. In my opinion, we are all with sin, and we are called upon to live as Christlike a life as possible. The threat of hell is greatly overplayed. Because I share weakness with them, I stand with them against their detractors. What they do is between them and god, it is not for me, but it is also not for me to judge.

I may regret replying to the big pickle but here it goes! So both homosexuality and wrath are considered sins? And they're both weaknesses of the flesh? Wrath makes perfect sense, "Do to others as you would have them do to you." (Luke 6:31), but surely you wouldn't want a gay man to condemn your choice of partner? What is a sin? Is it something you actively carry out, like violence or fulfilling homosexual desires, or can it be passive too? Like being gay but not acting upon it. There seem to be multiple interpretations, although there's evidence for both sides.

Can I ask which branch of Christianity you belong to? I'm not particularly fussed with what is right, I just want to see where you're coming from.
[h=1][/h]

 

[DiebytheSword]

I may regret replying to the big pickle but here it goes! So both homosexuality and wrath are considered sins? And they're both weaknesses of the flesh? Wrath makes perfect sense, "Do to others as you would have them do to you." (Luke 6:31), but surely you wouldn't want a gay man to condemn your choice of partner? What is a sin? Is it something you actively carry out, like violence or fulfilling homosexual desires, or can it be passive too? Like being gay but not acting upon it. There seem to be multiple interpretations, although there's evidence for both sides.

Can I ask which branch of Christianity you belong to? I'm not particularly fussed with what is right, I just want to see where you're coming from.
[h=1][/h]

By baptism I am United Methodist, by upbringing Baptist. Both churches are thematically similar, neither carries my particular view point. This is why I say it is more important to have an understanding with god than to have a religion. I don't need someone else to digest the information for me, I needed someone else to show me the ropes. It was important to my father that I understand my religion before I commited to it. I was not baptised until I was 15, its what's called a witness baptism. My mother, a Catholic, was horrified. Too bad, I've seen what her brainwash church creates. If you are looking for insight in what branch I follow you may be dissapointed to know that my relationship with god is more complex than a church membership.

You also falsely assume that I condemn gay people's choices. I do not. Nor do I condemn straight couples who decide not to concieve when having sex, nor do I condemn those who chose to wear clothes because they are with original sin. I accept that the scripture calls that act unnatural, and that I am called upon to treat them as I would have them treat me. I accept that the scripture calls for me to not judge. I accept that I am imperfect, and with original sin, and thus I have no room to cast stones from my glass house.

A sin shouldn't even be categorized as good or evil, these are truly abstract ideas. Sin is defined as distance from God. It is only described as anything other one time in Genesis, where "but sin creepeth at the doorstep". Thus, when you sin, you are acting against god's plan. If I murder someone in self defense to protect my children, I am sinning, but I would hardly call that act evil. Nothing is simple and cut and dry in religion, nothing is without several layers of contemplation. If you can say, "God hates Gays", you need to put the placard down and read the book again. Without someone thinking for you, digest the information within understanding how it is meant to be written and what laws and rules trump other laws and rules. Understand that the word of the LORD trumps the words of SOMEGUY who wrote letters later on. Accept that no matter how much God was involved, man could **** it up later, and he can't help himself but to do so.

 

[Avenger]

I figure if there is a god, he probably doesn't give a damn whether I worship him or not, and not is a lot less effort. If said god does care whether I worship him, then he's some kind of egotistical prick, and he can go **** himself with whatever divine instruments he keeps in his godly "toy chest". I'd rather go to hell and spend eternity with a vast variety of *******s than spend eternity with one ******* and the people who worship him.