The Rampant, Irresponsible Religion Thread

[Dr Maturin]

I maintain that it makes no sense for a practising homosexual to follow any Religion which maintains the view that their very nature is evil.

In that case, NOBODY should follow such a religion...

[Jan]

Surely if a religious book contains so much which blatently wrong it needs to be re-edited or rewritten.

Maybe so. That doesn't mean it'll ever happen, though. As long as any 'unrevised' copy remained, the old 'justifications' could be maintained.

As Vyce said, the issue isn't with the books, it's with the people who justify their own hatred and fears with the books. Railing about the books instead of working to educate the people is easy, though, so that's what most people will do rather than dedicate themselves to truly changing things.

Jan

[Shr'eshhhhhh]

Maybe in Scotland.

I was thinking more about the West Indies where mob burning of homosexual men is a frequent and largely religiously justified (and largely unpunished) crime.

But violence and murder of homosexuals is still a world wide problem.

Here's a thought: people use anything as a justification for their own innate biases. There are plenty of white supremacists or neo-nazis (in Europe, for example) who use the Bible or other religious texts as justification to hate blacks or Jews. The issue is NOT that the Biblical texts are flawed but that they are given errnoeous interpretations by mankind. Big shock, it's what humans do.

Again, your argument is not about religion, it's about HUMAN BEINGS erroneously interpreting that religion to justify their own evil behavior. But even then, you're grossly overstating things. Maybe in less civilized areas of the world, homosexuals are treated more harshly, but in the civilized world, in America or Canada or Europe, etc., there aren't roving gangs of murderous thugs rounding up gays and burning them in an immolating fire in the name of Christ.

The problem isn't solely down to mere misinterpretation of Biblical teaching but to literal inforcement of selective sections of the Bible.

Surely if a religious book contains so much which blatently wrong it needs to be re-edited or rewritten.

[Karachi Vyce]

Right now gangs of people burn homosexuals to death.

Maybe in Scotland. Here in the States, not so much. Sure, there is violence against homosexuals here.......but there's violence against any number of minority groups in the country. And these hate crimes are investigated when they happen and if at all possible, the perpetrators are found and harshly punished. Point is, they're the exception and not the norm.

Governments imprison homosexuals and torture them using 'holy' books as the basis of their laws.

Here's a thought: people use anything as a justification for their own innate biases. There are plenty of white supremacists or neo-nazis (in Europe, for example) who use the Bible or other religious texts as justification to hate blacks or Jews. The issue is NOT that the Biblical texts are flawed but that they are given errnoeous interpretations by mankind. Big shock, it's what humans do.

Again, your argument is not about religion, it's about HUMAN BEINGS erroneously interpreting that religion to justify their own evil behavior. But even then, you're grossly overstating things. Maybe in less civilized areas of the world, homosexuals are treated more harshly, but in the civilized world, in America or Canada or Europe, etc., there aren't roving gangs of murderous thugs rounding up gays and burning them in an immolating fire in the name of Christ.

[Shr'eshhhhhh]

If a book is just a book then rewriting the evil twisted sections causes no problems to spiritually minded people of any faith (besides the obvious practicle problem of what do replace it with)

If a book is the word of GOD it can't be rewritten. It is a holy truth and this is the position that many followers of many religions (not just Christianity) uphold.

These 'truths' have been used as the justification of wars, murder, torture and descrimination not just in the distant past but now. Right now gangs of people burn homosexuals to death. Governments imprison homosexuals and torture them using 'holy' books as the basis of their laws.

Homosexuals are not the only victims, Jihads and crusades, holocausts and occupations are constantly causing misery and death on this little planet of ours in the name of what believers define as the word of God.

Some Christians may rightfully say that the Gospels preach that only the sinless (God) can judge the sinful. i.e. these sins are still serious sins but only God can punish them. But it still says they are sins, that should be punished (certainly not encouraged by allowing practising homosexuals to preach the laws that condemn them)

And the Gospels rules don't stop the selective interpretation of Biblical texts by some to commit their crimes.

I maintain that it makes no sense for a practising homosexual to follow any Religion which maintains the view that their very nature is evil.

It's a form of spiritual masocism.

I also maintain the right to comment on subjects I have studied very closely.

There is nothing wrong with faith. Personal faith in some ways is what defines us and may indeed be our salvation as a species.

But Religion is largely a means of controlling and seperating people. If anything Religion is the enemy of faith as it tells you what to believe and while attempting to suppress the rights each of us to discover it for ourselves.

Religion should never be allowed power over the individuals right to govern their own lives. We have democratically elected bodies of replacable living people for that.

[Jan]

Oh no, no frogs. DEFINITELY a giant space TURTLE.



...or perhaps a duck?

Sinclair's duck? How'd it get here?

Jan

[Whitewashed]

If I die and find out that eternity is going to have to be spent riding a giant space frog instead of what I think/hope will happen, I suppose I might feel a little silly for a small part of that eternity for having missed all the clues that giant space frogs really run things but otherwise I'm indifferent to the outcome.

Oh no, no frogs. DEFINITELY a giant space TURTLE.



...or perhaps a duck?

[Jan]

If somebody has a knowledge of a faith that, to be quite gentle, hovers in the realm of "non-existant", their dogmatic belief in their utter lack of knowledge makes a discussion nigh impossible.

Then you'll have to employ the first option, won't you? Or attempt to educate them.

Would you like ME to mock your faith in a similar manner? I COULD do so --- with considerably more ease --- but I opt to not do so out of kindness alone.

Yes, I'm sure kindness is one reason. As for the question...why would I care what you or anybody *else* thinks about my beliefs? Isn't part of the point that belief is a personal thing? I have no energy invested in convincing anybody else and very little invested in being right myself. If I die and find out that eternity is going to have to be spent riding a giant space frog instead of what I think/hope will happen, I suppose I might feel a little silly for a small part of that eternity for having missed all the clues that giant space frogs really run things but otherwise I'm indifferent to the outcome.

That said, I didn't detect any mocking in Shr'eshhhhhh's posts. If you feel s/he's wrong, then feel free to exchange Bible passages to prove your points.

Jan

[Der Mike]

If somebody has a knowledge of a faith that, to be quite gentle, hovers in the realm of "non-existant", their dogmatic belief in their utter lack of knowledge makes a discussion nigh impossible.

Would you like ME to mock your faith in a similar manner? I COULD do so --- with considerably more ease --- but I opt to not do so out of kindness alone.
-=Mike

[Jan]

If you wish to continue insulting Christians based on your own misbegotten and erroneous reading of Christian dogma, things will get ugly REALLY quickly here.

No, actually, things won't. If somebody expresses an opinion you don't like, you can simply ignore it or calmly refute it. Those are the choices.

Jan
Moderator

[Der Mike]

I'm going to be nice and leave it at this, Shresh --- don't discuss issues you clearly do not REMOTELY understand, comprehend, or have a desire to learn.

If you wish to continue insulting Christians based on your own misbegotten and erroneous reading of Christian dogma, things will get ugly REALLY quickly here. Many people, myself included, don't like "holier than thou" types who use lies to make a "point".
-=Mike

[Karachi Vyce]

It's important to Christianity both as a historical document (documenting the early beginnings of what became the Judeo-Christian faith) as well as having many practical applications to the faith of modern-day Christians. Books like Psalms, for example, have a lot of useful information for Christians on how to meditate on their faith, or praise their Lord, or simply how to live a proper Christian life.

[Jan]

So can anybody tell me why they even keep the Old Testament as part of the Bible at all? Why not just point to it as a historic document instead?

Jan

[Karachi Vyce]

(possibly with a some authorititive justification...if the Bible is the word of God, homosexuals should by it's rules be put to death not brought into the fold while practising their sin.)

Unless the Bible is re-written and modernised I can not see how a homosexual can justify being in a religion which calls the practise of expressing love between consenting adults as an abomination and punishable by death. Even if it is one of those rules that just isn't followed through these days.

You really are just awful with your interpretation of dogma.

1) Any reference to putting homosexuals to death would likely have been in the Jewish portions of the Old Testament, specifically the Torah (under Judaism) / Pentateuch, or first five books of the OT (as Christians number them).

2) The whole purpose of the New Testament was to be a NEW covenant with the believers, very much meaning that the old laws didn't really apply or were necessary anymore. For example, the rule requiring sacrifices was pretty much null, seeing as Jesus was incorporated in mortal form for the sole purpose of providing the ultimate sacrifice for sin. In other words, if the Old Testament said "Kill the fags", the New Testament threw that out the window. So no, the Bible very much does NOT COMMAND YOU TO KILL HOMOSEXUALS.

3) At worst, the New Testament claims that homosexuality is a sin, but the Christ's doctrine is and has always been to forgive the sins of the sinner, whatever they are, and to accept and love them, even if the sinner refuses your faith and even HATES you. A homosexual shouldn't have a problem joining a religion that adequately applies Christ's doctrine. Churches / individuals that are out there preaching against homosexuality (Fred Phelps springs to mind) are doing ago against doctrine.

In other words, when you throw down the blanket accusation that Christianity as a whole views homosexuality as an abomination and punishable by death, you couldn't be more wrong.

[Shr'eshhhhhh]

I am aware that there are Christian denominations in America and elsewhere which allow practising homosexuals to belong and preach with in their membership.

However the Bible clearly states the position of both the earlier Jewish stance and early Christian stance on homosexuality. (along with unpermitted hairstyles, permitted slavery, the forbidding of female priests and the damnation of anyone with a tattoo etc, etc).

Homophobes of a religious bent point directly to Leviticus and the letters of St Paul as justification for their hate crimes. As do some African and Latin American churches within the Anglican communion who use homosexuality and female priests in the American churches as leverage to further distance themselves from more liberal members of the Christian community. (possibly with a some authorititive justification...if the Bible is the word of God, homosexuals should by it's rules be put to death not brought into the fold while practising their sin.)

The position of more liberal Christians (or indeed any religion which has anti homosexual attitudes are woven into its scripture) is by nature a compromised one. The only way to get around it would be to recognise that the Bible isn't the direct word of God (as the majority of Christians do think) but is in fact written by men. Some aspects of which may have a divine spark behind it, some of it may not. But without a clear definition of shared values how can one define membership?

Unless the Bible is re-written and modernised I can not see how a homosexual can justify being in a religion which calls the practise of expressing love between consenting adults an abomination and punishable by death. Even if it is one of those rules that just isn't followed through these days.