Islam: Our Partners in Peace...

[JohnMichael]

He died for you, me, and all mankind. You either believe it or not.


But not all mankind are christian.

[Mr Peabody]

That is exactly my point. God dosen't care if you are Christian, Muslim, Jew or Buddhist to get to heaven if you done good, so why such an exclusion from either religion. That is the part that puzzle me.

God told you that?

[JohnMichael]

God told you that?



God called you and told you to be a hater in his name?

[Mr Peabody]

Why am I a hater, I just participate here like every one else. I mean, if you want we could discuss this but you'd just go behind my back and delete my posts so what's the point.

[JohnMichael]

Why am I a hater, I just participate here like every one else. I mean, if you want we could discuss this but you'd just go behind my back and delete my posts so what's the point.




Only when it is hateful and hurtful to a member less able to defend himself. I have dealt with religious bigotry all my life and I am not afraid of it. I have never deleted a post where you spoke against me. Now your PM's became quite tiresome.

[Mr Peabody]

Oh JM, you are so noble! Allow me to change my opinion of you. Valiant even. I'm sure Feanor appreciates you having his back.

[ForeverAutumn]

That is exactly my point. God dosen't care if you are Christian, Muslim, Jew or Buddhist to get to heaven if you done good, so why such an exclusion from either religion. That is the part that puzzle me.
God told you that?

Are you suggesting that God does care what religion you practice? That he doesn't love all people equally?

[bobsticks]

Are you suggesting that God does care what religion you practice? That he doesn't love all people equally?

Only if you believe that judgement happens before death, which would explain things like AIDS...God's wrath as it were.

That said, I still feel it necessary to point out that whether we support Reverend Dingbat it's important, crucial in fact, that we support his right of free speech.

[ForeverAutumn]

Only if you believe that judgement happens before death, which would explain things like AIDS...God's wrath as it were.

So much for benevolence.


That said, I still feel it necessary to point out that whether we support Reverend Dingbat it's important, crucial in fact, that we support his right of free speech.

Where is the line between free speech and hate crimes? I believe in free speech, but I have trouble supporting the burning of a religious book (and I'm an atheist!). I support free speech only when it does not violate someone else's rights. I think that reverend dingbat crossed a line.

[JohnMichael]

Are you suggesting that God does care what religion you practice? That he doesn't love all people equally?



I have a theory that a believers impression of god is a reflection on their person. If they perceive god as petty and vindictive I suspect that they are petty and vindictive.

[GMichael]

Are you suggesting that God does care what religion you practice? That he doesn't love all people equally?

Isn't that what lead us to the problems we are having now? Muslums (or more correctly, some Muslums) want everyone who isn't a Muslum to be dead. This thread seems to have come full circle.

[ForeverAutumn]

Isn't that what lead us to the problems we are having now? Muslums (or more correctly, some Muslums) want everyone who isn't a Muslum to be dead. This thread seems to have come full circle.

No GM, that's what people believe. I'm asking Mr. Peabody what he thinks God believes.

And just to be clear, I'm not looking to pick a fight or insult anyone. Although I personally don't believe in god, I do respect the right of others to believe and to practive whatever religion they choose. I may not agree with you and I may even challenge you, but I'll never intentionally disrespect anyone for believing in god.

[Feanor]

Oh JM, you are so noble! Allow me to change my opinion of you. Valiant even. I'm sure Feanor appreciates you having his back.
I do. I don't condemn people for what they are, only for their malevalent behaviors or attitudes of which JM shows none.

Whatever full or partial support I get I'm glad of, but my own opinions are well researched and I don't rely on popular approval to adhere to them. I had a Protestant Christian upbringing and am well read, for a lay person, on Christian theology and history; I don't need instruction in that regard.

On the subject of the Bible, this book is a compilation developed, (in its writen form), over a thousand year in diverse languages. And to read a English version, say the KJV, word by word as literal truth is absurd. Another book I read not long ago on this subject is ...

Brad J. Ehrman: Misquoting Jesus: The Story behind Who Changed the Bible and Why

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/513X2vYD6NL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg ... Amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1304085434&sr=1-1)

BTW, Ehrman definitely consders himself a Christian. He was once a Fundamentalist, is now I suppose, a liberal Christian.

For that matter, the above mentioned Chris Hedges still considers himself a Christian though maybe a skeptical one. He also wrote I Don't Believe in Atheists ...

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51ATCB3H7NL._SL500_AA300_.jpg ... Amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Believe-Atheists-Chris-Hedges/dp/184706289X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1304085266&sr=1-2)

[bobsticks]

Where is the line between free speech and hate crimes? I believe in free speech, but I have trouble supporting the burning of a religious book (and I'm an atheist!). I support free speech only when it does not violate someone else's rights. I think that reverend dingbat crossed a line.

Historically, we as a species have run into problems when speech becomes a crime. Also there is no inalienable right to not be offended and, as such, it's usually how progresss is made.

[Feanor]

Isn't that what lead us to the problems we are having now? Muslums (or more correctly, some Muslums) want everyone who isn't a Muslum to be dead. This thread seems to have come full circle.
In fact a small minority of Muslims. The Qu'ran and the Sunnah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunnah), (the complied precepts of Muhammad), insist on respectful tolerance for Christians and Jew. However attacks on Islam by Christians or Jew must be vigorously opposed according to these authorities. Thus the medieval Crusades, for example, were violently resisted.

Unfortunately many Muslims regard that those Crusades have been renewed. They construe that colonial occupations of Muslim lands, the Zionist occupation of Palestine, continued Western support for Israel, support for the Shah of Iran, occupation of Afganistan and Iraq, and still ongoing support for unjust leaders of Muslim countries, were and are attacks on Islam. Well, that's an example of religion at work in the political arena.

[GMichael]

No GM, that's what people believe. I'm asking Mr. Peabody what he thinks God believes.

And just to be clear, I'm not looking to pick a fight or insult anyone. Although I personally don't believe in god, I do respect the right of others to believe and to practive whatever religion they choose. I may not agree with you and I may even challenge you, but I'll never intentionally disrespect anyone for believing in god.
After I posted I realized that you might think that I was directing my comments at you. It wasn’t meant that way. I know how sweet you are and that you were making a point.
I meant just to say that the statement/question you made (and I know that you don’t feel this way) of “God does care what religion you practice? That he doesn't love all people equally?” is the kind of thinking that some religious fanatics do believe in. And that it has lead to many problems.
The whole, my religion is the best thinking, and all others will burn if they don’t believe the same thing I do, is how we got to where we are now.

[GMichael]

Historically, we as a species have run into problems when speech becomes a crime. Also there is no inalienable right to not be offended and, as such, it's usually how progresss is made.
I agree Mr. Styx. As much as this guy is a jerk, I don't hold him responsible for the actions of others. He didn't kill anyone. That said, if I saw him on the street, I'd probably call him an A-hole. (And I hope it offends him)

[GMichael]

In fact a small minority of Muslims. The Qu'ran and the Sunnah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunnah), (the complied precepts of Muhammad), insist on respectful tolerance for Christians and Jew. However attacks on Islam by Christians or Jew must be vigorously opposed according to these authorities. Thus the medieval Crusades, for example, were violently resisted.

Unfortunately many Muslims regard that those Crusades have been renewed. They construe that colonial occupations of Muslim lands, the Zionist occupation of Palestine, continued Western support for Israel, support for the Shah of Iran, occupation of Afganistan and Iraq, and still ongoing support for unjust leaders of Muslim countries, were and are attacks on Islam. Well, that's an example of religion at work in the political arena.
Yes. Religion and politics do not mix well. Anyone should be let to believe anything they want. It's when those beliefs translate into actions against others that I have a problem.

[Hyfi]

After I posted I realized that you might think that I was directing my comments at you. It wasn’t meant that way. I know how sweet you are and that you were making a point.
I meant just to say that the statement/question you made (and I know that you don’t feel this way) of “God does care what religion you practice? That he doesn't love all people equally?” is the kind of thinking that some religious fanatics do believe in. And that it has lead to many problems.
The whole, my religion is the best thinking, and all others will burn if they don’t believe the same thing I do, is how we got to where we are now.


Don't forget, that with Christianity, being Christian is not enough to get your ticket to heaven, you have to be Born Again.

As Swedenborg said, all religions are just different pathways to the same god.

[GMichael]

Don't forget, that with Christianity, being Christian is not enough to get your ticket to heaven, you have to be Born Again.

As Swedenborg said, all religions are just different pathways to the same god.

I was born once, and I've spent most of my adult life trying to get back into a....:thumbsup:
Does that count?

[Hyfi]

Hyfi, you peaked my curiosity but Matt 28 does not have a verse 28 and Mark 16:16 does not match what you wrote, 15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons;

JohnMichael, I must have done well because you seem quite proud of your title. And, the comment was made based on actions you commited against me so don't lead folks here to believe it was based on anything else.

One extra 28 there, sorry

Mat 28:8 So they left the tomb quickly, with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples.

Mark 16:8 Then they went out and ran from the tomb, for terror and bewilderment had seized them. And they said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

I just pulled out the Christian Life Bible which is quite the same as above:

Matt 28-8 "So they went out quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring his disciples the word.

Mark 16-8 "So they went out quickly and fled from the tomb, for they trembled and were amazed. And they said nothing to anyone for they were afraid.

So either Matt or Mark is a liar, has bad memory, or the books were rewritten to say what they say. Bottom line is that they contradict each other in what is supposed to be true.

They either told the disciples, or they told nobody, it can't be both. Oddly the second one from Mark references back to Matt in the Bible I am quoting as to point out that one is not the same as the other yet both were given the divine light and recollection of all things that were said and done many years earlier.

With a simple google search, you can easily find hundreds of these contradictions so how is one supposed to believe the book to be the word of god and wholly true when they can't get 2 books talking about the same thing to say the same things? Just asking....



I think you mistook the fact that I put the chapter then chapter and verse above.

[JohnMichael]

I never understood the concept of only christians entering heaven. Why would god create many types of people of different races, beliefs, only to deny his creations a place in heaven. When I think of the people I have met who think their place in heaven is guaranteed I wonder if they will be annoying for eternity.

[Hyfi]

I never understood the concept of only christians entering heaven. Why would god create many types of people of different races, beliefs, only to deny his creations a place in heaven. When I think of the people I have met who think their place in heaven is guaranteed I wonder if they will be annoying for eternity.

I guess one thing people seem to forget is that
1- Man was around for Millions of years before Religion was ever thought up.
2- Religion was created by modern man to control other men and groups of peoples.

[bobsticks]

With a simple google search, you can easily find hundreds of these contradictions so how is one supposed to believe the book to be the word of god and wholly true when they can't get 2 books talking about the same thing to say the same things? Just asking.....

It's the campfire theory...sit 20 people around a campfire, lean over to the first and whisper a story in his ear, have that person repeat the story in secret to the next, repeat until the chain is complete and compare stories.

Now try the same thing over multiple generations in multiple languages.

[Hyfi]

It's the campfire theory...sit 20 people around a campfire, lean over to the first and whisper a story in his ear, have that person repeat the story in secret to the next, repeat until the chain is complete and compare stories.

Now try the same thing over multiple generations in multiple languages.

Nah, Mr P said that all 4 were given the same ability to recall events and conversations from many years earlier with total accuracy. Every version has it the same way, contradicting each other. If all 4 gospels were written by men with absolute abilities to recall events from many years earlier, they would all have remembered the same thing. But none of them were even there in the cited quotes so it's all here say from the start which is closer to what you pointed out.

Bottom line is the Bible is the Word of Man telling a story of what man thinks god may have said, or wants him/her to have said. There is no proof otherwise and never will be.

[GMichael]

Nah, Mr P said that all 4 were given the same ability to recall events and conversations from many years earlier with total accuracy. Every version has it the same way, contradicting each other. If all 4 gospels were written by men with absolute abilities to recall events from many years earlier, they would all have remembered the same thing. But none of them were even there in the cited quotes so it's all here say from the start which is closer to what you pointed out.

Bottom line is the Bible is the Word of Man telling a story of what man thinks god may have said, or wants him/her to have said. There is no proof otherwise and never will be.

You may be right about that last part. IMO you are, but only time knows for sure.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I do. I don't condemn people for what they are, only for their malevalent behaviors or attitudes of which JM shows none.

Whatever full or partial support I get I'm glad of, but my own opinions are well researched and I don't rely on popular approval to adhere to them. I had a Protestant Christian upbringing and am well read, for a lay person, on Christian theology and history; I don't need instruction in that regard.

On the subject of the Bible, this book is a compilation developed, (in its writen form), over a thousand year in diverse languages. And to read a English version, say the KJV, word by word as literal truth is absurd. Another book I read not long ago on this subject is ...

Brad J. Ehrman: Misquoting Jesus: The Story behind Who Changed the Bible and Why

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/513X2vYD6NL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg ... Amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1304085434&sr=1-1)

BTW, Ehrman definitely consders himself a Christian. He was once a Fundamentalist, is now I suppose, a liberal Christian.



I have this book, and I think it should be a must read for every Christian. I have probably read this book about five times since I bought it. One of the things I learned from this book is that neither God nor Jesus had any comment on gays and lesbians. Neither mention the word, or alluded to those relationships in a negative way AT ALL. I also learned that the King James version of the Bible comes from the most inaccurate transcriptions of holy scrolls, and that it should NOT be used to develop church policy or opinions(which throws out the anti gay slant of their arguments). I learned that most commonly used scriptures to condemn gays and lesbians are nothing more than the laws that were supposed to govern Jewish people OF THAT TIME. They are not for non Jew's, or for people living some two thousand years later like they are being used by some. Many scriptures developed earlier were changed to reflect the words of their living contemporaries to avoid contradiction when challenged.

One of the biggest lessons I learned from the book was both the old and new testament requires us to love one another, and the love covereth all sins.(or allows us to forgive readily and easily). Beyond loving one another, everything else is pretty much no mans land.

Using the King James version of the Bible as a tool of judgement is very perilous - and using it the way modern Christians do is divisive, damaging, and just plain wrong on so many levels.

[Mr Peabody]

Are you suggesting that God does care what religion you practice? That he doesn't love all people equally?

Yes, God loves all people equally. And, yes, He cares what religion you practice. God loves all but hates sin, disobedience to His word. As no one here seems to believe in God I'm sure it's hard for you to understand. As it's hard for me to understand how you all who claim not to believe seem to have your own idea of God and what He wants.

[JohnMichael]

Yes, God loves all people equally. And, yes, He cares what religion you practice. God loves all but hates sin, disobedience to His word. As no one here seems to believe in God I'm sure it's hard for you to understand. As it's hard for me to understand how you all who claim not to believe seem to have your own idea of God and what He wants.



Once again this is only based on your church, your bible and your thoughts. You do not have all knowledge and while you think you are correct I think you are wrong. My God is not petty and cares not what religion is practiced. He knows what is in my heart. He does not have any of the human failures that the Judeo/Christian model saddles him with by the book written by men. You think you are correct and the Westboro Baptist Church thinks they are correct. Who is really correct?

[Mr Peabody]

Hyfi;

Mark=9 When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons. 10 She went and told those who had been with him and who were mourning and weeping. 11 When they heard that Jesus was alive and that she had seen him, they did not believe

Matt: 8 So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9 Suddenly Jesus met them. “Greetings,” he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. 10 Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.”

In Matthew verse one we see "the women" included Mary Magdalene. There's no contradiction, after they met Jesus in both accounts they went and told others. As I stated earlier, those like you choose to distort in an attempt to make something that's not there. If you don't believe that's on you but to slander......

The Bible is in perfect harmony if one put the effort to study it opposed to looking for ways to distort it. There's no way the Bible could have been written by ordinary men, there are to many prophesy's fulfilled and historical support. You should read the Jewish historian Josephus sometime.

There are certainly books of the Bible that are not to be taken literally as they were written in apocolyptical language, most noteable the book of Daniel and Revelations. Much of it though is literal by command and example.

[ForeverAutumn]

Yes, God loves all people equally. And, yes, He cares what religion you practice. God loves all but hates sin, disobedience to His word. As no one here seems to believe in God I'm sure it's hard for you to understand. As it's hard for me to understand how you all who claim not to believe seem to have your own idea of God and what He wants.

I can't speak for everyone here, but I can tell you my own thoughts. I have no idea of God or what he would want. I do, however, have a curiosity of what people who do believe in God think. I enjoy talking to people about their beliefs and I try hard not to judge (although I admit that is sometimes difficult). And, yes, you are correct that I find it hard to understand. I think that's what makes me so curious and that is why I ask questions. I am not questioning your statements to challenge you. I truly wanted to know what you thought.

[Mr Peabody]

Thanks FA for clarifying for me. I should have known if any one here would respect another's belief it would be you.

[JohnMichael]

Respect should be mutual. If you would like your beliefs respected please respect those who share different beliefs.

[ForeverAutumn]

Thanks FA for clarifying for me. I should have known if any one here would respect another's belief it would be you.

I try very hard to be a tolerant person. I think that it's an important trait for everyone. If there was more tolerance in the world, there would be a lot less senseless death and less problems in general. I also learned a long time ago that arguing with someone over religion is futile. You have your beliefs and I have mine. It is something that we will never see eye-to-eye on, so what's the sense arguing over it. I'll never change anyone's beliefs just as they will never change mine. So instead of arguing, I accept our differences and instead spend my time trying to understand what makes people of faith feel so strongly about something that is so intangible.

[Feanor]

I try very hard to be a tolerant person. I think that it's an important trait for everyone. If there was more tolerance in the world, there would be a lot less senseless death and less problems in general. I also learned a long time ago that arguing with someone over religion is futile. You have your beliefs and I have mine. It is something that we will never see eye-to-eye on, so what's the sense arguing over it. I'll never change anyone's beliefs just as they will never change mine. So instead of arguing, I accept our differences and instead spend my time trying to understand what makes people of faith feel so strongly about something that is so intangible.
Wise people used to say, "Never argue religion or politics".

Good advice still if you goal is to maintain civility, but it's hard to resist when you know dogmatic religion and right-wing politics are destroying the world.

[JohnMichael]

Good advice still if you goal is to maintain civility, but it's hard to resist when you know dogmatic religion and right-wing politics are destroying the world.



Yes and being used to deny others their rights.

[markw]

Wise people used to say, "Never argue religion or politics".

Good advice still if you goal is to maintain civility, but it's hard to resist when you know dogmatic religion and right-wing politics are destroying the world.Some might say that left wing politics are bankrupting europe even as we speak. not to mention the dictatorships in the middle east, africa, NK, etc, etc...

[Mr Peabody]

JM, interesting that if this country denies you so many rights that you are still here.

FA, the key word you mentioned in regard to religion is "faith". I thought this was a fair definition in the context of the discussion.

faith: The term is employed in a religious or theological context to refer to a confident belief in a transcendent reality, a religious teacher, a set of teachings or a Supreme Being. However, some atheists and agnostics consider the term to be a euphemism for religious superstition.

Since faith implies a trusting reliance upon future events or outcomes, it is often taken by some people as inevitably synonymous with a belief "not resting on logical proof or material evidence."

[JohnMichael]

JM, interesting that if this country denies you so many rights that you are still here.





I am busy fighting for them. Oh and so you know this has always been my country and I will work from within to throw off the shackles imposed by religious bigots.

[Mr Peabody]

I am busy fighting for them. Oh and so you know this has always been my country and I will work from within to throw off the shackles imposed by religious bigots.

Well, go on with your bad self then :)

[Feanor]

...

faith: The term is employed in a religious or theological context to refer to a confident belief in a transcendent reality, a religious teacher, a set of teachings or a Supreme Being. However, some atheists and agnostics consider the term to be a euphemism for religious superstition.

Since faith implies a trusting reliance upon future events or outcomes, it is often taken by some people as inevitably synonymous with a belief "not resting on logical proof or material evidence."
I subscribe to these definitions!

[Feanor]

Some might say that left wing politics are bankrupting europe even as we speak. not to mention the dictatorships in the middle east, africa, NK, etc, etc...
The Left-Right discussion is off this particular off-topic discussion. So sufficient to say that some "left wing" countries have gotten into trouble due to continual fiscal deficits, (Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Spain), some have not, e.g. Scandinavian countries, Netherlands, Denmark, Iceland, etc.. The usual reason for fiscal deficits is the failure to tax the middle and, especially, the wealthy classes -- of course, that's true too for the USA which isn't left-wing by any stretch of the imagination.

[markw]

The Left-Right discussion is off this particular off-topic discussion.Perhaps, but if YOU had not brought it up here,:


Wise people used to say, "Never argue religion or politics".

Good advice still if you goal is to maintain civility, but it's hard to resist when you know dogmatic religion and right-wing politics are destroying the world.

...I would not have had cause to comment, would I? I know, I know... you just want to be able to throw out your little digs and quietly retreat into the distance, eh? A bit cowardly, isn't that? But, considering the source, it's not really surprising. It looks like that inflated ego of yours just won't let you drop an issue, shut up and move on, will it? So much for your show of wisdom, eh?


So sufficient to say that some "left wing" countries have gotten into trouble due to continual fiscal deficits, (Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Spain), some have not anywhere nearly the same extent, e.g. Scandinavian countries, Netherlands, Denmark, France, etc.. The usual reason for fiscal deficits is the failure to tax the middle and, especially, the wealthy classes -- of course, that's true too for the USA which isn't left-wing by any stretch of the imagination.So, what's your point? Too many entitlements and not enough workers to pay for it. Remember, not all countries have a benevelont big brother directly to their south who they can hide behind. They are creaking under their own weight and can't go on forever.

And, to being this discussion back to it's original intent, you'll notice that the muslim incursion into the fabric of the european nations seems to be centered in the left-leaning nations. Looking at it that way, the more right they are, the less the threat seems to be, at least for now.

So, it looks like the right wing may actually be the salvation of the "free" world and, for the time being, that includes canada if they play ball.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

So, it looks like the right wing may actually be the salvation of the "free" world and, for the time being, that includes canada if they play ball.

I guess if you look at the world through very tinted glasses, this would be true. I can't see clearly through those things, so I have no use for them.

[Feanor]

...
And, to being this discussion back to it's original intent, you'll notice that the muslim incursion into the fabric of the european nations seems to be centered in the left-leaning nations. Looking at it that way, the more right they are, the less the threat seems to be, at least for now.
...
I guess your concerns about Muslims in the the US are unfounded then?


...
So, it looks like the right wing may actually be the salvation of the "free" world and, for the time being, that includes canada if they play ball.
This is a non sequitur. Conditions in western nations, especially but not exclusively the USA, have become more and more right-wing since the late '70s at least. Here by "right-wing" I mean more perfectly capitalist, viz.

More competitive, domestic and international
More legally & financially consistent internationally, i.e. "free trade" treaties
More innovative in terms of products & services
More innovative in terms of production, logistic, and marketing technologies
Less commercial regulation
Less powerful labor unions
Lower, (much lower), taxes on the wealthy.Yet despite this "progress", the incomes of the poor and most of the middle class have declined. Their standards of living has been sustained only by (1) working spouses and working longer hours, (2) borrowing, and (3) cheap goods manufactured off-shore. Meanwhile the incomes of top 1% have increased exponentially.

During this 35 year interval, it's ironic but ultimately not surprising that deficits have increased most rapidly in the during conservative Republic administrations.

If you ideas were't so dominated by ideology, mythology, and religious bigotry, you might recognize these facts.

[markw]

I love how you flit back and forth between "right-wing" in a Chriatian based cou ntry and then, wbhen it suits your purposes, switch to an economic slant. I guess you can't stick to the subject at hand, can you?

It's funny that you try to jump all over me when you think I changes the subject, though.

In any case, I'm pretty sure we'll pull out of our problems but it may mean a bit of "tough love, which this administration doesn't seem to want to do. We're letting in too many freeloaders, mostly from the south who, after lowering the working wage, then take the entry-level jobs, live liks paupers off the map and depend on social services, send most of the money back to their home countries, mostly without paying taxes, and eventually go back there. We're slowly being bled to death.

So, what's our "leftist" president doing about all this? Ignoring it and, even more strange, is refusing to enforce existing laws against this.

Now, I would like to see the employeers on the hook and I do believe that in time we will but first, we must seal our borders. And, we should go after the financial sector for their abuses over the past which, BTW started under Clinton, a liberal if there ever was one.

And, as for offshoring our workforce, I believe we should penalize/tax the bejeezus out of the American companies that do this instead of giving them tax breaks, but lobbysts money speaks louder than their constituents words.

As for the "religious" threat that seems to worry you, at least on some of your posts here, don't fret it. The constitution and the populace won't allow that to happen. But, since I see numbers of "other" beliefs slowly exerting political influence here, (Dearborn) I wouldn't be surprised if we don't see some refinement to keep it that way. England, France, Germany are already in the throes of these issues and if we don't tighten it up, so will we. In fact, I just read today where a muslim group wants their religious symbol incorporatd into Russia's national crest. This should be interesting.

In a way you're lucky. Due to your countries benign impact on the world, both economically and politically, you're relatively immune to this kind of stuff.

[Hyfi]

Thanks FA for clarifying for me. I should have known if any one here would respect another's belief it would be you.

See that is not very fair. I may question peoples beliefs, but I will never tell you what to believe, or tell anyone that they are wrong because they don't believe what I do. However, the stance of Christianity and it's followers is to tell everyone that their way is the only way and the right way. If you don't believe it then God will strike you down, leave you behind, send you to hell or whatever other scare tactic they choose to use to convert you. I take offense to that.

As I said earlier, my belief is that ALL religions are just different pathways to the same God. It should not matter what your belief is, as long as that is what gets you through the day and you treat people with love and respect.

Christianity is one of the mast recent religions to be made up. What about all the people of other beliefs from thousands of years before Christianity was invented? Are they all in Hell? How is it that the last religion to be thought up is the only right one?

I am not an Atheist but I also do not agree that you need to follow rituals, special rules, and exclusiveness to be a good and spiritual person. If one needs organized religion to get them through the day, great go for it. I have friends of all faiths/religions and some with none. I really don't care. But when people want to start quoting the Bible and forcing their beliefs on others and myself, it gets me worked up. I will always question things in my path. I have been to almost every christian denomination service, as well as Jewish, Quaker and more.

I also don't have a lot of respect for any Religion that kills people in the name of God. Christianity has done it many times as well as other religions.

I have read enough books on Religion as well as the better part of the Bible. The only way that I can get anything out of it is through the books written by Emanual Swedenbog as cited earlier. There is too much proff that the Bible was constructed, translated and made to say what it says for me to buy into it.

Do I believe Jesus was a man who lived? Yes I do. But he also did not say or teach anything different than Buddha said and taught many many years before him. Read a book called Jesus - Buddha. Many people have taught the way of Love and Harmony.

[bobsticks]

Pe
So, what's your point? Too many entitlements and not enough workers to pay for it...

Too bad y'all didn't think of that when you invented social security...are those entitlements part of the "tough love"?


Ooops, I went off topic in the Off Topic...

[Feanor]

...

In any case, I'm pretty sure we'll pull out of our problems but it may mean a bit of "tough love, which this administration doesn't seem to want to do. We're letting in too many freeloaders, mostly from the south who, after lowering the working wage, then take the entry-level jobs, live liks paupers off the map and depend on social services, send most of the money back to their home countries, mostly without paying taxes, and eventually go back there. We're slowly being bled to death.

...
I agree with you here in a limited degree. Illegal immigrants are mostly "from the south"; they do take entry-level jobs, and they do tend to lower the working wage. On the other hand they are willing to work so they aren't exactly freeloaders. They tend lean on social services, but then so do many bona fide American Wal-Mart employess, so I hear, who can't exist on what Uncle Sam (Walton) pays them.

No surprise that the laws aren't enforced against illegal immigration. Employers love them: cheapest wages, no benefits, and they can't complain about lousy working conditions. Illegal immigration is only a sign of the vigorous operation of the free market and it isn't going to stop while business owns the politicians.

But look on the bright side: those "from the south" are almost all Christians and one of the reasons that there is no significant internal threat to the US from Muslims.

[Mr Peabody]

Hyfi, it's interesting that you believe whole hearted in the books you recommend while totally dismissing the Bible. If one believes God created the world then the bible is the first religion.

I support SSA in it's original intension which was to help seniors. SSA went astray when it expanded who would qualify. I wonder how much SSA pays out a year to fight claims of disability.

I'll jump into the fire by saying the entitlement that needs to go is the Earned Income Credit. Some people get a larger refund than their annual salary and an enormous amount of money and resources are put into policing the program from fraud. It would be interesting to see how much this program costs overall with payouts and management. Seems it would have to go a long way in helping with the budget.

[ForeverAutumn]

See that is not very fair. I may question peoples beliefs, but I will never tell you what to believe, or tell anyone that they are wrong because they don't believe what I do. However, the stance of Christianity and it's followers is to tell everyone that their way is the only way and the right way. If you don't believe it then God will strike you down, leave you behind, send you to hell or whatever other scare tactic they choose to use to convert you. I take offense to that.

Please don't mistake my acceptance of someone's right to believe as acceptance of their beliefs.

I don't agree with many of the things being said in this discussion. And I also take offence to many of them. Most religious arguments are based on illogical premises, as are many of the points in this thread. And although I could try to argue the point with logic, it would get me nowhere. Logic is not a part of religion. That's where "faith" comes in. Something doesn't have to be logical or empirical if you only have "faith" that it can be so.

If this discussion were more philosophical in nature I might participate more. But so far, what I see is people in conflict...nobody is trying to understand the other person's point of view but everybody is trying hard to convince the others of their own POV. I have no interest in trying to force my POV on anybody. Discussions of that nature will almost always end in stalemates, so why expend the energy?

It is entertaining reading however. :)

[ForeverAutumn]

I would like to personally thank MarkW for America's part in ridding the world of Osama Bin Laden. Yes, for that I am grateful.

[GMichael]

I would like to personally thank MarkW for America's part in ridding the world of Osama Bin Laden. Yes, for that I am grateful.
I always knew that you were a smarty pants.

[bobsticks]

This was a victory for the military and intelligence communities. End of story.

[ForeverAutumn]

I always knew that you were a smarty pants.

I was going to state that I was speaking of behalf of all Canadians, but I figured that he already knows that...no need to state the obvious. :wink5:

[markw]

I would like to personally thank MarkW for America's part in ridding the world of Osama Bin Laden. Yes, for that I am grateful.And I would like to thank FA for proving what she really is by her willingness to be the only female to jump onto a dogpile with nothing to add except for a snide comment.

Arf Arf....

[markw]

Too bad y'all didn't think of that when you invented social security...are those entitlements part of the "tough love"?


Ooops, I went off topic in the Off Topic...Actually, SS started out as a good idea where workers paid into the system all their working lives and it generated interest. It got diluted when it was "raided" for other projects, interest went down, and the workforce shrunk, by natural and un-natural causes.

[markw]

I agree with you here in a limited degree. Illegal immigrants are mostly "from the south"; they do take entry-level jobs, and they do tend to lower the working wage. On the other hand they are willing to work so they aren't exactly freeloaders. They tend lean on social services, but then so do many bona fide American Wal-Mart employess, so I hear, who can't exist on what Uncle Sam (Walton) pays them.Yet yhey do put money back into the local economy.


No surprise that the laws aren't enforced against illegal immigration. Employers love them: cheapest wages, no benefits, and they can't complain about lousy working conditions. Illegal immigration is only a sign of the vigorous operation of the free market and it isn't going to stop while business owns the politicians.Granted, employeers sshould be strung up but had illegals not shown a willingness to lower the wages in the first place, we would not be in this situation.


But look on the bright side: those "from the south" are almost all Christians and one of the reasons that there is no significant internal threat to the US from Muslims.MAybe someday you canadians will realize that not all Christians are righties. Now, if the left-leaning, God hating obama government would only do their job and not depend on others to do it for them. In either case, yu should be thankful this country provide a big buffer between them and you.

[ForeverAutumn]

And I would like to thank FA for proving what she really is by her willingness to be the only female to jump onto a dogpile with nothing to add except for a snide comment.

Arf Arf....

As the only female regularly posting on this site, the odds are against me. ;)

Besides, I was thanking you. I thought that's what you wanted. Gosh, I just can't win where you're concerned.

[3LB]

Do I still have to remove my shoes at the airport?

duh... not winning

Two of the most important concepts in the New Testament are autonomy and individualism, yet collectivism and group pressure is what's emphasized, that and of course monetary commitment.

Its none of anybody's business what I believe or where I'm going when I die. Peoples' opinions on the matter are useless where as the individual are concerned. It isn't our call.

I consider myself an individualist and am insulted by organizations that attempt to de-emphasize autonomy and individualism. Individualism is the most noble development of the human condition. Any organization that diminishes individualism devalues life. IMO of course. One man's individualism is another man's selfish bastard, so who knows, I may be spiritual trouble.

[Feanor]

...
Two of the most important concepts in the New Testament are autonomy and individualism, yet collectivism and group pressure is what's emphasized, that and of course monetary commitment.
....
Hummm ... I'm not so sure. That's really the problem with the Bible, isn't it? People take from it what they like to justify what they want.

If by "autonomy" you mean individual responsibility, then yes, perhaps. If you mean regard for self above others then definitely not. IMO, Jesus emphasizes compassion for others a lot more than individualism. (But then maybe I'm just looking to justify compassion.) Personally I don't equate compassion with "collectivism and group pressure".

[3LB]

Hummm ... I'm not so sure. That's really the problem with the Bible, isn't it? People take from it what they like to justify what they want.

If by "autonomy" you mean individual responsibility, then yes, perhaps. If you mean regard for self above others then definitely not. IMO, Jesus emphasizes compassion for others a lot more than individualism. (But then maybe I'm just looking to justify compassion.) Personally I don't equate compassion with "collectivism and group pressure".collectivism comes into play when values are placed on compassion and its monitored and measured by groups of people who've annointed themselves experts in the field of humanitarianism.

I have no qualms helping out my fellow man, but prefer to avoid the ones that bug the **** out of me... I did say I may be in trouble.

[Hyfi]

Hyfi, it's interesting that you believe whole hearted in the books you recommend while totally dismissing the Bible. If one believes God created the world then the bible is the first religion.



No, I never said I believe them whole hearted, I said that I can get the best understanding of the overall story from them.

As far as God creating the world and my believing in it goes, I don't think our definitions of God are the same. I don't think it was as controlled and regulated and the way your story is told. I do believe that there is a larger form of energy that helped created the conditions for evolved life to exist on this planet, just as it probably does elsewhere in this vast universe that is too large for most to understand. I don't buy into the judgement of an all forgiving one. Again, it can be one way or the other but not both.

The books I recommended are books that helped me to understand better how to read the story and also a more logical approach to the beliefs as they were originally intended and not the distorted re-interpretations and translations as they are now.

What I do find interesting is that a form of Christianity that is the most logical and easy to get a grip on has been hidden from most history books, theology classes and other Christians in general. One difference may be that they celebrate the Life and Works of Jesus and not the Death and Resurrection as main stream Christians do. The other main reason Swedenborg religion is shunned by main stream Christianity is that they also believe that ALL Religions are just different pathways to the same God and that EVERYONE in the world may choose the path that best fits them. There is no right or wrong religion provided that everyone respect each other and do everything they do as best they can and with the interest of ALL in mind. It's pretty simple and you can live the life and have no real religion at all.

[Hyfi]

Please don't mistake my acceptance of someone's right to believe as acceptance of their beliefs.

I don't agree with many of the things being said in this discussion. And I also take offence to many of them. Most religious arguments are based on illogical premises, as are many of the points in this thread. And although I could try to argue the point with logic, it would get me nowhere. Logic is not a part of religion. That's where "faith" comes in. Something doesn't have to be logical or empirical if you only have "faith" that it can be so.

If this discussion were more philosophical in nature I might participate more. But so far, what I see is people in conflict...nobody is trying to understand the other person's point of view but everybody is trying hard to convince the others of their own POV. I have no interest in trying to force my POV on anybody. Discussions of that nature will almost always end in stalemates, so why expend the energy?

It is entertaining reading however. :)

The response you quoted was to the assumption that you may be the only one here that is accepting of others choices.

And no, you can hardly have a Logical conversation about religion since the basis of any religion is Faith and not what is Logical.

I would love to know why others believe what they do aside from just telling us that "That is what the book says and you believe it or you don't". That is the brainwashed answer and not an individuals choice and belief.

I would also like to know how people like yourself chalk the whole thing up to mere chance. (if that is how you see it. One does not have to believe in the Main Stream God to accept that there are some pretty strong spiritual forces at work all the time. You can help create the outcomes of certain situations with the power of mind and thought, until someone elses will gets in your way.

[Mr Peabody]

Hyfi, do you have kids? You can't correct them and love them at the same time? If you say yes, then what is so difficult about a superior being such as God being able to do the same and have righteous judgment?

[JohnMichael]

Hyfi, do you have kids? You can't correct them and love them at the same time? If you say yes, then what is so difficult about a superior being such as God being able to do the same and have righteous judgment?



Because if he is a parent he actually exists. No faith needed. I see in so many peoples' description of god the pettiness of human nature and not the nature of a god that existed before man created him.

[Ajani]

Because if he is a parent he actually exists. No faith needed. I see in so many peoples' description of god the pettiness of human nature and not the nature of a god that existed before man created him.

Imagine a being that is all-knowing and all-powerful. A being that created EVERYTHING... Now try and imagine what his/her/its thought process/personality must be like...

Cant? Neither can I...

I wouldn't expect God to be understood by any of us and it's why I have scant regard for any attempts to explain God and why the world is the way it is and what the purpose of life is, by any religion...

I have no problem believing in a much greater being than myself... But religion assigns way too much human emotion to a completely alien entity, that is well beyond our understanding... The Old Testament God reminds me of the opening narration for the old Hercules TV series "In a time when the ancient Gods were petty and cruel and plagued mankind with suffering"... The New Testament God is given a human face and loaded with love and compassion and somehow is constantly weeping that the world (God and God alone created) is so full of wickedness...

I regard religion as the study of God, but IMO none of the theories proposed make much sense... and the idea of blind faith maybe comforting for many, but it is not for me...

[thekid]

Well since this thread has turned to the nature of God let me add this little nugget.....

A man said to the universe:
"Sir I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."

- Stephen Crane

:D

[Hyfi]

Hyfi, do you have kids? You can't correct them and love them at the same time? If you say yes, then what is so difficult about a superior being such as God being able to do the same and have righteous judgment?

No, but my parents never told me I would go to Hell every time I was bad. They explained why it was wrong, and the right thing to do. They NEVER judged me, they guided and nurtured me.

Funny thing though, the one thing that still comes into my mind now and then is something my mom said when I was young. "If you have to think what would my mother say about this" then I probably shouldn't be doing it. Great words of wisdom, and not threats, fear, judgment, or any of the other things that come with organized religious beliefs.

[ForeverAutumn]

I would also like to know how people like yourself chalk the whole thing up to mere chance. (if that is how you see it. One does not have to believe in the Main Stream God to accept that there are some pretty strong spiritual forces at work all the time. You can help create the outcomes of certain situations with the power of mind and thought, until someone elses will gets in your way.

I don't really know what I chalk things up to. I know that I don't believe that some unseen, unknown spiritual force created the world. I suppose it was something scientific. But I don't really feel the need to know. Someday there may be conclusive evidence or maybe not. I'm okay either way. There are lots of things in the universe that I don't understand. Hell, at one time everyone thought that the world was flat, then one day that was proven false and the world was round. Scientists discover new things everyday. Nothing irks me more than a religious person answering an unknown with the statement, "it is gods will" or "god's plan". That's just a copout IMO. It's okay to say you don't know or understand something.

As for creating the outcomes of certain situations, I believe that people make thier own choices and those choices form the outcome of their lives. Nothing is truer to me than the Rush lyric, "If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice". I can take any event in my life and provide the string of decisions that I made that led me to that event. In some cases the decisions were entirely mine (breaking up with a boyfriend to date my future husband) and in some cases the decisions were intertwined with other peoples decisions (my boss's decision to offer me a job, my decision to accept). Every movement that you make is a choice and you, and only you, control those decisions.

That is my philosophy.

[Feanor]

...

I would also like to know how people like yourself chalk the whole thing up to mere chance. (if that is how you see it. One does not have to believe in the Main Stream God to accept that there are some pretty strong spiritual forces at work all the time. ....
Like FA, I guess, I don't believe in the necessity of "spiritual forces" to exlain the universe and evolution.

Some say that the complex universe couldn't have come from nothing but needed "intelligent designer" (i.e. god, mainstream or otherwise). The standard, reductionist response to this is, where did the intelligent designer come from?

The other thing to consider is that evolution of species is not a matter of "mere chance". Chance has a role to play, but evolution causes chance changes that work to survive and those that don't to perish -- evolution isn't chance, it's a process. (In this regard, read Richard Dawkin's argument in The God Delusion.)

[ForeverAutumn]

I have a question for those here who are religious. And I ask this seriously, with an attempt to understand, there is no intent of maliciousness or facetiousness.

I'm watching the CNN coverage of the tornado in Missouri. They are talking to a man whose home was flattened. He and his family were in the basement and he said that they were down there praying. Totally understandable to me. They showed a photo of his destroyed home on the news and the newscaster said, "we're looking at a picture of your home now and there is nothing left. How is it that your family survived and you all got out of your home safely?" He responded that "it was by the grace of God. We were praying the entire time and our prayers were answered".

I get all of that. My question is, how do you then explain those who died? Why were his prayers answered but other's weren't? If it's God's will, why was this family favoured while others perished? This is a part of religious belief that I have never understood, although I've tried.

I'm not criticizing. I'm not questioning or belittling his belief. I'm just curious how people who believe that they are alive because their prayers were answered justify the deaths of others.

[Hyfi]

Good question FA.

I always go by this, God answers all your prayers. The answer is usually NO.

So the people who lived while praying were lucky and the answer was an unusual YES. All others who died must not have been the good people they thought they were. Maybe they didn't give the required 10% before feeding themselves.

I was in a church in Arkansas a few years back that was pretty cool just up to the time when the guy went into his Tithing tirade. Did you know that if you don't give the first 10% of your paycheck to the church, you are Stealing From God. My wife and I almost got escorted out when we busted out loud with a laugh. If looks could kill, we would have been dead.

Along with your question, I always find it funny how sports players and teams go out to the court or field with a prayer. Why would God favor one player or team over the other and make one win and the other lose?

I ask this same question when I see signs such as God Bless America in times of war. Is god really going to help the US kill other peoples and win Wars? I don't think so.

I secretly want to go out in the middle of the nigh and change all these signs to God Bless the World, which would be more realistic....maybe.

[Ajani]

I always go by this, God answers all your prayers. The answer is usually NO.

Here's my thought on this:

If God exists and is all-powerful and all-knowing, hence has a divine plan (as so many religious people claim) then why would he change his plan just because you or I don't like what's happening?

I believe the world is exactly as it is intended to be...

[Hyfi]

Here's my thought on this:

If God exists and is all-powerful and all-knowing, hence has a divine plan (as so many religious people claim) then why would he change his plan just because you or I don't like what's happening?

I believe the world is exactly as it is intended to be...

That is why everything happens for a reason, we may just not see it.

[JohnMichael]

Having been in a spiritual state during an out of body experience I know there is life after the death of the body. Since I have seen ghosts I know other souls have continued after the death of the body. During my spiritual state I was at peace and had no fears of the physical world. Therefore I believe and know we have a soul.

During my time free of my body I had no sense of a god. Of course that may only come after the death of the body. After being in a spiritual state I began to recognize how many models of god attributed him with many petty human charateristics. The God I think of is beyond human understanding.

I do not believe in prayer since none have ever been answered. If God was a loving and vengeful god lighting bolts should have been delivered. I agree that God put things in motion for those that live but we should never tell children that god will help.

This is what I believe and what I do not. I do not believe in the judeo/christian model of god. I need to think of God as above the human traits he is accused of having. That model of god is truly a reflection of the people who created him.

[Feanor]

....
I'm not criticizing. I'm not questioning or belittling his belief. I'm just curious how people who believe that they are alive because their prayers were answered justify the deaths of others.
No, go ahead and belittle religious belief. While not questioning people's faith might be polite, it doesn't help them in the long run, and sustains superstition. Not questioning things is much of what's wrong with the world.


Good question FA.

I always go by this, God answers all your prayers. The answer is usually NO.
...
The belief that prayers are answered is the effect of confirmation bias. Religion is just another, delusional coping mechanism: get over it.

[Feanor]

Having been in a spiritual state during an out of body experience I know there is life after the death of the body. Since I have seen ghosts I know other souls have continued after the death of the body. During my spiritual state I was at peace and had no fears of the physical world. Therefore I believe and know we have a soul.
...
Out-of-body experience are pretty common and follow a typical pattern. Needless to say there is no substantial evidence that they are anything but brain chemistry.

What bothers me about accounts like your, JM, is that people rely on their "feelings" to tell them what is true, i.e. factual. I utterly reject the notion of "subjective truth". We must continually question everything beginning with ourselves.

What do I believe in? One thing only: skepticism.

[ForeverAutumn]

No, go ahead and belittle religious belief. While not questioning people's faith might be polite, it doesn't help them in the long run, and sustains superstition. Not questioning things is much of what's wrong with the world.

Feanor, you and I may both be atheists but, unlike you, I don't enjoy insulting people who are religious. Everyone has a right to believe what they want. Although I don't agree that there is a God, who am I to judge those who do?

[Feanor]

Feanor, you and I may both be atheists but, unlike you, I don't enjoy insulting people who are religious. Everyone has a right to believe what they want. Although I don't agree that there is a God, who am I to judge those who do?
Were I to believed in pedophilia would it be OK to practice or preach it? If I believe that "belief" is wrong and harmful, should I not say so?

Granted, I have been an excessively candid person all my life -- it took me a long time to figure out this isn't an entirely good thing. It hasn't done me much good or endeared me to people, but I'm too old now to reform very much or even want to.

[Hyfi]

Feanor, you and I may both be atheists but, unlike you, I don't enjoy insulting people who are religious. Everyone has a right to believe what they want. Although I don't agree that there is a God, who am I to judge those who do?

Although insulting others may not be the best thing, Feanor has as much right to tell someone they are crazy or wrong for believing something as much as those who believe tell everyone else we are wrong for not believing. It is insulting both ways and I take just as much offense when I am told that there is only one true religion and if I don't believe it I am going to Hell.

If the believers can tell all non believers we are wrong for not believing, than why can't we tell those who believe that they are wrong for believing? Works both ways. Until all religions, specially Christianity, concede that all religions are different pathways to the same god, and that their way is not the best and only way, this will be an endless debate. There is no right or wrong, but only what gets one through the day. That being said, nobodies beliefs should be forced upon others in any way.

[JohnMichael]

Out-of-body experience are pretty common and follow a typical pattern. Needless to say there is no substantial evidence that they are anything but brain chemistry.

What bothers me about accounts like your, JM, is that people rely on their "feelings" to tell them what is true, i.e. factual. I utterly reject the notion of "subjective truth". We must continually question everything beginning with ourselves.

What do I believe in? One thing only: skepticism.


When I floated up out of my body for the first time and perceived myself on the bed my first emotion was what the hell did I do now. Then the sense of peace settled in to my being. I am glad I am not a skeptic. I would have missed much of the magic of life.

[markw]

Were I to believed in pedophilia would it be OK to practice or preach it? If I believe that "belief" is wrong and harmful, should I not say so?

Granted, I have been an excessively candid person all my life -- it took me a long time to figure out this isn't an entirely good thing. It hasn't done me much good or endeared me to people, but I'm too old now to reform very much or even want to.Comparing pedophelia to religion is low, even for you.

It's a perfect example of why this site has gone from a thriving community a few years ago to a small, incestious few that get their jollies attacking religion.

[Hyfi]

It's a perfect example of why this site has gone from a thriving community a few years ago to a small, incestious few that get their jollies attacking religion.

Thats bull! This place died the first week after they upgraded to Vb and that was years ago.

Also, this out of the way Steel Cage forum was created for these types of off topic conversations.

And what about the jollies that the believers get telling the rest how wrong they are for having no religion or the wrong religion? That part is ok, right?

[markw]

Thats bull! This place died the first week after they upgraded to Vb and that was years ago.

Also, this out of the way Steel Cage forum was created for these types of off topic conversations.

And what about the jollies that the believers get telling the rest how wrong they are for having no religion or the wrong religion? That part is ok, right?So, who is proselytising here? All I ever see is athiests glad-handing each other.

[Hyfi]

So, who is proselytising here? All I ever see is athiests glad-handing each other.

Maybe you should go back and read the whole thread. You will find several claims from MrP as to the 4 gospels contradicting each other and his justification of it. But in reality, neither of the 4 were even in the place and circumstances that they write about and go by here say alone.

If you have some backing data as to why you are right and others are wrong, post it. You don't because there is nothing d4rfinative either way, it's all faith or skepticism.

[markw]

Maybe you should go back and read the whole thread. You will find several claims from MrP as to the 4 gospels contradicting each other and his justification of it. But in reality, neither of the 4 were even in the place and circumstances that they write about and go by here say alone.

If you have some backing data as to why you are right and others are wrong, post it. You don't because there is nothing d4rfinative either way, it's all faith or skepticism.One person? Did he force it down your throats or was it in response to questions?

...big difference.

Now, as for the religion bashing, that starts of it's own free will, over and over. Like you said, re-read this thread.

If it wasn't for that and SVI, this place would be a morgue. I hopw the owners are proud.

[JohnMichael]

I can only speak for myself when I say I think it is easy to bash religion when I see fundamentalism of any religion as a source of many problems in the world today. From suicide bombers to murdering doctors for performing abortions. I am very troubled by those who try to force their beliefs on me by passing laws that restrict my right to marry. I do not like what many churches teach about me. Some churches still teach that you can be forgiven for killing a man but straight to hell for loving one. Where is the love in those teachings. I could go on about the negative impact organized religion has had on my life but I will spare you.

[ForeverAutumn]

If the believers can tell all non believers we are wrong for not believing, than why can't we tell those who believe that they are wrong for believing? Works both ways.

I agree. But that's not what Feanor was suggesting. He was suggesting that I belittle someone for their beliefs, which is something that I would never do. I can disagree with someone without feeling the need to put them down. Is it being polite as he suggests? No, I think it's being tolerant. It's the realization that there are many different beliefs out there and although I don't see eye-to-eye with Mr. Peabody (for example) on this topic, he has no less right to his beliefs than I have to mine. That's the beauty of being human and having the ability to think for ourselves and form our own opinions.

As for my original post about the tornado, I wanted it to be clear to those who I was asking the question of that I was not trying to put them down and start an argument but, honestly, wanted to know what they thought. As I've said before, in spite of my atheism I find the religious train of thought interesting and I try to understand it, even if I don't subscribe to it.

[ForeverAutumn]

No, go ahead and belittle religious belief. While not questioning people's faith might be polite, it doesn't help them in the long run, and sustains superstition. Not questioning things is much of what's wrong with the world.


See my response to Hyfi. I will not put someone down over religion. And I am questioning things. My tornado related post was a question. So, I'm really not sure what you're going on about or why you responded to me at all since you weren't doing so to answer my question.

[markw]

I can only speak for myself when I say I think it is easy to bash religion when I see fundamentalism of any religion as a source of many problems in the world today. From suicide bombers to murdering doctors for performing abortions. I am very troubled by those who try to force their beliefs on me by passing laws that restrict my right to marry. I do not like what many churches teach about me. Some churches still teach that you can be forgiven for killing a man but straight to hell for loving one. Where is the love in those teachings. I could go on about the negative impact organized religion has had on my life but I will spare you.You don't have to spare me. I don't judge, but I do have strong feelings about some things. As for marriage, this is an institution that has gone on in it's current form since the beginning of time and, if history is any indication, it's been quite successful in preserving the species. I really don't see any cause to change it. Already legal ramifications are starting to be seen here.

As for nuts bombing abortion clinics, how many can you count? I'll bet there are more pedophile/homosexual priests abusing children, not to mention prison rape. Don't even get me started on NAMBLA.

As for homosexuals in society, have at it but don't try to convince me, or my children that it's normal. It's an aberration of nature, nothing more, and should be accepted as such.

As for your going to hell for your preferences, that's between you and your god, nobody else. Take it up with him/her/whatever. But, if you don't believe in one, unless the local townsfolk attack your castle with pitchforks and torches, why should what others believe bother you? Remember, sticks and stones...

[JohnMichael]

Mark thanks for hitting a new low in your defense of religion. You proved my point so well. Oh and if you care to be educated homosexuals are not pedophiles. Homo's are men who date other men and pedophiles like children who have not started puberty. Most pedophiles are straight and are not concerned about the gender of the child just that they are truly innocent. As far as priests are concerned they certainly are not the only religious group molesting children. As far as NAMBLA being brought into this I now know you for what you are.

[markw]

Mark thanks for hitting a new low in your defense of religion. You proved my point so well. Oh and if you care to be educated homosexuals are not pedophiles. Homo's are men who date other men and pedophiles like children who have not started puberty. Most pedophiles are straight and are not concerned about the gender of the child just that they are truly innocent. As far as priests are concerned they certainly are not the only religious group molesting children. As far as NAMBLA being brought into this I now know you for what you are.You chose to involve the outliers, not I. Bringing NAMBLA into the mix is no different than your bringing in the few nut-jobs that took it upon themselves to bomb abortion clinics.

As for "not only priests molesting children" what the hell does that have to do with anything? Any people that abuse children should meet an untimely death, doncha think?

[Hyfi]

You don't have to spare me. I don't judge, but I do have strong feelings about some things.


We all have strong feelings about politics and religion



It's a perfect example of why this site has gone from a thriving community a few years ago to a small, incestious few that get their jollies attacking religion.

That sounds like judgment. It is OK that Christians have traveled the world telling everyone that their way is the only way and if you don't change you will be judged. But when a handful of people question it and press for more than "you either believe it all or you don't really believe, they are an insestious group of people.

[markw]

We all have strong feelings about politics and religionWhich is why most real audio sites that aren't begging for traffic keep them off limits.


That sounds like judgment. It is OK that Christians have traveled the world telling everyone that their way is the only way and if you don't change you will be judged.Unless they are the ones doing the judging and passing the sentence why should you care? If they are wrong and there is no God, you have no worries, do you?


But when a handful of people question it and press for more than "you either believe it all or you don't really believe, they are an insestious group of people.Questioning is one thing. Downright insulting it, like comparing it to pedophilia,i s quite another, doncha think? The fact nobody here sees this is quite telling.

And, as logic should dictate, something that is faith-based cannot be expected to provide black/white answers.

If you want to attack faith-based things, stick to cables and interconnects, which seem to be immune from requiring scientific proof in this hobby.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You don't have to spare me. I don't judge, but I do have strong feelings about some things. As for marriage, this is an institution that has gone on in it's current form since the beginning of time and, if history is any indication, it's been quite successful in preserving the species. I really don't see any cause to change it. Already legal ramifications are starting to be seen here.

Mark, I have stayed clear of this argument, but your Neanderthal like perspective is pretty troubling. Marriage has been going on since the beginning of time, but so has rape, racism, and several other things. Considering the fact that the divorce rate sit firmly at 50%, one has to doubt whether this model is all that successful. All of my siblings have gone through a divorce, and I am the only one that didn't. We have 6 billion folks on this planet, so procreation has done its job, and is pretty much through as an excuse for keep things "as it is". Straight folks have done wonderful things with marriage(turns sarcasm button off). The institution is truly in a state of dysfunction, and at this point, it is not a beacon of light you are trying to make it.

There are legal ramifications in any divorce, so that is a flimsy excuse for not allowing same sex marriage.


As for nuts bombing abortion clinics, how many can you count? I'll bet there are more pedophile/homosexual priests abusing children, not to mention prison rape. Don't even get me started on NAMBLA.

If even one person dies from a abortion clinic bombing, that is too many. Most prison rapes are done by those who consider themselves straight in society. Rape in prison is not about sexuality, it is about control. Unfortunately gays are victims of prison rapes far more than the are perpetrators.


As for homosexuals in society, have at it but don't try to convince me, or my children that it's normal. It's an aberration of nature, nothing more, and should be accepted as such.

If it is such an aberration of nature, then why can you find it in nature so much? How many gays have to be created by God(man is his creation) and put on this earth before it becomes acceptable? There are millions of gays all over the world, and that is a lot of aberrations - is nature becoming dysfunctional? More and more are being born each day, so why does God let this happen if it is an aberration? Nobody on this planet who is gay wants to waste their time trying to convince you of anything, they have their lives to live.

Since you are not God, no one really has to accept anything just because you state it. Your proclamations are just your opinion, and that should be taken with a bag of salt. No where in the Bible does God or Jesus mention anything about homosexuality, so this is nothing more than the opinion of man, or laws created by man to control man.


As for your going to hell for your preferences, that's between you and your god, nobody else. Take it up with him/her/whatever. But, if you don't believe in one, unless the local townsfolk attack your castle with pitchforks and torches, why should what others believe bother you? Remember, sticks and stones...

This I agree with.

[Ajani]

Which is why most real audio sites that aren't begging for traffic keep them off limits.

A fair point.. Religious discussions probably should be off limits as they lead to heated and usually nasty discussions...


Questioning is one thing. Downright insulting it, like comparing it to pedophilia,i s quite another, doncha think? The fact nobody here sees this is quite telling.

So you lift the quality of the discussion by calling the persons who question religion 'incestuous'? I just don't see the rationale...

Also, you make a very wrong assumption in concluding that no one sees the difference between questioning and the insulting that Feanor chose to do... In fact, FA already made it clear that she disagreed with Feanor...

[Hyfi]

If you want to attack faith-based things, stick to cables and interconnects, which seem to be immune from requiring scientific proof in this hobby.

I did my time with you there 12 years ago. Maybe you should stick to Mtrys school of Cables and become one of his disciples again over Audioholics.

[markw]

So you lift the quality of the discussion by calling the persons who question religion 'incestuous'? I just don't see the rationale...I use that word because it's always the same few that promote this subject.


Also, you make a very wrong assumption in concluding that no one sees the difference between questioning and the insulting that Feanor chose to do... In fact, FA already made it clear that she disagreed with Feanor...And, as it now stands, she's the only one who sees it as wrong. I truly give her credit for that. As for the others, well, see for yourself.

[markw]

Mark, I have stayed clear of this argument, but your Neanderthal like perspective is pretty troubling. Marriage has been going on since the beginning of time, but so has rape, racism, and several other things. Considering the fact that the divorce rate sit firmly at 50%, one has to doubt whether this model is all that successful. All of my siblings have gone through a divorce, and I am the only one that didn't. We have 6 billion folks on this planet, so procreation has done its job, and is pretty much through as an excuse for keep things "as it is". Straight folks have done wonderful things with marriage(turns sarcasm button off). The institution is truly in a state of dysfunction, and at this point, it is not a beacon of light you are trying to make it.Marriage is a commitment that the couple needs to work at. It ain't always easy. It sometimes takes work, lots of it, and a lack of selfishness on both parts. That doesn't mean the institution is flawed, just that those involved aren't treating it with the respect that's due and are opting for the easy way out when it becomes too much work.


[here are legal ramifications in any divorce, so that is a flimsy excuse for not allowing same sex marriage.True, but the "same sex" thing has caused confusion in several states already.


If even one person dies from a abortion clinic bombing, that is too many.Seriously Terry ,you want to try to blame all religions for this? C'mon, I gave you more ctedit than that.


Most prison rapes are done by those who consider themselves straight in society. Rape in prison is not about sexuality, it is about control. Unfortunately gays are victims of prison rapes far more than the are perpetrators.Whatever you say. I'd say it's ore to do with using what one has available.



If it is such an aberration of nature, then why can you find it in nature so much? How many gays have to be created by God(man is his creation) and put on this earth before it becomes acceptable?When they are capable of reproducing on their own.


There are millions of gays all over the world, and that is a lot of aberrations - is nature becoming dysfunctional? More and more are being born each day, so why does God let this happen if it is an aberration? Nobody on this planet who is gay wants to waste their time trying to convince you of anything, they have their lives to live.There's also more incidints of cancer, hepatitis and other healh issues over the past few years. They also perscribe drugs for childrens behavioural problems more and more lately. Are you going to try to tell me that's the new normal?


Since you are not God, no one really has to accept anything just because you state it. Your proclamations are just your opinion, and that should be taken with a bag of salt. No where in the Bible does God or Jesus mention anything about homosexuality, so this is nothing more than the opinion of man, or laws created by man to control man.I never claim to be God, nor will say he doesn't exist. Nobody has to accept my opinions as the truth, but outside of this collection of social misfits, many do. And, I don't go making fun of others beliefs or actions, either. That's more than I can say about this place.

[markw]

I did my time with you there 12 years ago. Maybe you should stick to Mtrys school of Cables and become one of his disciples again over Audioholics.And yet, we're still waiting for that proof. After all, this is science, which is based on testable facts, not faith-based religion, right?

[ForeverAutumn]

The next time I have a question, I think I'll send a PM.

[JohnMichael]

When they are capable of reproducing on their own.




Now we must limit marriage to couples who will and are capable of reproducing. A young man returning from war without his testicles will not be allowed to marry because he cannot reproduce. A young woman who is infertile will need to remain a spinster. A person born with both genders who is always sterile cannot marry the opposite of whatever gender they choose for themselves. If a man due to prostate cancer has his testicles removed to lengthen his life will his marriage be annulled?

[markw]

Now we must limit marriage to couples who will and are capable of reproducing. A young man returning from war without his testicles will not be allowed to marry because he cannot reproduce. A young woman who is infertile will need to remain a spinster. A person born with both genders who is always sterile cannot marry the opposite of whatever gender they choose for themselves. If a man due to prostate cancer has his testicles removed to lengthen his life will his marriage be annulled?It's logic like that that makes gays look stupid. They are the exception to the rule and don't skew the equation. It still maintains the natural ways of couples.

Now, when two people of the same sex can generate a child on their own, get back to me.
.

[JohnMichael]

It's logic like that that makes gays look stupid. They are the exception to the rule and don't skew the equation. It still maintains the natural ways of couples.

Now, when two people of the same sex can generate a child on their own, get back to me.
.




Be very careful who you are calling stupid. I was just following your logic.

[markw]

Be very careful who you are calling stupid. I was just following your logic.Not very well, apparantly.

[Ajani]

The next time I have a question, I think I'll send a PM.

There's nothing wrong with asking questions... Unless AR changes its forum policies, then you should feel free to ask what you want in this section...

I'm not an atheist, yet I am annoyed that a great deal of organized religion is intolerant of persons questioning their beliefs... Or if you can ask the question, you need to be willing to accept the official answer given by the 'church' or risk having your membership revoked...

[ForeverAutumn]

It's logic like that that makes gays look stupid. They are the exception to the rule and don't skew the equation. It still maintains the natural ways of couples.

Now, when two people of the same sex can generate a child on their own, get back to me.
.

So it's all about reproduction Mark? My husband and I made a concious decision, before we got married, not to have children. As far as I know we are both perfectly capable of having children, we just choose not to. Do you think that we shouldn't have been allowed to marry?

I think that marriage is about love and commitment. If two people love each other and want to make a commitment to each other why shouldn't they be allowed to do so? The ability or desire to reproduce shouldn't have any bearing on it.

[markw]

So it's all about reproduction Mark? My husband and I made a concious decision, before we got married, not to have children. As far as I know we are both perfectly capable of having children, we just choose not to. Do you think that we shouldn't have been allowed to marry?

I think that marriage is about love and commitment. If two people love each other and want to make a commitment to each other why shouldn't they be allowed to do so? The ability or desire to reproduce shouldn't have any bearing on it.That's a part of it but it's more of a "mating" of two bloodlines to pass the best of their genes, and possibly beliefs, on to another generation, not to mention financial /political continuity. That's why marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman, for all societies, since the beginning of time. That's the reason for the male/female pairing, not raw sex per se.

As for your "conscious decision", that's your choice but you don't know what you're missing, or missed. I'm glad to have raised three boys into fine men and now they are working on six grandkids, so far. Yes, it took a bit of sacrifice and a lot of work but it was worth it. There's more to life than money.

[JohnMichael]

That's why marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman, for all societies, since the beginning of time. That's the reason for the male/female pairing, not raw sex per se.





In classical antiquity, writers such as Herodotus,[1] Plato,[2] Xenophon,[3] Athenaeus[4] and many others explored aspects of same-sex love in ancient Greece. The most widespread and socially significant form of same-sex sexual relations in ancient Greece was between adult men and adolescent boys, known as pederasty. (However, marriages in Ancient Greece between men and women were also age structured, with men in their 30s commonly taking wives in their early teens.) Though homosexual relationships between adult men did exist, at least one member of each of these relationships flouted social conventions by assuming a passive sexual role. It is unclear how such relations between women were regarded in the general society, but examples do exist as far back as the time of Sappho.[5]

The ancient Greeks did not conceive of sexual orientation as a social identifier, as Western societies have done for the past century. Greek society did not distinguish sexual desire or behavior by the gender of the participants, but rather by the role that each participant played in the sex act, that of active penetrator or passive penetrated.[5] This active/passive polarization corresponded with dominant and submissive social roles: the active (penetrative) role was associated with masculinity, higher social status, and adulthood, while the passive role was associated with femininity, lower social status, and youth.[5


Homosexuality was not frowned upon in Greece. The Theban army was composed of a Sacred Band, battalions of men with male lovers on the battlefield with them. The thought was they would fight harder to save and impress the one they loved.

Remember, Alexander had male lovers.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla, Roman general and dictator, had many relationships with other males.

Julius Caesar was called the Queen of Bithnyia by his political enemies in Rome because of the time he spent in Anatolia with the King of Bithnyia when he was younger.

Believe it. Also, Alexander and Julius Caesar are two of the most worshiped men in history.



Shall I post more?

[markw]

And, where is Greece today?

[Hyfi]

That's a part of it but it's more of a "mating" of two bloodlines to pass the best of their genes, and possibly beliefs, on to another generation, not to mention financial /political continuity. That's why marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman, for all societies, since the beginning of time. That's the reason for the male/female pairing, not raw sex per se.



Did you ever stop to think why religions preach male/female marriage to have children as you say? Maybe it's the same reason they frown upon suicide.

If you pump out babies, and don't kill yourself, more money goes into the collection plate. And lately, lots of that money is going to lawyers defending priests who have homosexually raped the male youth of their own churches.

[JohnMichael]

Did you ever stop to think why religions preach male/female marriage to have children as you say? Maybe it's the same reason they frown upon suicide.

If you pump out babies, and don't kill yourself, more money goes into the collection plate. And lately, lots of that money is going to lawyers defending priests who have homosexually raped the male youth of their own churches.


HebephiliaFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
Hebephilia refers to the sexual preference for individuals in the early years of puberty (generally ages 11–14, though onset of puberty may vary). Girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11; boys at age 12 or 13. Hebephilia differs from ephebophilia, which refers to the sexual preference for individuals in later adolescence,[1] and from pedophilia, which refers to the sexual preference for prepubescent children.[2] While individuals with a sexual preference for adults (i.e., teleiophiles) may have some sexual interest in pubescent-aged individuals,[3] the term hebephilia is reserved for those who prefer pubescent-aged individuals over adults. The term was introduced by Glueck (1955),[4] who later credited it, without citation, to Paul Benedict.[5]

Debate is ongoing over whether hebephilia is a mental disorder, with Ray Blanchard and a number of his colleagues from CAMH arguing for its inclusion in the DSM-5.[6] The proposal has been criticized by Richard Green,[7] Allen Frances,[8] Michael First (DSM-IV editor),[8][9] Karen Franklin,[10] Charles Allen Moser,[11] William O'Donohue,[12] and other mental health professionals on various grounds. The current draft of the DSM-5, on which Blanchard serves as as Chair of the Paraphilias Sub-Work Group,[13] includes Blanchard's proposal.[14]






I think we need to be accurate on our terms. Homosexuals do not rape male youth. They are busy looking for a consenting adult who would love to have a loving relationship. There are many same sex couples who have loving, committed, supportive relationships. They have the same hopes and dreams as their straight counterparts.

Please do not confuse homosexuals with pedophiles or hebephiles.

[Mr Peabody]

[QUOTE=Sir Terrence the Terrible;360956]Mark, I have stayed clear of this argument, but your Neanderthal like perspective is pretty troubling. Marriage has been going on since the beginning of time, but so has rape, racism, and several other things. Considering the fact that the divorce rate sit firmly at 50%, one has to doubt whether this model is all that successful. All of my siblings have gone through a divorce, and I am the only one that didn't. We have 6 billion folks on this planet, so procreation has done its job, and is pretty much through as an excuse for keep things "as it is". Straight folks have done wonderful things with marriage(turns sarcasm button off). The institution is truly in a state of dysfunction, and at this point, it is not a beacon of light you are trying to make it.

* > Mr Peabody replied here> Uh, T-bone, either you weren't divorced because you were never married or your wife doesn't care if you are a straight up adulterer..... What's that you say P? What about the girl friend with the tattoo you kicked to the curb? Where she fit in with your model citizenship? You say you have kids that watch cartoons with you and on other posts your kids graduated top of the class at top colleges in the world, you need to take notes to your lies in order to keep yourself straight.

There are legal ramifications in any divorce, so that is a flimsy excuse for not allowing same sex marriage.

* > Mr Peabody replied here> We shouldn't allow it because marriage was never intended for same sex.

If even one person dies from a abortion clinic bombing, that is too many. Most prison rapes are done by those who consider themselves straight in society. Rape in prison is not about sexuality, it is about control. Unfortunately gays are victims of prison rapes far more than the are perpetrators.

* > Mr Peabody replied here> I agree that bombings and other violence is wrong and God would never approve nor does the Bible teach such things. Christians are to rebuke error in love and humility.

If it is such an aberration of nature, then why can you find it in nature so much? How many gays have to be created by God(man is his creation) and put on this earth before it becomes acceptable? There are millions of gays all over the world, and that is a lot of aberrations - is nature becoming dysfunctional? More and more are being born each day, so why does God let this happen if it is an aberration? Nobody on this planet who is gay wants to waste their time trying to convince you of anything, they have their lives to live.

* > Mr Peabody replied here> God created man but he did not make them gay.

Since you are not God, no one really has to accept anything just because you state it. Your proclamations are just your opinion, and that should be taken with a bag of salt. No where in the Bible does God or Jesus mention anything about homosexuality, so this is nothing more than the opinion of man, or laws created by man to control man.

* > Mr Peabody replied here> Better read that Bible again. Sounds like yours had some creative editing.

This I agree with.[/QUOTE

In addition, which is it Terry, on one hand you are the poster choir boy and here on this post you make the athist statement "bout homosexuality, so this is nothing more than the opinion of man, or laws created by man to control man". Funny statement for a self professed Christian on other threads. Again, better start taking some notes. Funny you call every one else liars when you can't back up what you say but you have more inconsistencies than any one else here.

[JohnMichael]

______




If this is just a repost without being obvious what you have added it will be deleted. Take credit for your additions. No additions no duplicate post.

[Mr Peabody]

FA, Christians believe God is man's creator and as such there are things we as human will not understand while on this earth. Christians also believe that God will answer their prayers in accordance with His will. I can not answer why God allows some to die and some to live in a disaster. Why some live to a ripe old age while others don't get past their teens. Some of the latter has to do with man having free will, a world where greed and disregard of others runs rampid.

Hyfi, you are the one who claimed the Bible contradicted itself. I disagree it does whole heartedly.

Tithing is not binding today. Priests in the Old Testament had to come from the tribe of Levy. Other tribes were commanded to tithe 10% of whatever they did for a living to support the Levitical Priesthood. It was most likely rarely money, more likely grain, sheep, etc. Today in the NT Christians are told to take up a collection on the 1st day of the week to support their work. You will not find a corporate structured church in the Bible. Each congregation was autonomous. Christians are told to give as they have prospered and purpose in their heart. Matthew, Mark, Luke & John were with Jesus and witnessed to His life on earth. Again, I can't understand why you forward and hold true the fantasy you read over the Bible. If you put that much effort into reading and studying the Bible you'd find it coincides with secular history pretty well.

[Ajani]

If this is just a repost without being obvious what you have added it will be deleted. Take credit for your additions. No additions no duplicate post.


I thought so too initially... but he actually completely disagrees with Sir T in the body of the post...

[JohnMichael]

I thought so too initially... but he actually completely disagrees with Sir T in the body of the post...






I saw the differences and I was wondering why he did not take credit for his part of the post. He made it look like it was just a repost.

[Mr Peabody]

I thought the replies automatically had a different font. How are you supposed to show your replies?

I know you go behind and love to delete my posts JM, i wouldn't mind so much if you were fair and did that to other people. I guess I should be flattered you take that much interest or dislike to them. You say you know Markw by his statements as I know you by your actions. Too bad others on this forum don't know just what a weasel you are. Up to this point you've hidden your ways pretty well, be careful what you post in the open lest they may discover as well.

[JohnMichael]

I thought the replies automatically had a different font. How are you supposed to show your replies?

I know you go behind and love to delete my posts JM, i wouldn't mind so much if you were fair and did that to other people. I guess I should be flattered you take that much interest or dislike to them. You say you know Markw by his statements as I know you by your actions. Too bad others on this forum don't know just what a weasel you are. Up to this point you've hidden your ways pretty well, be careful what you post in the open lest they may discover as well.



No posts deleted my paranoid friend. No you are not that important or interesting. Many on AR have met me and know me. Weasel is one who makes accusations based on a perceived wrong. Time to let it go.

[Hyfi]

Please do not confuse homosexuals with pedophiles or hebephiles.

My apologies for the wrong choice of words. I have no problems with homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals or any other alternative lifestyle groups as long as it happens between 2 consenting individuals without the threats of whatever these priests feed the kids.

Male on Male is still homosexuality as much as it is pedophilia when a child is involved. I'm pretty sure the majority of the alter boys would choose differently if given a chance while some may already be orientated that way.

As for Mr P's statement that god did not create gays....get a grip. If god created EVERYTHING, than there are no exceptions.

It is pretty much a proven fact that people can be born in the wrong bodies. Many times at birth, because of multiple sex organs, a family has to make a choice as to which one goes and which one stays. It isn't always the right choice for the adult that child will become.

And I am not that confused when I read the story anymore because in my heart, although there is some historical evidence, it is still just a story, twisted and molded into what it is today and the people who wrote it, were not there at the time any of it happened.

[Feanor]

A fair point.. Religious discussions probably should be off limits as they lead to heated and usually nasty discussions...

Like I said at some point earlier, don't discuss religion or politics (or cables) if you want discussion to remain polite. This is because people abandon rationality when they get into these topics. Religion in particular is non-rational by definition.


...
Also, you make a very wrong assumption in concluding that no one sees the difference between questioning and the insulting that Feanor chose to do... In fact, FA already made it clear that she disagreed with Feanor...
Silly of me, but I draw a distinction between denigrating an idea or mode of thought on the one hand and personally insulting an individual on the other. I forget that people invest so heavily in their ideas, that they see attacks on them as attacks on their persons.

[Feanor]

...
Or if you can ask the question, you need to be willing to accept the official answer given by the 'church' or risk having your membership revoked...
In politics this is called the "questioning the party line". E.g. when Newt Gingrich described the Republican's current health care proposal as "right-wing social engineering".

[ForeverAutumn]

FA, Christians believe God is man's creator and as such there are things we as human will not understand while on this earth. Christians also believe that God will answer their prayers in accordance with His will. I can not answer why God allows some to die and some to live in a disaster. Why some live to a ripe old age while others don't get past their teens. Some of the latter has to do with man having free will, a world where greed and disregard of others runs rampid.


Mr. P, Thanks for your response. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on the matter and I am going to leave things at that.

[Ajani]

In politics this is called the "questioning the party line". E.g. when Newt Gingrich described the Republican's current health care proposal as "right-wing social engineering".

LOL.... That is exactly what I was thinking.... Though I chose to leave out the politics... If you are too vocal in your dissent from the official position of the Church or Political party you will be booted...

Coming from a Catholic upbringing, I'm well aware that many active Catholics (and other denominations) merely keep quiet about the various ways they totally disagree with the official position(s) of their church(es)...

[Hyfi]

I'm not a big fan of censorship, but maybe we should have this thread shut down and get back to business as usual.

There are no right or wrong answers to any of it and just like the cables issue, you either believe or you don't.

[bobsticks]

I'm not a big fan of censorship, but maybe we should have this thread shut down and get back to business as usual.

There are no right or wrong answers to any of it and just like the cables issue, you either believe or you don't.

Which brings us back full circle...because free societies we can either choose to engage or not in such debate without fear of recourse. Those living under Sharia Law have no such options.

I see your point to an extent as I have seen fit to avoid any entanglements within the latter portions of this screed...but it will not be closed down by these hands.

[Hyfi]

Which brings us back full circle...because free societies we can either choose to engage or not in such debate without fear of recourse. Those living under Sharia Law have no such options.

I see your point to an extent as I have seen fit to avoid any entanglements within the latter portions of this screed...but it will not be closed down by these hands.


LOL, you started this mess and stepped back to watch it all degrade to where we are now.

I was just thinking it would be good not to lose anymore friends over religious differences. I guess I will just stop posting in this thread even if I feel provoked to respond.

[JohnMichael]

I see your point to an extent as I have seen fit to avoid any entanglements within the latter portions of this screed...but it will not be closed down by these hands.



Since this thread began and remains in the Steel Cage I see no reason to close the thread. I am sure no ones mind will be changed but we might understand each other better. My opinions of some have been raised while not so for others.

[GMichael]

LOL, you started this mess and stepped back to watch it all degrade to where we are now.

I was just thinking it would be good not to lose anymore friends over religious differences. I guess I will just stop posting in this thread even if I feel provoked to respond.

Trouble maker! :devil:

[bobsticks]

LOL, you started this mess and stepped back to watch it all degrade to where we are now...

Imagine occupying a middle ground in this mess. I can only fight on so many fronts.



Hyfi, do you have kids? You can't correct them and love them at the same time?

Hyfi prolly could but some of y'all serious types couldn't since you'd be too busy getting them to the gates of the city for a proper stoning a la Leviticus 21:17 and Deuteronomy 21:18-21.





See, I can't help myself. It ain't easy bein' me...

[GMichael]

Imagine being occupying a middle ground in this mess. I can only fight on so many fronts.



Hyfi prolly could but some of y'all serious types couldn't since you'd be too busy getting them to the gates of the city for a proper stoning a la Leviticus 21:17 and Deuteronomy 21:18-21.





See, I can't help myself. It ain't easy bein' me...

OK OK...

So you are the true trouble maker.:eek6:

[bobsticks]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2286/1891341636_be39b3cd17.jpg

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

* > Mr Peabody replied here> Uh, T-bone, either you weren't divorced because you were never married or your wife doesn't care if you are a straight up adulterer..... What's that you say P? What about the girl friend with the tattoo you kicked to the curb? Where she fit in with your model citizenship? You say you have kids that watch cartoons with you and on other posts your kids graduated top of the class at top colleges in the world, you need to take notes to your lies in order to keep yourself straight.

azzhole, my wife passed away years ago, and I stated so many times on this very forum. My kids do not watch cartoons, they watch animation with me. Your stupid ass can't even get the story straight, so maybe you need to keep that big ass beak out of my business. If you are going to come after me, get your story straight. What you presented here is pathetic, but then since you are pathetic, its par for the course.



There are legal ramifications in any divorce, so that is a flimsy excuse for not allowing same sex marriage.


* > Mr Peabody replied here> We shouldn't allow it because marriage was never intended for same sex.

How do you know what was intended? God nor Jesus never spoke against it, or even mentioned it. Take your hateful biased opinions and stuff them straight up your sorry butt.




* > Mr Peabody replied here> I agree that bombings and other violence is wrong and God would never approve nor does the Bible teach such things. Christians are to rebuke error in love and humility.


So where is the love and humility hypocrite? Your sorry ass can't even follow your own advice.




* > Mr Peabody replied here> God created man but he did not make them gay.

How else did they get that way idiot, their mother told them to be that way? God created them, they surely didn't decide this for themselves.




* > Mr Peabody replied here> Better read that Bible again. Sounds like yours had some creative editing.

If God or Jesus mentions anything about homosexuality, point it out to me. What is the scripture. I read the King James version just so you know.



In addition, which is it Terry, on one hand you are the poster choir boy and here on this post you make the athist statement "bout homosexuality, so this is nothing more than the opinion of man, or laws created by man to control man". Funny statement for a self professed Christian on other threads. Again, better start taking some notes. Funny you call every one else liars when you can't back up what you say but you have more inconsistencies than any one else here.

Peabrain, you are just another hypocritical Christian that speaks out of both sides of their mouths. There are so many of you out there, it is beginning to pollute the air. It is not an atheist statement to point out the truth "bout homosexuality", it is a fact.

I have never stated I was a poster boy for anything but being myself. On the other hand, you run around here quoting scripture out of one side of your mouth, and attack and call names on the other. This kind of Christianity I call cock roach Christianity. When the lights are off they are attacking people personally with the intention on tearing them down. When the lights go on, you scramble for the baseboards quoting scripture, and pretending to be holy than thou. I just want you to know that you are transparent. I can see right through that false Christianity. I can see right through that pious Pharisaical mask that you sport, and I am not fooled by your pious show of quoting scripture. You are no better than the Swaggarts, Bakers, and Haggarts out there - you preach to folks, cast judgement, condemn, and then turn around and do the very thing you condemn others for. There is no love in your posts, and no humility. What is there is revenge for getting your butt kicked time after time on audio and video things, and that makes you look bad, uniformed, and sometimes just plain stupid.

By the way, my name is not Terry peahead.

This is your second failed attempt to tear me down. Where is God's love in that hypocrite? I supposed God told you to call me out in the first post, and here as well. No it was not God, it was you being the hypocrite you are, the bitter revengeful pathetic fool you are.

I need to go wash myself off. I always feel soiled when I have to interact with fake double tongued Christians.

[ForeverAutumn]

Y'all have no idea how sorry I am that I posted what I thought was a simple question and resurrected this thread.

Everybody take a time-out for the talking dog. The imbedding isn't working so click on the link. DO IT!

http://youtu.be/nGeKSiCQkPw

[Ajani]

Since this thread began and remains in the Steel Cage I see no reason to close the thread. I am sure no ones mind will be changed but we might understand each other better. My opinions of some have been raised while not so for others.

Despite some of the really unfortunate personal attacks in this thread, I like both the discussion and the fact that I get a better understanding of some of the other forum members...

It helps me to remember that just because you agree with another person on HiFi doesn't mean you would be likely to get along with that person in real life... And of course the converse; that we could be in perpetual war over HiFi issues, yet could be best of friends in real life...

[GMichael]

Y'all have no idea how sorry I am that I posted what I thought was a simple question and resurrected this thread.

Everybody take a time-out for the talking dog. The imbedding isn't working so click on the link. DO IT!

http://youtu.be/nGeKSiCQkPw

You just pull it over to the side of the road there lady. You got sumptin' against a good beatin'?

[Mr Peabody]

azzhole, my wife passed away years ago, and I stated so many times on this very forum. My kids do not watch cartoons, they watch animation with me. Your stupid ass can't even get the story straight, so maybe you need to keep that big ass beak out of my business. If you are going to come after me, get your story straight. What you presented here is pathetic, but then since you are pathetic, its par for the course.

* If you stated your wife passed away show me one post. I've been here a minute and have not run across that. Sure sounds like you got your feathers ruffled.

How do you know what was intended? God nor Jesus never spoke against it, or even mentioned it. Take your hateful biased opinions and stuff them straight up your sorry butt.

** Homosexuality is Condemned in the Bible!

The Bible's condemnation of homosexuality is as clear and plain as the Bible's condemnation of murder, adultery, premarital sex, kidnapping, lying and idolatry. Further, for me to openly condemn homosexuality theologically makes me no more a "gay basher" than I am an "adultery basher", "premarital sex basher", "kidnapper basher" or a "murderer basher". If you disagree, your argument is with God's Bible.

The homosexual community has two ways of promoting their personal choices of being homosexual through the religious forum. First, some will claim the Bible actually promotes and condones homosexuality. Second, others try to get the Bible banned from public use by categorizing it as hate literature.

For any to use the Bible to condone rather than condemn homosexual activity in the theological arena just proves such a one has absolutely no idea what the Bible actually teaches. For anyone to suggest the Bible says homosexual activity is acceptable to God, is nothing short of willful blindness. So to set the record straight once and for all, here is what the Bible teaches on the subject.

Anyone who has heard of the cities of "Sodom and Gommorah" knows that they were notorious hotbeds of homosexuality. Gen 19:5-8 "and they called to Lot and said to him, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.' But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, 'Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly.'" The Greek word in the New Testament for homosexuality is literally "a sodomite". Jock is trying to redefine what the term "sodomite" means. (A term that has unchanged in 5000 years, even today- "sodomy") Apart from the fact the city was clearly destroyed by God because of homosexuality in the narrative of Gen 19, even the New Testament clearly states exactly the same thing in Jude 7 "Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire." Any sinner should always remember that the God who commands us to love our neighbour is the same God who will cast any and all unrepentant sinners into the "eternal fire". Here are more Bible quotes, Lev 18:22-23 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." Lev 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death." 1 Cor 6:9 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals" 1 Tim 1:9-10 "realizing the fact that (civil) law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers" Rom 1:26-27 "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."

If the homosexual community chooses to practice homosexuality in privacy, that is there free choice. But let such persons know for certain that the Christian Bible condemns all such practices and God will judge them unfit for the kingdom of heaven if the continue to practice and openly promote homosexual sex.


So where is the love and humility hypocrite? Your sorry ass can't even follow your own advice.

Your favorite tactic twisting the truth. I have never used the language here you have. I don't think pointing out a few inconsistencies in your statements goes against anything. You like to make things bigger than they are in order to deflect from yourself. Has any one on this board ever met you face to face?

How else did they get that way idiot, their mother told them to be that way? God created them, they surely didn't decide this for themselves.

Why didn't they decide this for themselves?

If God or Jesus mentions anything about homosexuality, point it out to me. What is the scripture. I read the King James version just so you know.

Homosexuality is Condemned in the Bible!

The Bible's condemnation of homosexuality is as clear and plain as the Bible's condemnation of murder, adultery, premarital sex, kidnapping, lying and idolatry. Further, for me to openly condemn homosexuality theologically makes me no more a "gay basher" than I am an "adultery basher", "premarital sex basher", "kidnapper basher" or a "murderer basher". If you disagree, your argument is with God's Bible.

The homosexual community has two ways of promoting their personal choices of being homosexual through the religious forum. First, some will claim the Bible actually promotes and condones homosexuality. Second, others try to get the Bible banned from public use by categorizing it as hate literature.

For any to use the Bible to condone rather than condemn homosexual activity in the theological arena just proves such a one has absolutely no idea what the Bible actually teaches. For anyone to suggest the Bible says homosexual activity is acceptable to God, is nothing short of willful blindness. So to set the record straight once and for all, here is what the Bible teaches on the subject.

Anyone who has heard of the cities of "Sodom and Gommorah" knows that they were notorious hotbeds of homosexuality. Gen 19:5-8 "and they called to Lot and said to him, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.' But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, 'Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly.'" The Greek word in the New Testament for homosexuality is literally "a sodomite". Jock is trying to redefine what the term "sodomite" means. (A term that has unchanged in 5000 years, even today- "sodomy") Apart from the fact the city was clearly destroyed by God because of homosexuality in the narrative of Gen 19, even the New Testament clearly states exactly the same thing in Jude 7 "Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire." Any sinner should always remember that the God who commands us to love our neighbour is the same God who will cast any and all unrepentant sinners into the "eternal fire". Here are more Bible quotes, Lev 18:22-23 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." Lev 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death." 1 Cor 6:9 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals" 1 Tim 1:9-10 "realizing the fact that (civil) law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers" Rom 1:26-27 "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."

If the homosexual community chooses to practice homosexuality in privacy, that is there free choice. But let such persons know for certain that the Christian Bible condemns all such practices and God will judge them unfit for the kingdom of heaven if the continue to practice and openly promote homosexual sex.



Peabrain, you are just another hypocritical Christian that speaks out of both sides of their mouths. There are so many of you out there, it is beginning to pollute the air. It is not an atheist statement to point out the truth "bout homosexuality", it is a fact.

Good try to deflect, read the post again and try to comprehend this time.

I have never stated I was a poster boy for anything but being myself. On the other hand, you run around here quoting scripture out of one side of your mouth, and attack and call names on the other. This kind of Christianity I call cock roach Christianity. When the lights are off they are attacking people personally with the intention on tearing them down. When the lights go on, you scramble for the baseboards quoting scripture, and pretending to be holy than thou. I just want you to know that you are transparent. I can see right through that false Christianity. I can see right through that pious Pharisaical mask that you sport, and I am not fooled by your pious show of quoting scripture. You are no better than the Swaggarts, Bakers, and Haggarts out there - you preach to folks, cast judgement, condemn, and then turn around and do the very thing you condemn others for. There is no love in your posts, and no humility. What is there is revenge for getting your butt kicked time after time on audio and video things, and that makes you look bad, uniformed, and sometimes just plain stupid.

By the way, my name is not Terry peahead.

This is your second failed attempt to tear me down. Where is God's love in that hypocrite? I supposed God told you to call me out in the first post, and here as well. No it was not God, it was you being the hypocrite you are, the bitter revengeful pathetic fool you are.

I need to go wash myself off. I always feel soiled when I have to interact with fake double tongued Christians.

Terry, you seem to be the one calling names. Proclaiming to be the winner doesn't make you so. You are a fraud and you get a bit out of shape when that truth gets to close. Funny Pix can even see you for what you are but some here who think they are quite bright eat your fantasies up.

[JohnMichael]

Terry, you seem to be the one calling names. Proclaiming to be the winner doesn't make you so. You are a fraud and you get a bit out of shape when that truth gets to close. Funny Pix can even see you for what you are but some here who think they are quite bright eat your fantasies up.



I find you share some of the characteristics you name.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Terry, you seem to be the one calling names. Proclaiming to be the winner doesn't make you so. You are a fraud and you get a bit out of shape when that truth gets to close. Funny Pix can even see you for what you are but some here who think they are quite bright eat your fantasies up.

Beezle bub, why don't you cast yourself into a pig, and run off a cliff. Don't bring Pix into this fake, he is as stupid as you are...well maybe your are worse.

[ForeverAutumn]

The homosexual community has two ways of promoting their personal choices of being homosexual

I had to stop reading after this statement because, for me, this is where all religious arguments against homosexuality begin and end, with this false statement. Homosexuality is no more a personal choice than hetrosexuality. There are many scientific studies that link homosexuality to genetics.

I have several gay friends. Trust me when I tell you that none of them would choose to be made fun of, beat up, subjected to biggotry, lose friends and family, and be discriminated against both in their personal life and at work. Being gay is no more a choice than choosing your skin colour, or your eye colour, or who your parents are.

One of my best friends is a lesbian. I knew her for six years before she finally felt strong enough to admit the truth to herself and everyone else. For the first six years that I knew her she went from man to man and never found anyone to really love. After finally admitting the truth about herself, she found a wonderful woman who she has been with for five years. They are so meant for each other that I can't imagine her with a man now. She's finally happy, but it cost her her relationship with her very religious parents who refuse to accept that she's gay and would rather shut her out than share in her happiness.

I also know two men who married women and had children because they felt that they had to do what was expected of them rather than what felt right to them. Both are now divorced. Do you think that they chose to be gay so that they could divorce their wives and spend less time with their children?

I ask, why on earth would anyone CHOOSE to subject themselves to that if it were a choice?

Mr. Peabody and Mark, what would you do if your child came to you and told you that he or she was gay? Would you accept such an abominable choice into your family?

[Mr Peabody]

FA, if one of my children were gay I would love them just the same. I would not condone their relationship just in the same way I didn't condone my daughter living with some one without being married. I don't hate any one for being gay. I don't agree with it as many things the Bible outlines as sinful.

JM, I'm sure I am not your favorite person admitting I disagree with gay lifestyle. However, my posts have always been consistent, I have no need to portray something I'm not, and several members here have been to my house. So if anything was not as I say then I'm sure it would be known. The only issue I take with you is your abuse and prejudicial use of your moderator power. I care less that you are gay and actually it was years of being here before I learned it.

[JohnMichael]

The only issue I take with you is your abuse and prejudicial use of your moderator power. I care less that you are gay and actually it was years of being here before I learned it.


As best as I can remember I deleted a post directed to SVI who as most would admit is not someone who could openly defend themselves. Deleting a post to save someone from pain seemed like a christian act. The fact that you always reference this event says much about you. You of course do not speak of all the PM's you had sent me.

[ForeverAutumn]

FA, if one of my children were gay I would love them just the same. I would not condone their relationship just in the same way I didn't condone my daughter living with some one without being married. I don't hate any one for being gay. I don't agree with it as many things the Bible outlines as sinful.


Fair enough. I don't agree with you but that's okay, I don't have to.

BTW, living with someone before I married him kept me from making the biggest mistake of my life...just sayin'. :smile5:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I find you share some of the characteristics you name.

This is what a typical scripture quoting hypocrite does.

[Feanor]

Now that this thread has degenerated into pointless name calling, please let's put it out of its misery. :(

[bobsticks]

...whistle blows...

...Logical Foul...Post #388...15 Yards


Anyone who has heard of the cities of "Sodom and Gommorah" knows that they were notorious hotbeds of homosexuality. Gen 19:5-8 "and they called to Lot and said to him, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.' But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, 'Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly.'" The Greek word in the New Testament for homosexuality is literally "a sodomite". Jock is trying to redefine what the term "sodomite" means. (A term that has unchanged in 5000 years, even today- "sodomy") Apart from the fact the city was clearly destroyed by God because of homosexuality in the narrative of Gen 19, even the New Testament clearly states exactly the same thing in Jude 7 "Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire." Any sinner should always remember that the God who commands us to love our neighbour is the same God who will cast any and all unrepentant sinners into the "eternal fire". Here are more Bible quotes, Lev 18:22-23 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." Lev 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death." 1 Cor 6:9 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals" 1 Tim 1:9-10 "realizing the fact that (civil) law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers" Rom 1:26-27 "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."

One can use Old Testament scripture directly and claim literal interpretation as from the mouth of God or Jesus but the New Testament scriptures are out of bounds for such argumentation.

[JohnMichael]

Palm Sunday I was walking my dog when I was flashed by an older man. Tonight I saw him returning from Bible Study with his wife and they were carrying their bibles. I made sure my dog was a good distance away since I know elderly people are fearful of dogs jumping on them. I wished them a good evening and they could barely grunt in return. Yes they returned home full of love and concern for their fellow man. NOT!

[bobsticks]

As best as I can remember I deleted a post directed to SVI who as most would admit is not someone who could openly defend themselves...

Lol, that is a bit like kickin' a quad or clubbing a seal.

[Mr Peabody]

Bobsticks,I disagree, the New Testament is just as valid as the Old in respect to being God's word. Christ was with God in the beginning and equal. Jesus was willing to come to earth in the flesh. Isaiah, and much of the Old Testament prophesy to Christ's coming and what would happen to him while on earth. The New Testament allows for forgiveness of sin, something the Old Law did not have.

[JohnMichael]

From Mr Peabody
Anyone who has heard of the cities of "Sodom and Gommorah" knows that they were notorious hotbeds of homosexuality. Gen 19:5-8 "and they called to Lot and said to him, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.' But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, 'Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly.'" The Greek word in the New Testament for homosexuality is literally "a sodomite". Jock is trying to redefine what the term "sodomite" means. (A term that has unchanged in 5000 years, even today- "sodomy") Apart from the fact the city was clearly destroyed by God because of homosexuality in the narrative of Gen 19, even the New Testament clearly states exactly the same thing in Jude 7 "Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire." Any sinner should always remember that the God who commands us to love our neighbour is the same God who will cast any and all unrepentant sinners into the "eternal fire". Here are more Bible quotes, Lev 18:22-23 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." Lev 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death." 1 Cor 6:9 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals" 1 Tim 1:9-10 "realizing the fact that (civil) law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers" Rom 1:26-27 "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."

http://www.christiangay.com/he_loves/sodom.htm
SODOM AND GOMORRAH

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah has been used by people to condemn gays. The argument used by them is that God destroyed these cities because the people of these cities were homosexuals. In this section we will show conclusive BIBLICAL evidence that Sodom and Gomorrah were NOT destroyed because of homosexuals. The only book I will use to show this is the Bible. The Bible does not contradict itself because the it is the Word of God and God is not fickle.

The beginning of this story is found in Genesis 13:

Genesis 13:8-13

So Abram said to Lot, "Let's not have any quarreling between you and me, or between your herdsmen and mine, for we are brothers. Is not the whole land before you? Let's part company. If you go to the left, I'll go to the right; if you go to the right, I'll go to the left." Lot looked up and saw that the whole plain of the Jordan was well watered, like the garden of the LORD, like the land of Egypt, toward Zoar. (This was before the LORD destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.) So Lot chose for himself the whole plain of the Jordan and set out toward the east. The two men parted company: Abram lived in the land of Canaan, while Lot lived among the cities of the plain and pitched his tents near Sodom. Now the men of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the LORD. (NIV)

Abraham and Lot were so wealthy that they had to separate because the land could not support both of them with all their family members, herds, and workers in one place Lot chose to move his family to the twin cities.

The next time we hear about these cities is in Genesis 18:16-33. Here God tells Abraham his plan for Sodom and Gomorrah.

Genesis 18:20-21

Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know." (NIV)

Abraham pleads for these cities because of his nephew Lot. While Abraham and God were talking, the other two angels go to Sodom. Let's read for ourselves what really happened that day:

Genesis 19:1-13

The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning." "No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square." But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate.

Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom both young and old-- surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof." "Get out of our way," they replied. And they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them." They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door. But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door. The two men said to Lot, "Do you have anyone else here--sons-in- law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the LORD against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it." (NIV)

There are several major holes in the theory that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of homosexuality. First, The idea that "all" the men of Sodom were gay is ridiculous. For one thing, Lot's daughters were pledged to be married to men of Sodom. Second, if all the men were homosexuals, why did Lot offer his daughters to appease them? What good would it do to offer a gay man a woman to have sex with? Finally, these people threatened Lot. If he didn't comply with their wishes they said they would do WORSE to him that to the two visitors. They were also trying to force the door down. They were obviously violent and they were trying to get at two unwilling guests. Whenever you mix sex with violence against an unwilling person you do not have homosexuality, you have RAPE.

There is another story in the Bible in which the same thing happened:

. Judges 19:13-27

He added, "Come, let's try to reach Gibeah or Ramah and spend the night in one of those places." So they went on, and the sun set as they neared Gibeah in Benjamin. There they stopped to spend the night. They went and sat in the city square, but no one took them into his home for the night. That evening an old man from the hill country of Ephraim, who was living in Gibeah (the men of the place were Benjamites), came in from his work in the fields. When he looked and saw the traveler in the city square, the old man asked, "Where are you going? Where did you come from?" He answered, "We are on our way from Bethlehem in Judah to a remote area in the hill country of Ephraim where I live. I have been to Bethlehem in Judah and now I am going to the house of the LORD. No one has taken me into his house. We have both straw and fodder for our donkeys and bread and wine for ourselves your servants-- me, your maidservant, and the young man with us. We don't need anything." "You are welcome at my house," the old man said. "Let me supply whatever you need. Only don't spend the night in the square." So he took him into his house and fed his donkeys. After they had washed their feet, they had something to eat and drink.

While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, "Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him." The owner of the house went outside and said to them, "No, my friends, don't be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don't do this disgraceful thing. Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But to this man, don't do such a disgraceful thing." But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight. When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. (NIV)

[JohnMichael]

http://www.christiangay.com/he_loves/sodom.htmNotice the similarity in the stories. Compare Genesis 19:4,5 with Judges 19:22.

Genesis 19:4,5

Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom-- both young and old-- surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

Judges 19:22

While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, "Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him."

In the account in Judges the wicked men were appeased with the female concubine. This proves they were not homosexuals. They were after sex for power or rape. If you read further you'll learn that the tribe of Benjamin was almost totally destroyed because of this incident. Neither the tribe of Benjamin nor the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were punished because of homosexuality. Both of these accounts clearly describe rape. What the men of Sodom were going to do to the angels in Genesis was what the men of Gibeah did to the traveler's concubine in Judges.

Why were Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed? What were the grievous sins that God judged them worthy of such destruction? What was the great outcry God was referring to in Genesis chapter 18? We don't need to wonder. The Bible tells us exactly why these cities were destroyed.

Ezekiel 16:48-50

As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done. "'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. (NIV)

Ezekiel Chapter 16 is an allegory God used to compare unfaithful Jerusalem to an adulterous wife for committing religious adultery. As you can see God listed the sins of Sodom. No homosexuality is listed there. Those detestable or abominable acts mentioned refereed to the religious rituals popular in that time. We will cover these in the section on false gods.

Deuteronomy 29:22-26

Your children who follow you in later generations and foreigners who come from distant lands will see the calamities that have fallen on the land and the diseases with which the LORD has afflicted it. The whole land will be a burning waste of salt and sulfur-- nothing planted, nothing sprouting, no vegetation growing on it. It will be like the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim, which the LORD overthrew in fierce anger.

All the nations will ask: "Why has the LORD done this to this land? Why this fierce, burning anger?" And the answer will be: "It is because this people abandoned the covenant of the LORD, the God of their fathers, the covenant he made with them when he brought them out of Egypt. They went off and worshiped other gods and bowed down to them, gods they did not know, gods he had not given them. (NIV)

Moses was about to die and he predicted the scattering of Israel and the destruction of the land like the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. This destruction of Israel was not prophesied because of homosexuality but because of religious infidelity. This is quite in line with the context of the entire Bible. Of course God promises their restoration in Deuteronomy chapter 30. This complete restoration is about to happen in the end times, but that is another study.

Amos 4:11

"I overthrew some of you as I overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. You were like a burning stick snatched from the fire, yet you have not returned to me," declares the LORD. (NIV)

If you read the book of Amos you find that God promises to overthrow Israel as He overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah for three things: turning away from God which is religious unfaithfulness, being evil to the poor and living selfishly. Homosexuality is not even addressed.

Jeremiah 23:13,14

"Among the prophets of Samaria I saw this repulsive thing: They prophesied by Baal and led my people Israel astray. And among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen something horrible: They commit adultery and live a lie. They strengthen the hands of evildoers, so that no one turns from his wickedness. They are all like Sodom to me; the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah." (NIV)

Here is yet another comparison of the promised judgment of Israel to the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah. Once again the theme is religious unfaithfulness, not homosexuality.

Matthew 10:11-15

"Whatever town or village you enter, search for some worthy person there and stay at his house until you leave. As you enter the home, give it your greeting. If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town. (NIV)

Here, Jesus Christ compares the sin of Sodom to the sin of faithlessness in people who reject the Gospel and inhospitality.

Matthew 11:20-24

Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. "Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you." (NIV)

Here the Lord again makes reference to Sodom's destruction as he talks about unrepentant cities that refuse to believe in him or his miracles. This is about religious unfaithfulness and unbelief, not homosexuality.

If you don't know Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior, you can know him right now. Don't be guilty of not believing in Him. Here is what Jesus himself said:

John 3:16-18

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. (NIV)

Notice that Jesus said WHOEVER believes in him shall have eternal life. The condemnation is reserved for WHOEVER does not believe in Him. He made no mention of homosexuals in this passage.

If you recognize that you are a sinner and need Jesus to be the Lord of your life then it is a very simple process. Ask God to forgive you of whatever has separated you from Him. That is what sin is. When you ask Him that he will forgive you:

I John 1:9-10

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives. (NIV)

According to Romans 10:9,10 all you have to do is:

...confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. (NIV)

At the end of this article is a simple sample prayer that you can pray. There is also some other information you will want if it is your desire to receive Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior.

If you have known Jesus as your Lord and Savior but felt you had to walk away because you are gay, come back to Him. He has never left you. Repent of whatever you have done to hurt yourself, others and God. He is just waiting for you with open arms. He understands it was all a misunderstanding. His love never fails.

Psalm 36:10-12

O continue thy lovingkindness unto them that know thee; and thy righteousness to the upright in heart. Let not the foot of pride come against me, and let not the hand of the wicked remove me. There are the workers of iniquity fallen: they are cast down, and shall not be able to rise. (KJV)

Psalm 48:9

Within your temple, O God, we meditate on your unfailing love. (NIV)

Give your heart back to Him and tell us about it. At the end of this article is some information for you if you have decided to rededicate your life back to God.

[bobsticks]

Moderator on:

Gentlemen, if we're going to quote large portions of text, from a copyright perspective, it;s imperative that sources be credited.

Moderator off:

Have at it...

[JohnMichael]

Moderator on:

Gentlemen, if we're going to quote large portions of text, from a copyright perspective, it;s imperative that sources be credited.

Moderator off:

Have at it...

Ah you called me gentleman.:ihih:

[bobsticks]

Bobsticks,I disagree, the New Testament is just as valid as the Old in respect to being God's word. Christ was with God in the beginning and equal. Jesus was willing to come to earth in the flesh. Isaiah, and much of the Old Testament prophesy to Christ's coming and what would happen to him while on earth. The New Testament allows for forgiveness of sin, something the Old Law did not have.

Well, you can think that but it's wrong. The New Testament scriptures you quote are from the Acts of Apostles, specifically the Pauline Epistles. They are universally recognized as the works of Paul and not a direct transcription of quotations from either God or Jesus. Within historical context, the big one, Romans 1:26-27, was a rally against the movement away from Christianity in Rome toward Neo-Pagan fertility cults.

You're either arguing for a literal interpretation vis-a-vis the Old Testament or opinions generated by the fallible minds of men which came about after Jesus had sacrificed himself for all our sins and the remaining two commandments according to Jesus were "love God with all your heart, soul and mind and to love your neighbor as yourself".

I used the word "universally" in the first paragraph in so far as that's the distinction has that which has been used to seperate Christians between fundamentalists and Jews.

[bobsticks]

Ah you called me gentleman.:ihih:

First time in a while, eh? :D

[Ajani]

While I have always felt that Sodom was a bad story to show that the bible is against homosexuality, as it could just easily be about rape and other sins, I will admit that Mr P is right with the other scriptures in the Old Testament. Homosexuality is condemned in the bible...

HOWEVER, the bible also condones slavery. Not even Jesus spoke out against slavery. Yet no right thinking individual would claim that slavery is acceptable today... So the KKK could just as easily quote scripture to support slavery, as many Christians do to condemn homosexuality...

The day I start taking the views of the KKK seriously, is when I'll accept the whole homosexuality is immoral argument... Both are based on ignorance and intolerance...

[Mr Peabody]

I don't understand your point, are you saying the "four gospels" of the NT are valid but the rest of the NT is not or that none of the NT is valid? Jesus told the apostles he would send them the Holy Spirit to aid them in starting the church. The NT writings were inspired by God.

With all that being said there are so many denominations of Christianity, obviously JM found one that twists things to his liking, I'm not sure what you believe, not all of the NT can be taken literally as some is written in apocolyptical language, some figurative, much of it is straight forward, but to understand it you have to read it with an open mind and not have your own biases. The Acts of the apostles gives us our pattern for the NT church so if you dismiss that then you go astray for sure.

[bobsticks]

My point is not against your belief but against the method of argument...and the effectiveness of that line of argumentation.

One can argue that something is immoral or sin due to divergence from the literal word of God. Boom. That's quotable. It's defined and debatable.

Augmenting that line of argumentation with works of a political hack with an agenda does nothing to advance your point because it introduces inconsistent variables, including but not limited to a timeline in which previous Laws have been abrogated and the fallibility of man.

[Mr Peabody]

So you are saying Paul, the apostle, is a political hack? The same Paul who was relentless in his pursuit to stamp out Christianity before his conversion.

[bobsticks]

So you are saying Paul, the apostle, is a political hack? The same Paul who was relentless in his pursuit to stamp out Christianity before his conversion.

(imitates The Rock) IT DOESN"T MATTER WHO PAUL IS!!

It's a syllogism.

1) If God/Jesus denounces homosexuality then it's a sin
2) God/Jesus denounces homosexuality
3) Homosexuality is a sin

[02audionoob]

The bible was written by men. Period.

[Ajani]

The bible was written by men. Period.

Written by men and edited by other men... All with their own agendas and beliefs...

Why is the majority of Jesus' life not written about in the bible? There is a huge gap from about age 12 until the very last few years of his life (around 30)... So are we to believe that he spent all those years just making cabinetry? Other religions have stories about what Jesus did in those missing years... even the Gnostic Gospels have some details about those times...

While I believe in the general teachings of Christ; the simple principle of love your neighbor as yourself... There are too many holes in the bible for me to take it literally... Worse the old testament which is just a rip of the Jewish Torah... Yet ironically, the Jews don't take those books literally, yet so many Christians do...

[thekid]

Wow- I have not been following this thread but it certainly has taken a turn.

All I will say is that the Bible like the Constitution is interpreted by people based on the core beliefs the reader already brings with them. Both documents are misquoted often, almost never read within the historical context in which they were written or with the intent of the original writers. Literal interpretations of both usually results in a very narrow path that hurts many people along the way.

I have also learned that you can't change someone's opinion of say the 2nd Amendment anymore than you can change their reading of specific passage of scripture.

[Hyfi]

Written by men and edited by other men... All with their own agendas and beliefs...

Why is the majority of Jesus' life not written about in the bible? There is a huge gap from about age 12 until the very last few years of his life (around 30)... So are we to believe that he spent all those years just making cabinetry? Other religions have stories about what Jesus did in those missing years... even the Gnostic Gospels have some details about those times...

While I believe in the general teachings of Christ; the simple principle of love your neighbor as yourself... There are too many holes in the bible for me to take it literally... Worse the old testament which is just a rip of the Jewish Torah... Yet ironically, the Jews don't take those books literally, yet so many Christians do...

I know I said I wasn't going to post in this thread anymore but wanted to address this. I have a very good book that traces the real historical proof and events that are known about Jesus life from childhood to marriage and beyond. It also pokes plenty of holes in the myths.

I originally bought this book years ago for my Father in Law who is a hard core Born Again thinking he would enjoy reading a little history about the man he has put so much faith in. He read a few pages and threw the book on the floor saying he did not want it. I guess it made him question himself.

The book is called Jesus a Life by A.N. Wilson. I cannot quote much from this book as it has been several years since I read it last but you can flip through the pages over at Amazon if anyone is interested.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393326330/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0449908070&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=07J4F2JGWGYZ69KDADGV


http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1184805171l/1531514.jpg

OK, back to the sidelines for me.

[bobsticks]

Written by men and edited by other men... All with their own agendas and beliefs...

Really?!

Interesting. I did not know that. That, I did not know.


Why is the majority of Jesus' life not written about in the bible? There is a huge gap from about age 12 until the very last few years of his life (around 30)... So are we to believe that he spent all those years just making cabinetry? Other religions have stories about what Jesus did in those missing years... even the Gnostic Gospels have some details about those times...

Maybe the editors and the project developers felt that 30 years of cabinetry making would create a drag in the middle when the feature length film was later made.


While I believe in the general teachings of Christ; the simple principle of love your neighbor as yourself... There are too many holes in the bible for me to take it literally... Worse the old testament which is just a rip of the Jewish Torah... Yet ironically, the Jews don't take those books literally, yet so many Christians do...

Says you.

Frankly I like a good stoning in the spring...

Hey, no one here is on their second marriage, eh? Or maybe has a spouse that did a lil' somethin'-somethin' before betrothal?

If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her ... and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel's father shall say ... these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. ... But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die-Deuteronomy 22:13-21

Good thing we've got some Parent-Of-The-Year award winners...

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother ... Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city ... And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die.-- Deuteronomy 21:18-21

Uh oh...remember the Bush and Obama threads? Yeah...that's a problem...

Thou didst blaspheme God and the king. And then carry him out, and stone him, that he may die.--1 Kings 21:10

UUggg...Adultery bad...rape victims too...

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city.--Deuteronomy 22:23-24

My Grandmother told me that there was a passage in the bible that says, "It is better to spill your seed in the belly of a whore, than to spill it on the ground." So, I tried both and the bible's right! It's way better. That's one of the reasons they call it the good book. I'd imagine a lot of you are worried about that one.

And, hey, speaking of that...

If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched. --Mark 9:43

Any adopted kids? From another marriage? Unholy unions?...better leave the kids at home

One of illegitimate birth shall not enter the congregation of the Lord--Deuteronomy 23:2

And, do God a favor...shut that ***** up...

Women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be submissive, as the law also says--1 Corinthians 14:34

I've noticed as women get older, especially after marriage, they tend to opt for convenience of style in the grooming department but if your female septagenarian doesn't look like Saruman you'd better bind her feet.

Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her as a covering--1 Corinthians 11:13-15

It's a good thing everyone around here has their houses in order or we'd need some relief pitchers.


By the way, most of these particular inserts were culled from a Google search of "Arbitrary Scripture". The rest were from a search for "Fat Hypocrite"

[Ajani]

Really?!

Interesting. I did not know that. That, I did not know.



Maybe the editors and the project developers felt that 30 years of cabinetry making would create a drag in the middle when the feature length film was later made.



Says you.

Frankly I like a good stoning in the spring...

Hey, no one here is on their second marriage, eh? Or maybe has a spouse that did a lil' somethin'-somethin' before betrothal?

If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her ... and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel's father shall say ... these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. ... But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die-Deuteronomy 22:13-21

Good thing we've got some Parent-Of-The-Year award winners...

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother ... Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city ... And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die.-- Deuteronomy 21:18-21

Uh oh...remember the Bush and Obama threads? Yeah...that's a problem...

Thou didst blaspheme God and the king. And then carry him out, and stone him, that he may die.--1 Kings 21:10

UUggg...Adultery bad...rape victims too...

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city.--Deuteronomy 22:23-24

My Grandmother told me that there was a passage in the bible that says, "It is better to spill your seed in the belly of a whore, than to spill it on the ground." So, I tried both and the bible's right! It's way better. That's one of the reasons they call it the good book. I'd imagine a lot of you are worried about that one.

And, hey, speaking of that...

If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched. --Mark 9:43

Any adopted kids? From another marriage? Unholy unions?...better leave the kids at home

One of illegitimate birth shall not enter the congregation of the Lord--Deuteronomy 23:2

And, do God a favor...shut that ***** up...

Women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be submissive, as the law also says--1 Corinthians 14:34

I've noticed as women get older, especially after marriage, they tend to opt for convenience of style in the grooming department but if your female septagenarian doesn't look like Saruman you'd better bind her feet.

Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her as a covering--1 Corinthians 11:13-15

It's a good thing everyone around here has their houses in order or we'd need some relief pitchers.


By the way, most of these particular inserts were culled from a Google search of "Arbitrary Scripture". The rest were from a search for "Fat Hypocrite"

Ah 'Sticks to quote one of my favourite films "you use your tongue prettier than a twenty dollar whore"...

However your mix of sarcasm and wit is so extreme that I'm often perplexed as to what your actual point is...

I assume when you said "Really?!

Interesting. I did not know that. That, I did not know."

was just sarcasm, since most of us read "The King James Version" of the Bible - which straight up tells anyone that it is a version and hence has been edited by someone (whether King James himself or more likely the particular scholars at the time)...

As for my last part about Jews not taking it all literally: I have a Bible, Quran and Torah that I used to read for comparison of the texts... The Torah began with a narrative from a Rabbi explaining that it is not a book of history, measurement or geography and essentially that the books are not meant to be interpreted literally... I assure you that no similar narrative was in either the Bible or the Quran.

[GMichael]

I resemble that last one.

[JohnMichael]

I find it interesting when christians quote from the old testament to justify their bias. The old testament is Jewish law and much of the laws ensured the continuation and purity of the tribes. Did Jesus not come to teach us a new way? Did he not forgive and stop stonings by saying " he without sin may cast the first stone". I think Jesus would find me quite charming as we shared lunch. Remeber who he socialized with when he walked the earth?

The old testaments theme is everyone must get stoned.

[Feanor]

Written by men and edited by other men... All with their own agendas and beliefs...

Why is the majority of Jesus' life not written about in the bible? There is a huge gap from about age 12 until the very last few years of his life (around 30)... So are we to believe that he spent all those years just making cabinetry? Other religions have stories about what Jesus did in those missing years... even the Gnostic Gospels have some details about those times...

While I believe in the general teachings of Christ; the simple principle of love your neighbor as yourself... There are too many holes in the bible for me to take it literally... Worse the old testament which is just a rip of the Jewish Torah... Yet ironically, the Jews don't take those books literally, yet so many Christians do...
Muslims, of course, have the tremendous advantage that the Qur'an had only one author -- God. So there is no question of literal truth, (though perhaps minor issues of interpretation).

The Qur'an is also not burdened with issues of compliation, versions, or translations. (There is only one version of the Qur'an: the original Arabic. There are certainly translations but they are considered paraphrases and not necessarily accurate.)

[GMichael]

I find it interesting when christians quote from the old testament to justify their bias. The old testament is Jewish law and much of the laws ensured the continuation and purity of the tribes. Did Jesus not come to teach us a new way? Did he not forgive and stop stonings by saying " he without sin may cast the first stone". I think Jesus would find me quite charming as we shared lunch. Remeber who he socialized with when he walked the earth?

He often spent time with those who would have been called sinners at the time.


The old testaments theme is everyone must get stoned.

Are you suggesting that we all get together for drinks?

[ForeverAutumn]

Ah, levity...isn't it better than name-calling? Has everyone clicked on my talking dog link (http://youtu.be/nGeKSiCQkPw) yet? Because you can't watch it without smiling...guaranteed!

[JohnMichael]

Ah, levity...isn't it better than name-calling? Has everyone clicked on my talking dog link (http://youtu.be/nGeKSiCQkPw) yet? Because you can't watch it without smiling...guaranteed!



I loved it.

[Ajani]

Muslims, of course, have the tremendous advantage that the Qur'an had only one author -- God.

I would have thought the author was Muhammad.


So there is no question of literal truth, (though perhaps minor issues of interpretation).

The Qur'an is also not burdened with issues of compliation, versions, or translations. (There is only one version of the Qur'an: the original Arabic. There are certainly translations but they are considered paraphrases and not necessarily accurate.)

Even with only 1 author and version it still suffers from matters of interpretation, as persons don't take into account the historical context of the teachings... The teachings of Muhammad are quite different during his early peaceful years versus when he became a 'general' in a war... So many of the violent quotes from the Quran were clearly in reference to action during times of war... Yet extremists use them to justify attrocities at any time...

[Feanor]

I would have thought the author was Muhammad.
...
No, not Muhammad. What happened was that the angel, Gabriel, quoted God (a.k.a. Allah) to Muhammad as God's chosen messenger. (Muhammad was illiterate so he quoted Gabriel to scribes who wrote it down.)


...
Even with only 1 author and version it still suffers from matters of interpretation, as persons don't take into account the historical context of the teachings... The teachings of Muhammad are quite different during his early peaceful years versus when he became a 'general' in a war... So many of the violent quotes from the Quran were clearly in reference to action during times of war... Yet extremists use them to justify attrocities at any time...
Ah well now, this is where we get into the déjà vu all over again.

In addition to the Qur'an, Muslims believe also rely on the many injunctions, aphorisms, and practices ascribed to Muhammad collectively called the Sunnah, (whence Sunni Muslim). There are thousands of these and not all are considered reliable, but of course people tend to quote the ones they like. Shi'a Muslims use a different set than than the Sunnis.

Ah! religion. :o

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Wow, you guys already did what I came here to do. Thanks peeps, now I can eat some breakfast before my next session, instead of spending time here typing out my response.

There is a big problem with applying Levitical law to behavior today. The Levitical laws are known as moral codes that govern Jews, not Christians. If you are not a Jew, you are not bound by those codes. There are other things mentioned in those codes, and if they were applied to folks today, heaven would be a very empty place. Leviticus passages are often cited by ignorant Christians as stating homosexuality is an abomination prohibited by God. The penalty is death, and if applied today, Christians should be calling for the death penalty to punish gays. Why is this not happening? Why does the condemnation remain, but the penalty gone? It's because the law was not meant for today, not meant for Christians, and not worthy of a mention period in today's context. If the law could be applied today, Dolce and Gabbana would be killed for mixing two different fabrics together, the youth pastor at my church would be killed for having tattoo's, and anyone who harvested, cooked, or served crab, lobster or shrimp would be killed as well. This would also mean that Jesus died on the cross for no reason, and there is no way I believe that.

Ignorant Christians like Peabrain also fail to talk about translation errors, which are quite common in the old testament. Abomination in Hebrew is "toebah". In the Hebrew bible this word refers to Idolatry, or practices associated with idolatry. The Canaanites which surrounded the Jews back in that day had a fertility god called Molech. To honor Molech, incest, bestiality, adultery, and homosexual prostitution ceremonies often occurred. So the Levitical law does not address homosexuality at all, but what it does address is idolatrous sexual practices.

Since Peabrain mentions the words of Paul in his ignorant diatribe, let's talk about Paul surroundings. In 1st Corinithians, Paul uses two Greek words a lot in the original translation, Malakoi and Arsenokoitai. These are translated in the King James Version of the bible as "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind. Neither of these two words addresses "homosexuality", because there is no specific word for homosexuality in the Greek language in those times. Also many Greeks back in those days slept with both men and women, and the words to describe this activity(we call it bi-sexuality) paiderastes, pallakos, kinaidos was unambigous, and never mentioned by Paul. If Paul was addressing homosexuality, he would have specifically used those words.

The word Malakoi means "soft", Arsenokoitai broken down means Koatai "those who have sexual intercourse" and Arseno "male" or "masculine". Both of these words have very ambiguous meanings. Paul would not be using these words if he was talking about homosexuality. To give this some context - Paul traveled to the city of Corinth often. Corinth was a city dominated by the worship of the fertility goddess Venus. Ephesus were Timothy lived was also a city dominated by fertility worship. Paul saw things like incest, meat being offered to idols, tons of prostitution, and women that dressed in suggestive clothing. Clearly Paul was more interested in addressing Idolatry rather than homosexuality.

Lastly, we have to ask ourselves whether Paul was stating his opinion, or a reflection of God's view. Paul often stated his opinion, and the best example would be 1 Corinthians 7:25. In 1 Corinthians 11:14 Paul says it is a shameful thing for a man to have long hair(sorry hippy types), but God nor Jesus state this. Thirdly in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 he states that women are to remain quiet in the congregation, and it is shameful for them to speak. Do we condemn men with long hair today? No. Do we condemn woman pastors and speakers today? No. When quoting scripture context, time, culture and current events of the time must be considered. Literalist like Peahead fail to do this, and this is why they constantly misquote and misuse the Bible to support their own biases.

Now I know that Peahead is going to say I am not a real Christian because I have stated what I have. I would strongly disagree, but would agree that I am not an ignorant sheeple like Christian he is. Literalist Christians are going to run into a whole lot of problems when trying to convey their views to rational people. My grandmother was one of the smartest loving Christian woman I have ever met. She lived the life she spoke of. She also knew the Bible inside and out, and made sure I did as well. She is nothing like Peabody. She does not condemn, judge, or use the Bible as a weapon to beat others down. She taught me Bible history, and sent me to courses taught by Bible scholars who had no agenda. I learned to always apply cultural and historical context to scripture, and to be aware that translation problems do exist in the King James and many other translations of the original text in its original languages. There are some English words that have no translation in Greek, Arabic or Hebrew, so they cannot be relied on for true meaning when translated.

To Peabody, the Bible is a weapon to be used to beat people that are not like him down. This is not what the Bible should be used for. It should be used for inspiration and example. IMO Peabody is no different than Jimmy Swaggert, Jim Baker, Ted Haggard and Eddie Long, all men that preached hate towards homosexuals, but committed adultery, and engaged in homosexual activities themselves. In the case of Peabody, he is not loving or humble, but attacks people in a bitter revengeful way because that person has exposed his ignorance on something. If he is the example of how Christians should behave, I would rather go to hell.

JM is one of the nicest, kindest persons on this board. He has never attacked anyone vengefully, and I have never read anything he wrote that put another person down. This is more Christian like behavior than Peanut head exhibits, which proves that Peabrain is more talk than action like many of today's Christians are. God is interested in our actions, not our words. In this respect, Peabody is more like the Pharisee, and less example of Christ like actions, all facade with no substance. Boo to that!

If meeting someone face to face from this board is your criteria for legitimacy, then you sure are shallow as heck. I could meet everyone here face to face, and they still would not know anything about me. What makes me legitimate is the information I provide here, and I have provided enough verifiable information to solidify my legitimacy.

By the way peahead, I didn't need to Google this thanks to my grandmother

[GMichael]

Wow, you guys already did what I came here to do. Thanks peeps, now I can eat some breakfast before my next session, instead of spending time here typing out my response.

There is a big problem with applying Levitical law to behavior today. The Levitical laws are known as moral codes that govern Jews, not Christians. If you are not a Jew, you are not bound by those codes. There are other things mentioned in those codes, and if they were applied to folks today, heaven would be a very empty place. Leviticus passages are often cited by ignorant Christians as stating homosexuality is an abomination prohibited by God. The penalty is death, and if applied today, Christians should be calling for the death penalty to punish gays. Why is this not happening? Why does the condemnation remain, but the penalty gone? It's because the law was not meant for today, not meant for Christians, and not worthy of a mention period in today's context. If the law could be applied today, Dolce and Gabbana would be killed for mixing two different fabrics together, the youth pastor at my church would be killed for having tattoo's, and anyone who harvested, cooked, or served crab, lobster or shrimp would be killed as well. This would also mean that Jesus died on the cross for no reason, and there is no way I believe that.

Ignorant Christians like Peabrain also fail to talk about translation errors, which are quite common in the old testament. Abomination in Hebrew is "toebah". In the Hebrew bible this word refers to Idolatry, or practices associated with idolatry. The Canaanites which surrounded the Jews back in that day had a fertility god called Molech. To honor Molech, incest, bestiality, adultery, and homosexual prostitution ceremonies often occurred. So the Levitical law does not address homosexuality at all, but what it does address is idolatrous sexual practices.

Since Peabrain mentions the words of Paul in his ignorant diatribe, let's talk about Paul surroundings. In 1st Corinithians, Paul uses two Greek words a lot in the original translation, Malakoi and Arsenokoitai. These are translated in the King James Version of the bible as "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind. Neither of these two words addresses "homosexuality", because there is no specific word for homosexuality in the Greek language in those times. Also many Greeks back in those days slept with both men and women, and the words to describe this activity(we call it bi-sexuality) paiderastes, pallakos, kinaidos was unambigous, and never mentioned by Paul. If Paul was addressing homosexuality, he would have specifically used those words.

The word Malakoi means "soft", Arsenokoitai broken down means Koatai "those who have sexual intercourse" and Arseno "male" or "masculine". Both of these words have very ambiguous meanings. Paul would not be using these words if he was talking about homosexuality. To give this some context - Paul traveled to the city of Corinth often. Corinth was a city dominated by the worship of the fertility goddess Venus. Ephesus were Timothy lived was also a city dominated by fertility worship. Paul saw things like incest, meat being offered to idols, tons of prostitution, and women that dressed in suggestive clothing. Clearly Paul was more interested in addressing Idolatry rather than homosexuality.

Lastly, we have to ask ourselves whether Paul was stating his opinion, or a reflection of God's view. Paul often stated his opinion, and the best example would be 1 Corinthians 7:25. In 1 Corinthians 11:14 Paul says it is a shameful thing for a man to have long hair(sorry hippy types), but God nor Jesus state this. Thirdly in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 he states that women are to remain quiet in the congregation, and it is shameful for them to speak. Do we condemn men with long hair today? No. Do we condemn woman pastors and speakers today? No. When quoting scripture context, time, culture and current events of the time must be considered. Literalist like Peahead fail to do this, and this is why they constantly misquote and misuse the Bible to support their own biases.

Now I know that Peahead is going to say I am not a real Christian because I have stated what I have. I would strongly disagree, but would agree that I am not an ignorant sheeple like Christian he is. Literalist Christians are going to run into a whole lot of problems when trying to convey their views to rational people. My grandmother was one of the smartest loving Christian woman I have ever met. She lived the life she spoke of. She also knew the Bible inside and out, and made sure I did as well. She is nothing like Peabody. She does not condemn, judge, or use the Bible as a weapon to beat others down. She taught me Bible history, and sent me to courses taught by Bible scholars who had no agenda. I learned to always apply cultural and historical context to scripture, and to be aware that translation problems do exist in the King James and many other translations of the original text in its original languages. There are some English words that have no translation in Greek, Arabic or Hebrew, so they cannot be relied on for true meaning when translated.

To Peabody, the Bible is a weapon to be used to beat people that are not like him down. This is not what the Bible should be used for. It should be used for inspiration and example. IMO Peabody is no different than Jimmy Swaggert, Jim Baker, Ted Haggard and Eddie Long, all men that preached hate towards homosexuals, but committed adultery, and engaged in homosexual activities themselves. In the case of Peabody, he is not loving or humble, but attacks people in a bitter revengeful way because that person has exposed his ignorance on something. If he is the example of how Christians should behave, I would rather go to hell.

JM is one of the nicest, kindest persons on this board. He has never attacked anyone vengefully, and I have never read anything he wrote that put another person down. This is more Christian like behavior than Peanut head exhibits, which proves that Peabrain is more talk than action like many of today's Christians are. God is interested in our actions, not our words. In this respect, Peabody is more like the Pharisee, and less example of Christ like actions, all facade with no substance. Boo to that!

If meeting someone face to face from this board is your criteria for legitimacy, then you sure are shallow as heck. I could meet everyone here face to face, and they still would not know anything about me. What makes me legitimate is the information I provide here, and I have provided enough verifiable information to solidify my legitimacy.

By the way peahead, I didn't need to Google this thanks to my grandmother

I thought you said that you were going to skip the typing and eat some breakfast.:skep:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I thought you said that you were going to skip the typing and eat some breakfast.:skep:

It took me five minutes to type this up, I knew what I was going to say The Grits and eggs sure was good! :prrr: :ciappa:

[Feanor]

...

There is a big problem with applying Levitical law to behavior today. The Levitical laws are known as moral codes that govern Jews, not Christians. ...
Blah, blah, blah. Nice try, Sir T, however these are the sort of post facto rationals that "liberal" Christians concoct to justify current notions of morality.

I say this as an atheist to be sure, but if you don't like the despicable things the Bible says, then just give it up, don't try to rationalize it.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Blah, blah, blah. Nice try, Sir T, however these are the sort of post facto rationals that "liberal" Christians concoct to justify current notions of morality.

I say this as an atheist to be sure, but if you don't like the despicable things the Bible says, then just give it up, don't try to rationalize it.

I don't believe I addressed whether I liked or disliked what the Bible says. I did address the context that quotations and usage should be applied. As an Atheist, you should have ZERO opinion on all this..none of it is real to you.

[ForeverAutumn]

As an Atheist, you should have ZERO opinion on all this..none of it is real to you.

While it may be true that atheists don't believe in god, other people believe it to be real and it affects our lives on a daily basis. So it's hard not to have an opinion.

Just think of all the wars that would not have been fought if all the world were atheists. :thumbsup:

[GMichael]

While it may be true that atheists don't believe in god, other people believe it to be real and it affects our lives on a daily basis. So it's hard not to have an opinion.

Just think of all the wars that would not have been fought if all the world were atheists. :thumbsup:

People would find another reason to fight. It's in our nature.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

While it may be true that atheists don't believe in god, other people believe it to be real and it affects our lives on a daily basis. So it's hard not to have an opinion.

Just think of all the wars that would not have been fought if all the world were atheists. :thumbsup:

FA, I do not believe in Budda, have no opinion on it, and it does not effect me at all. I cannot see were ANY belief in God would effect anyone that does not believe in him. What others believe should have no influence on your life at all. I firmly respect the fact that you don't believe in God, but that lack of belief does not effect me at all. I still think you are cool, and that is not going to change just because you don't believe what I believe.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

People would find another reason to fight. It's in our nature.

You got that right! If it is not religion, its race, handicaps, territory, or resources.

[Hyfi]

I don't believe I addressed whether I liked or disliked what the Bible says. I did address the context that quotations and usage should be applied. As an Atheist, you should have ZERO opinion on all this..none of it is real to you.

Sorry but I have to jump back in here. Just because one does not believe in something that is not visible, tangible, and logical does not mean that they do not have enough education and supporting data to have an opinion of it.

You only believe it to be true but in no way can anyone prove that it is true or real, that is why it is a belief system and not reality as we know it.

As Mark said to me, this is no different than a cable argument except with cables you can see them, touch and feel them, and hear the reproduced sound delivered from them. With religion, you cannot see anything, and you will never know if it was true or real until you are dead and it's too late to change your mind.

So putting the religion debate vs a cable debate, you would say that every person that does not BELIEVE that cables sound different or change the sound from their system has no right to have an opinion about it. Boy I wish that were so.

All of you quoting scripture cannot prove in any way what happened then, what was said back then, whether the truth has been changed, skewed, translated properly or that any of it is anything more than just a belief that it's true. God did not write the bible and what is quoted in red as Jesus actual words is pure speculation and again will never be proved.

Now if you want to argue that the bible IS the word of god, then everything ever written is the word of god because everyone of us is god experiencing the physical world through man (and woman). We are all one, same spirit, same dna, same everything except individual bodies which just makes things easier for Humans to rationalize.

This debate will have no ending until each one of us dies, in the physical earthy form, and finds out whether we go back to the all knowing spirit, or rot with the worms 6 feet under.

[ForeverAutumn]

FA, I do not believe in Budda, have no opinion on it, and it does not effect me at all. I cannot see were ANY belief in God would effect anyone that does not believe in him.

It's not the actual 'believe or don't believe' that affects me. It's the actions that people take based on those beliefs. Prejudice against homosexuals, people trying to take away my right to have an abortion, and reference to God in my national anthem as a few examples. Those things affect me whether or not I believe in God. So I have an opinion.

[Hyfi]

It's not the actual 'believe or don't believe' that affects me. It's the actions that people take based on those beliefs. Prejudice against homosexuals, people trying to take away my right to have an abortion, and reference to God in my national anthem as a few examples. Those things affect me whether or not I believe in God. So I have an opinion.

I stopped saying The Pledge Of Allegiance To The Flag in about 4th grade for similar reasons. Again, we are One World under God and he does nothing more for our nation than he does for all others, if he does anything at all.

[Ajani]

No, not Muhammad. What happened was that the angel, Gabriel, quoted God (a.k.a. Allah) to Muhammad as God's chosen messenger. (Muhammad was illiterate so he quoted Gabriel to scribes who wrote it down.)

Oh yes, I totally forgot about that... it just gets better and better... So God told Gabriel, who told Muhammad, who told scribes...

Nothing quite like a game of 'Chinese telephone' to ensure that a message is passed on accurately...

[ForeverAutumn]

I stopped saying The Pledge Of Allegiance To The Flag in about 4th grade for similar reasons. Again, we are One World under God and he does nothing more for our nation than he does for all others, if he does anything at all.

When I was in grade school they still recited The Lord's Prayer every morning. I was raised in a Jewish household where we didn't pray that way. But yet every morning I was made to stand with the class and recite this christian prayer. I did it because not doing it would have made me stand out in the crowd. But I always knew that it was wrong for me...as a Jew then, as an atheist now.

When I sing our national anthem I don't sing "God keep our land glorious and free". I sing, "O Canada, glorious and free". I hope I'm never asked to sing at a hockey or baseball game. :wink5:

[GMichael]

Oh yes, I totally forgot about that... it just gets better and better... So God told Gabriel, who told Muhammad, who told scribes...

Nothing quite like a game of 'Chinese telephone' to ensure that a message is passed on accurately...

And all told around a time when sea-serpents, mermaids, and sailing off the end of the world were commonplace.

[Feanor]

I don't believe I addressed whether I liked or disliked what the Bible says. I did address the context that quotations and usage should be applied. As an Atheist, you should have ZERO opinion on all this..none of it is real to you.
On the contrary, I'm perfectly entitled to an opinion. However unreal the underlying fact of the existence of God might be, the religious history, dogma, and polemic are all too real.

[Hyfi]

So here is what I don't get. We have two people in this thread competing as to who can quote the bible better and who is the real true christian.

Oddly enough, there are only two people trash talking and name calling in this thread.

The rest of us, no matter how opinionated have been tolerant and somewhat respectful, even if passionate to a fault.

So the rest of us skeptics and non-believers have been acting in the way Christians teach of Jesus life and how we should all act.

This is one of the reasons so many people are turning away from the church or whatever organized religion they have belonged to.

This below is just from half a page of one of the top true Christians here that are tolerant, forgiving, cheeky turning hypocrites. Maybe provoked, but where is the forgiveness and compassion for others?

"Quote -Sir T >azzhole, Your stupid ass, you are pathetic, stuff them straight up your sorry butt, Your sorry ass can't even follow your own advice,
Peabrain, peahead, bitter revengeful pathetic fool you are , Beezle bub, <

Real nice christian talk. You should really take a good look at who you want people to see you as, good hearted christian is very questionable for both

[bobsticks]

Ah 'Sticks to quote one of my favourite films "you use your tongue prettier than a twenty dollar whore"...

However your mix of sarcasm and wit is so extreme that I'm often perplexed as to what your actual point is....

My point, my good man, is that the most pious among us are behaving with very little decorum which in turn is causing this small portion of the thread to become a microcosm of the larger theme. Damn allegorical if you ask me.

Whatever one professes to believe is their right of self determination. That some would use sacred or holy texts as supportive evidence is to be expected. My issue arises when individuals parse or edit texts to fit an agenda. My issue further arises when individuals use said excerpts to judge, belittle, demean, or otherwise impart a less than/greater than value appraisal on others when they themselves declare purposeful ignorance to areas of their own reference material that would refute their own behavior.

We all fall short.

Let those that condemn others to damnation for lack of adherence to a text conform to the demands of the whole text. I want to hear these people in advocacy for slavery, I want to read demands for public stonings, and I want a call for the return to vengeful barbarism because if someone can see these things in written form and not recognize the hypocrisy then they're no better than the fundamentalist across the way.

And that makes them an *******.

[Ajani]

My point, my good man, is that the most pious among us are behaving with very little decorum which in turn is causing this small portion of the thread to become a microcosm of the larger theme. Damn allegorical if you ask me.

Whatever one professes to believe is their right of self determination. That some would use sacred or holy texts as supportive evidence is to be expected. My issue arises when individuals parse or edit texts to fit an agenda. My issue further arises when individuals use said excerpts to judge, belittle, demean, or otherwise impart a less than/greater than value appraisal on others when they themselves declare purposeful ignorance to areas of their own reference material that would refute their own behavior.

We all fall short.

Let those that condemn others to damnation for lack of adherence to a text conform to the demands of the whole text. I want to hear these people in advocacy for slavery, I want to read demands for public stonings, and I want a call for the return to vengeful barbarism because if someone can see these things in written form and not recognize the hypocrisy then they're no better than the fundamentalist across the way.

And that makes them an *******.
:thumbsup:

Well said...

[Feanor]

...

Whatever one professes to believe is their right of self determination. That some would use sacred or holy texts as supportive evidence is to be expected. My issue arises when individuals parse or edit texts to fit an agenda. My issue further arises when individuals use said excerpts to judge, belittle, demean, or otherwise impart a less than/greater than value appraisal on others when they themselves declare purposeful ignorance to areas of their own reference material that would refute their own behavior.

We all fall short.

Let those that condemn others to damnation for lack of adherence to a text conform to the demands of the whole text. I want to hear these people in advocacy for slavery, I want to read demands for public stonings, and I want a call for the return to vengeful barbarism because if someone can see these things in written form and not recognize the hypocrisy then they're no better than the fundamentalist across the way.

And that makes them an *******.
Indeed, and this was the point I tried to made with Terrence.

[bobsticks]

Indeed, and this was the point I tried to made with Terrence.

I'm not sure why you would aim your poison pen at Terrence (I haven't read the last couple of pages as yet). I know you disagree on fundamentals but he seems less likely to use his belief system as a blanket condemnation for others.

He seems to have some issue with specific individuals but that's a work in progress. :p

[Hyfi]

I'm not sure why you would aim your poison pen at Terrence (I haven't read the last couple of pages as yet). I know you disagree on fundamentals but he seems less likely to use his belief system as a blanket condemnation for others.

He seems to have some issue with specific individuals but that's a work in progress. :p

Bottom line is, if you're gonna Talk the Talk, you have to Walk the Walk. You can't preach it one way and live it another. That goes for everyone if you believe in it. You can't turn the other cheek for some and not others.

[Feanor]

I'm not sure why you would aim your poison pen at Terrence (I haven't read the last couple of pages as yet). I know you disagree on fundamentals but he seems less likely to use his belief system as a blanket condemnation for others.

He seems to have some issue with specific individuals but that's a work in progress.
Read up, 'Sticks. Sir T. was uttering a typical "liberal" Christian clap-trap rational that injunctions, such as stoning adulterers, are wrong today but were somehow OK back in Leviticus times. So maybe stonings are OK today in Afganistan or Pakistan due to cultural differences? Where does does this relativistic thinking end?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Read up, 'Sticks. Sir T. was uttering a typical "liberal" Christian clap-trap rational that injunctions, such as stoning adulterers, are wrong today but were somehow OK back in Leviticus times. So maybe stonings are OK today in Afganistan or Pakistan due to cultural differences? Where does does this relativistic thinking end?

Feanor, you have this twisted. I was pointing out a disconnect that allows for the condemnation, but not the punishment. If the punishment for being homosexual or an adulterer is stoning, then why aren't Christians applying the punishment along with the condemnation? If literal Christians are going to use the Levitical law to point out one's sins, then the punishment that comes with it should be allowed as well.

I never addressed whether stoning was right or wrong, I was addressing the disconnect that allows for the condemnation, but skips the punishment. Preachers love to condemn gay's, but don't talk about adultery much. This is probably because many of them have either engaged in adultery, are currently in it, or perhaps contemplating it. The deflection is pretty palpable.

I was also pointing out that today's Christian does not seem to know Biblical history, or the cultures and conditions the Bible was written in. If they did, they would not apply Levitical law to anyone but those of the Jewish faith. They also don't seem to understand that the Bible is written in very descriptive rich languages that defy English translation. So when it is translated to English, don't be surprised that the translation stray's away from the original text when closely examined. While studying the Bible, I had two Bible scholars tell me the King James translation of the Bible is riddled with poorly translated wording, and is perhaps compiled from transcripts that have been altered over the years by different scribes.

The point that I am making about all of this is, if God and Jesus didn't condemn it, we should not either. God and Jesus named a lot of things they disliked, but homosexuality was not one of them.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I'm not sure why you would aim your poison pen at Terrence (I haven't read the last couple of pages as yet). I know you disagree on fundamentals but he seems less likely to use his belief system as a blanket condemnation for others.

He seems to have some issue with specific individuals but that's a work in progress. :p

It's not my job to judge or condemn anyone. That is not the job of any Christian walking on this earth.

I really don't have any issues with anyone on this board, but some sure have issues with me. And yes, I am a work in progress, just like every Christian alive should be.

[GMichael]

It's not my job to judge or condemn anyone. That is not the job of any Christian walking on this earth.

I really don't have any issues with anyone on this board, but some sure have issues with me. And yes, I am a work in progress, just like every Christian alive should be.

Not me. I've given up trying to make myself a better person. I just strive not to get any worse.:thumbsup:

Everyone else is who they are. I don't try to change them. That only gets them upset.:sosp:

[dean_martin]

Wow, how 'bout the sh*t goin' on in this thread, huh?

Woe be unto y'all!

[Feanor]

Well, maybe it was less a matter of twisting than make a different point, however ...


Feanor, you have this twisted. I was pointing out a disconnect that allows for the condemnation, but not the punishment. If the punishment for being homosexual or an adulterer is stoning, then why aren't Christians applying the punishment along with the condemnation? If literal Christians are going to use the Levitical law to point out one's sins, then the punishment that comes with it should be allowed as well.

I never addressed whether stoning was right or wrong, I was addressing the disconnect that allows for the condemnation, but skips the punishment. Preachers love to condemn gay's, but don't talk about adultery much. This is probably because many of them have either engaged in adultery, are currently in it, or perhaps contemplating it. The deflection is pretty palpable.
...
So what should we do? If we don't like the punishment, should be ignore the crime? It seems to me the contemporary liberal Christian sensibility is to pick what we like and ignore or rationalized the rest.



...
I was also pointing out that today's Christian does not seem to know Biblical history, or the cultures and conditions the Bible was written in. If they did, they would not apply Levitical law to anyone but those of the Jewish faith. They also don't seem to understand that the Bible is written in very descriptive rich languages that defy English translation. So when it is translated to English, don't be surprised that the translation stray's away from the original text when closely examined. While studying the Bible, I had two Bible scholars tell me the King James translation of the Bible is riddled with poorly translated wording, and is perhaps compiled from transcripts that have been altered over the years by different scribes.
...
To be sure, there are better translations than the KJV, and they capture more of the nuances of the original. But it turns out you can't explain away much by just saying that it "defies translation".

Sure, it sounds like all the picky Levitican rules were aimed at the Hebrews. But they were the ones who wrote Leviticus. (For that matter, it reads like it was only addressed to men, not women.) But if God's dispensation now extends to the Gentiles, why not his rules? If such-and-such is "detestable" in the case of the former, why not the latter?



...
The point that I am making about all of this is, if God and Jesus didn't condemn it, we should not either. God and Jesus named a lot of things they disliked, but homosexuality was not one of them.
Oh, come on ...

Leviticus 18:22, (New International Verison): "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable." (There is no qualification about this applying only to male temple prostitutes.)

Leviticus 18:29&30: "Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people. Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them."

Leviticus 20;13 "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Don't pretend that the Bibles says something other than what it says. This isn't a mistranslation; it isn't reasonable to suppose it only applies to the Hebrews or only to consorting with temple prostitutes.

If you don't like what the Bible says, pitch the Bible, don't rationalize.

[Ajani]

Well, maybe it was less a matter of twisting than make a different point, however ...


So what should we do? If we don't like the punishment, should be ignore the crime? It seems to me the contemporary liberal Christian sensibility is to pick what we like and ignore or rationalized the rest.



To be sure, there are better translations than the KJV, and they capture more of the nuances of the original. But it turns out you can't explain away much by just saying that it "defies translation".

Sure, it sounds like all the picky Levitican rules were aimed at the Hebrews. But they were the ones who wrote Leviticus. (For that matter, it reads like it was only addressed to men, not women.) But if God's dispensation now extends to the Gentiles, why not his rules? If such-and-such is "detestable" in the case of the former, why not the latter?



Oh, come on ...

Leviticus 18:22, (New International Verison): "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable." (There is no qualification about this applying only to male temple prostitutes.)

Leviticus 18:29&30: "Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people. Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them."

Leviticus 20;13 "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Don't pretend that the Bibles says something other than what it says. This isn't a mistranslation; it isn't reasonable to suppose it only applies to the Hebrews or only to consorting with temple prostitutes.

If you don't like what the Bible says, pitch the Bible, don't rationalize.

Some things don't translate, but you are right that there are things that really can't be rationalised away... Unless by stoning they really meant a "stern talking to" and we just mistranslated it :biggrin5: