Religous Extremism

[Panzerlord]

+Just a reminder, this thread isn't actually about muslim extremism

[stonewall337]

...why is gay marriage such a big issue? Mainly becase the bible says it's bad. I'm Jewish. I shouldn't be bound by a law based off of a bible passage...

 

 

You're Jewish. Old Testiment still applies to us, buddy. We were the ones that wrote it. Sort of. Read up on your Leviticus.

 

But yeah, seperation of church and state would be a nice amendment to follow, wouldn't it?

 

One main problem. THERE IS NO SUCH THING. Ye, thats right. Its not in any founding document. Not in the constitution, not in the bill of rights, not in the deceleration of independence. in fact, only place it appears is in a letter from Madison to the Danbury Baptists, in which the wall of separation of church and state was one way, to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state. Latter, due to a Supreme Court case in 1878, a precedent was set. So don't call it an amendment, or anything like that please?

 

I think that extremist muslims are the most dangerous. Most of what people call "extremist" Christian are either 1.) Not Christians according to the Bible. (EG the catholics who conducted the inquisiton, etc.) or 2.) Fundamentalist who actually follow what the Bible teaches. That isn't to say that most muslims are extreme. They aren't. But there are enough of them who believe that the koran teaches them to kill the jews and infidels to posses a serious danger.

 

Although I don't follow the fear of Muslims that some people I know have, Muslims are responsible for thousands of deaths. The closest thing in the US for christians is probably the Westboro baptists, who although incredibly distasteful, really only test the limits of free speech. I don't think they have killed anyone yet.

[krimi]

Separation of church and state is never mentioned in the constitution. Yes, that's true. But don't the context of the establishment and free exercise clauses basically call for a 'seperation of church and state?'

[stonewall337]

To an extent it is hypocritical but the issue is still brought up because America was creating on christian values and in the name of God. Basically, a lot of people still believe that the founding fathers' wishes should still be upheld while many think that isn't the case.

That's true, but America has changed a pot since it was founded. I mean, for example religous tolerence back in the day was very low, and blacks? Enslaved! It's my

opinion that while keeping with the original intentions of the founding fathers is important, there will be certain changes that will require us to stray off of their idea of a country heavily based on Christian values if it becomes clear that Christian values are infringing upon the rights of the people.

Edit: almost forgot, thanks for getting rid of those trolls.

 

What have you two been smoking? The founding fathers specifically stated that this wasn't a christian nation, and religious influence has been steadily increasing since then, not decreasing. In fact the main reason for people coming here was religious freedom.

 

Upholding the founding fathers wishes would mean having no religious interference in the government unlike what we have now.

 

Excuse me: These are quotes by Patrick Henry, just one of the Founding Fathers who believed that this nation was CHRISTIAN.

 

It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum., prosperity, and freedom of worship here.

 

 

This brought on the war which finally separated the two countries and gave independence to ours. Whether this will prove a blessing or a curse, will depend upon the use our people make of the blessings, which a gracious God hath bestowed on us. If they are wise, they will be great and happy. If they are of a contrary character, they will be miserable. Righteousness alone can exalt them as a nation. Reader! Whoever thou art, remember this, and in thy sphere practice virtue thyself, and encourage it in others. (signed) P. Henry

 

Also, no. The establishment clause does exactly what Madison meant by Separation of Church and State, keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state. That is why the STATE couldn't establish a religion. The free exercise part is again the same general idea, the STATE doesn't interfere with religion.

[Alg]

Separation of church and state is never mentioned in the constitution. Yes, that's true. But don't the context of the establishment and free exercise clauses basically call for a 'seperation of church and state?'

Even then, it's widespread enough to have actually made it in in some form. There isn't a state-sponsored religion. Christians are the majority, but that's the case in most of the western world.

[RexMilotic]

Many of the founding fathers are actually considered Deists. Patrick Henry was putting his personal views, not the views of all of them. Also, this country was found due to money, and people wanting to make a profit. If it wasn't for that, then religion would have never made it's way over here. This country was not brought up on Christian values, otherwise this nation would have failed miserably. The idea that this nation is brought up as a Christian nation mocks the founders, because it was meant to be religious freedom, not freedom based on religion.

[RexMilotic]

 

I think that extremist muslims are the most dangerous. Most of what people call "extremist" Christian are either 1.) Not Christians according to the Bible. (EG the catholics who conducted the inquisiton, etc.) or 2.) Fundamentalist who actually follow what the Bible teaches. That isn't to say that most muslims are extreme. They aren't. But there are enough of them who believe that the koran teaches them to kill the jews and infidels to posses a serious danger.

 

Although I don't follow the fear of Muslims that some people I know have, Muslims are responsible for thousands of deaths. The closest thing in the US for christians is probably the Westboro baptists, who although incredibly distasteful, really only test the limits of free speech. I don't think they have killed anyone yet.

 

Westboro is considered an extremist group because they actually preach what the Bible say. Religious extremest are normally the only people in a religion who actually abide by it, while everyone else picks and chooses which verses they want to follow. Muslims can be attributed to thousands of deaths, but off the top of my head I can think of more Christian murder points than Muslim. If you would like an example of just a few killings due to Christianity in America, then the Witch Hunts are a nice example. You can also attribute slavery in America to Christianity, seeing as how slavery had Christian backing to it.

[stevepole]

+Just a reminder, this thread isn't actually about muslim extremism

 

You could argue that it partly is about muslims because you do point out in your opinion muslims as a whole are terrorist or at least that is how I read it where in fact Al-Qaeda is currently the best know extremist/terrorist organization. What I get most out of this thread though, from what I read last night, is that the main discussion is actually about being jewish and growing up in a society mainly dominated by christian beliefs.

[Barihawk]

Seeing as how homosexuality (to the best of my knowledge) is a fairly new trend, I doubt that current studies would be able to show that homosexuals tend to be unfit parents, although I could be entirely wrong, but I feel before we can reach this conclusion, new studies would have to be conducted.

 

What the hell? Homosexuality has been around for just about all time, and many times in history it was considered perfectly fine (if not encouraged) in mainstream culture to practice it. Many influential people had homosexual relationships. Napoleon when he invaded Africa had a feminine looking boy travel with him because it was "too dangerous for a woman." It's most certainly not "new" or a "trend."

 

The only real danger of homosexual parents is that you lose the balance of masculine-feminine influence on the child that is fairly precarious to begin with. This is crucial during the first decade or so of life when a child is constructing the world around them and also crucial in the second decade as they build an identity. Gay parents can get this right, homosexual parents have most definitely gotten it wrong over the years. Gender confusion is key here. If the kid wants to be gay, they can, but they need to fully realize if they are male or female to fit into society properly. Again, this problem can happen regardless of who your parents are because mommy or daddy didn't spend enough time with you and the other parent overcompensated. It happens. There is a slightly higher risk of it happening in a same-sex marriage. The child should spend time with a grandparent of the opposite sex to account for that, however.

 

As for the US being a Christian nation. It was a nation built for all religions (or lack thereof) but created with Christian ideals. Leaders should fall back on their values when making decisions, but not force them on everyone else. It's a good concept, but people have and will screw it up.

[Alg]

You can also attribute slavery in America to Christianity, seeing as how slavery had Christian backing to it.

That's probably the biggest load of BS I've ever read on this forum. Sorry.

You'll also note that there were many Christians involved in the abolition movement and later the 1960s civil rights movement which had many of its leaders actively involved in their respective churches.

[SeanyTheSailor]

The above post reminded me of this thought that I had. Was slavery ever mentioned in the Bible? Because slavery was around then, so I personally think that if slavery was never "contested" in the Bible, doesn't that in a way make it a PRO-slavery document?

[Alg]

The above post reminded me of this thought that I had. Was slavery ever mentioned in the Bible? Because slavery was around then, so I personally think that if slavery was never "contested" in the Bible, doesn't that in a way make it a PRO-slavery document?

What do you make of the story of Moses then?

[SeanyTheSailor]

The above post reminded me of this thought that I had. Was slavery ever mentioned in the Bible? Because slavery was around then, so I personally think that if slavery was never "contested" in the Bible, doesn't that in a way make it a PRO-slavery document?

What do you make of the story of Moses then?

Forgot about that. Also please don't be too angry at me I've never actually sat down and read the Bible. Not catholic.

 

But also, was slavery ever mentioned in the New Testament?

[Alg]

Forgot about that. Also please don't be too angry at me I've never actually sat down and read the Bible. Not catholic.

 

But also, was slavery ever mentioned in the New Testament?

I don't get angry, I get even :twisted: .

I think slavery was just what they did with criminals and war prisoners. It probably was accepted back then to a degree.

The last time I looked in a bible was years ago, when I learned my copy was heavily paraphrased...

[Barihawk]

Any law not given by God but given by a nation was acceptable. The Bible does not have any stance on slavery, and it was the norm of the day. However, Christians have always been anti-slave considered in the early Church, many Christians would be captured by Romans and sold into slavery or forced to fight in arenas. The most vocal abolitionists throughout the past 250 years have been Christians and a Christian movement actually succeeded in abolishing slavery throughout the British Empire (see the film, Amazing Grace. The song was written in commemoration of the event).

[magekillr]

This is a bad way to ask a question, but it's an important one. Religious extremism is a problem in Christianity, but it's obviously a bigger issue in Islam. I'm empathetic towards a lot of people in Afghanistan and Pakistan, because they don't have secular educations but religious ones; a majority are below the poverty line; they're plagued by war after war and invasion after invasion. Mix all of this together and you get a populace educated in ignorance with no way to form a better life for themselves, and constantly seeing your brothers and sisters marred and your villages destroyed. This leads to hopeless and desperation, and well, extremism.

 

However, there's still something there that's causing the problem, and I lay it at the feet of a religion that has not yet had its enlightenment; it's going through its own Dark Ages. This is what I see because I see the US intervening constantly in South America, an area where a lot of the same conditions apply, and yet we don't see extremist groups bent on taking out the West. This is sad because Islam used to be a religion that embraced learning and was the pinnacle of enlightenment; without this religion and its contributions to science during the Christian Dark Ages, humanity would have been set back even further.

 

I'm not saying the US' interventions and meddling in the region isn't to blame, it is. What I am saying is that our meddling isn't unique to the ME and South Asia, yet their extremism is unique to the world.

 

So I think this period is just Islam's own Dark Ages, so to speak; I don't see an enlightenment happening until the poverty issue is taken care of, and more war will only exacerbate it. The other problem is that Muslims seem to be in denial, and Pakistani people in particular want to blame everything on India for their problems. They need to take back their religion from the extremists; before that can happen, they need to admit that it's a problem.

 

Christian extremism is a whole other ball game, and reveals its ugly head from time to time like with the killing of George Tiller, and the Westboro Baptist Church.

[magekillr]

Seeing as I have had this debate on how 'religious' America is time and time again, I have remarks already prepared from a friend of mine:

 

I. INTRO

 

The religious right seems to think since the commonly used phrase, "Separation of Church and State, is not used in the Constitution, then it is not legally applicable.

 

You know what other phrase isnt in the Constitution? Find the phrase checks and balances in the U.S. Constitution. You wont be able to. So I suppose that none of the U.S. Constitutions provisions support "checks and balances? This quoted intent describes the intent behind the U.S. Constitutions provisions, just as separation of church and state describes the intent of the First Amendment's provision on religion:

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

 

There are other documents that support the fact that the First Amendment establishes the intent to keep church and state separated. These documents were written by the founders themselves.

 

Im going to state and rebut the arguments I hear by the religious right when they discuss the phrase separation of church and state with me. Furthermore, all sources from the Founding Fathers shall be cited through quite possibly the most objective source out there, the Library of Congresss IMAGES of these documents.

 

Ancillary sources will be provided so they are easy to read.

 

II. IS SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE ONE DIRECTIONAL?

 

This argument by the religious right can be summarized as follows:

 

If there is a separation of church and state, it was intended to be one directional; that is, it is designed to protect churches from intrusions by the state, not vise versa.

 

This argument is ridiculous because the interpretation of the phrase is ridiculous. The separation of two things usually implies that these two things are apart. Period. This is kind of like arguing that a divorce means that the husband is separated from the wife, but the wife is still married to the husband. See how absurd this mindset is when applied to other things?

 

In any case, Im sure some people know of Jeffersons letter to the Danbury Baptists. Thats where the phrase was first mentioned (to my knowledge):

 

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

 

--Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Danbury, Connecticut, Baptist Association, January 1, 1802

 

http://memory.loc.gov:8081/master/mss/mtj/mtj1/025/0500/0557.jpg

 

READABLE: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions58.html

 

This was less than a year after Jefferson assumed the presidency and the Danbury Baptists wrote to him before this because they wanted to get rid of the establishment of a state church in Connecticut, which the citizenry was required to pay taxes to in order to support it. That separation wasnt really possible until the 14th Amendment was ratified by the states, however.

 

III. DOES THE FACT THAT JEFFERSON DID NOT WRITE THE BILL OF RIGHTS MATTER?

 

The religious rights argument can be summarized as follows:

 

Who cares about the letter? Jefferson was in France when the Bill of Rights were being framed. Therefore, "Separation of Church and State" shouldnt be interpreted as part of the framing.

 

While the argument about where Jefferson was at the time was true, its a weak argument. Jefferson maintained some level of contact with the people who helped get the Bill of Rights approved, and furthermore, his Religious Freedom Act in Virginia was one of the inspirations for the First Amendments statements on religion:

 

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/f0510s.jpg

 

(NOTE: This is redaction of it printed by Dr. Richard Price in 1786. The original document was written by Jefferon in 1777, but the final copy of his was written in 1779)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Statute_for_Religious_Freedom

 

Quite some time before the Bill of Rights was even being considered, no?

 

IV. THE INFLUENCE OF JEFFERSON ON JAMES MADISON

 

Even if we didnt have Jeffersons letter to the Danbury Baptists, we still have the fact that Jefferson was particularly influential with a lot of people involved in framing the Bill of Rights, but most importantly, James Madison. And James Madison USED the phrase himself, particularly in his letter to Robert Walsh in March of 1819:

 

The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State.

 

--James Madison, Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819

 

http://memory.loc.gov:8081/master/mss/mjm/19/0100/0143.jpg

 

(See near the end of the second to last paragraph on the second page)

 

READABLE: http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qmadison.htm

 

This is the chief author of the U.S. Constitution and he explicitly uses the term total separation of church from the State to describe one of the reasons why the civil government is characterized by stability.

 

Madison also pleaded at one point for the states to take up the example of the federal government when it came to the separation of church and state (again, this wasn't mandated until the 14th Amendment was adopted).

 

"Ye States of America, which retain in your Constitution or Codes, any aberration from the sacred principle of religious liberty, by giving to Caesar what belongs to God, or joining together what God has put asunder, hasten to revise & purify your systems, and make the example of your Country as pure & compleat, in what relates to the freedom of the mind and its allegiance to its maker, as in what belongs to the legitimate objects of political & civil institutions. Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt. in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history."

 

--James Madison, Detached Memorandum

 

http://memory.loc.gov/master/mss/mjm/26/2100/2193.jpg

 

(Last seven lines of the 1st paragraph and first three lines of the 2nd paragraph)

 

READABLE: http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/detach.htm

 

Madison was clear that not only did he reject the establishment of an official church, but he wanted to prevent anything CLOSE to it. Take this example from the same document:

 

The Constitution of the U.S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation."

 

Page 17: http://memory.loc.gov/master/mss/mjm/26/2200/2201.jpg

 

Page 18: http://memory.loc.gov/master/mss/mjm/26/2100/2197.jpg

 

I dont think theres any ambiguity about Madisons intent with the First Amendment here. Do you?

 

V. CONCLUSION

 

So restating my original argument, the fact that Separation of Church and State is not mentioned in the Constitution does not matter, as the First Amendment:

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

 

...is a provision that has an intent that was elucidated upon by the Founding Fathers, including the chief writer of the U.S. Constitution. And that intent was that the state does not encroach upon religious freedom and that religion does not encroach upon how the government exercises its authority.

 

Judicial reviews by the Supreme Court have reflected this intent and they will most likely continue to do so.

[Saru Inc]

...why is gay marriage such a big issue? Mainly becase the bible says it's bad. I'm Jewish. I shouldn't be bound by a law based off of a bible passage...

 

 

You're Jewish. Old Testiment still applies to us, buddy. We were the ones that wrote it. Sort of. Read up on your Leviticus.

 

But yeah, seperation of church and state would be a nice amendment to follow, wouldn't it?

 

 

1) I hate these topics

 

 

2)The Bible doesn't say Homosexuality is bad; simply homosexual rape is bad.

 

 

3) There already is separation of church and state, simply not separation of church and those who run the state.

[fakeitormakeit2]

...why is gay marriage such a big issue? Mainly becase the bible says it's bad. I'm Jewish. I shouldn't be bound by a law based off of a bible passage...

 

 

You're Jewish. Old Testiment still applies to us, buddy. We were the ones that wrote it. Sort of. Read up on your Leviticus.

 

But yeah, seperation of church and state would be a nice amendment to follow, wouldn't it?

 

 

1) I hate these topics

 

 

2)The Bible doesn't say Homosexuality is bad; simply homosexual rape is bad.

 

3) There already is separation of church and state, simply not separation of church and those who run the state.

"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female"

Leviticus 18:22

 

And the argument that homosexuality itself isn't bad but homosexual rape is bad (from the Biblical perspective) is an idea from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah were the Sodomites try to sodomize the angels of God and then God destroys the area with fire and sulfur.

[Barihawk]

Seeing as I have had this debate on how 'religious' America is time and time again, I have remarks already prepared from a friend of mine:

 

Oh Jesus, reading that reminded me of when I graded undergrad papers in grad school. I could be Carl Sagan and I'd still give that a C- for effort. It's not entirely wrong, nor is it right. It's something someone made with passion, but that passion has interfered and damaged their credibility.

 

 

Speaking of which, it's a shame that both Bush's and Obama's education plans overemphasize mathematics and science, but almost completely ignore other disciplines. In this particular scenario we see that the language arts and formation of argument from historical sources that an English or History class should endow (when in actual practice they merely convey spelling and Jeopardy answers) are slack.

 

Dude, magekllr. I see a lot of "friends" or "professors" or "experts" in your posts. Can we see some of you?

 

 

Again, it was never intended for the United States to be a Christian nation. Only one that exemplified the ideals put forth by Christ. People on both sides just did not seem to get this. There is a difference between having a core set of beliefs than acting on them. Does someone need to be Christian to be Christlike? No. Ask (or read) Ghandi.

[RexMilotic]

You can also attribute slavery in America to Christianity, seeing as how slavery had Christian backing to it.

That's probably the biggest load of BS I've ever read on this forum. Sorry.

You'll also note that there were many Christians involved in the abolition movement and later the 1960s civil rights movement which had many of its leaders actively involved in their respective churches.

 

Please read the Bible more often before you attempt to call me out. The Bible gives directions on how to sell your daughter into slavery, and it says one of the sons of Noah is destined to be slaves of the other brothers. http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm For more information of slavery in the Bible. Never try to call me out on a subject because of your ignorance.

 

Any law not given by God but given by a nation was acceptable. The Bible does not have any stance on slavery, and it was the norm of the day. However, Christians have always been anti-slave considered in the early Church, many Christians would be captured by Romans and sold into slavery or forced to fight in arenas. The most vocal abolitionists throughout the past 250 years have been Christians and a Christian movement actually succeeded in abolishing slavery throughout the British Empire (see the film, Amazing Grace. The song was written in commemoration of the event).

 

The link also applies to your post. The Bible encouraged selling daughters and children into slavery.

 

The above post reminded me of this thought that I had. Was slavery ever mentioned in the Bible? Because slavery was around then, so I personally think that if slavery was never "contested" in the Bible, doesn't that in a way make it a PRO-slavery document?

What do you make of the story of Moses then?

 

The story of Moses was only meant to be about freeing his "Chosen" people, not saying slavery is bad.

[fakeitormakeit2]

You can also attribute slavery in America to Christianity, seeing as how slavery had Christian backing to it.

That's probably the biggest load of BS I've ever read on this forum. Sorry.

You'll also note that there were many Christians involved in the abolition movement and later the 1960s civil rights movement which had many of its leaders actively involved in their respective churches.

 

Please read the Bible more often before you attempt to call me out. The Bible gives directions on how to sell your daughter into slavery, and it says one of the sons of Noah is destined to be slaves of the other brothers. http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm For more information of slavery in the Bible. Never try to call me out on a subject because of your ignorance.

 

Any law not given by God but given by a nation was acceptable. The Bible does not have any stance on slavery, and it was the norm of the day. However, Christians have always been anti-slave considered in the early Church, many Christians would be captured by Romans and sold into slavery or forced to fight in arenas. The most vocal abolitionists throughout the past 250 years have been Christians and a Christian movement actually succeeded in abolishing slavery throughout the British Empire (see the film, Amazing Grace. The song was written in commemoration of the event).

 

The link also applies to your post. The Bible encouraged selling daughters and children into slavery.

 

The above post reminded me of this thought that I had. Was slavery ever mentioned in the Bible? Because slavery was around then, so I personally think that if slavery was never "contested" in the Bible, doesn't that in a way make it a PRO-slavery document?

What do you make of the story of Moses then?

 

The story of Moses was only meant to be about freeing his "Chosen" people, not saying slavery is bad.

My friend, you have many misconceptions someone would make about the Bible if they are an outsider looking in, rather then someone who knows what they speak of because they have studied it.

 

Where it gives instruction for the selling of the slaves and the like, that is sound in the Old Testament, amongst the Torah. Jesus is a newer understanding of the Torah, instruction of God. The laws, such as the kosher laws, are not followed by Christians because Jesus gave new instruction himself which replaced the old ones, that were created by Jews for the purpose of society and not for morality. When Jesus says slaves obey your earthly masters, he isn't approving of slavery, it was merely a common practice at the time and he was saying rather then going and causes violence against your master just do as they say, because there is a higher power. Hence, things in consistency with this is turn the other cheek, and if someone forces you into one mile of labor, do five. Give to Caesar what is Caesar's. These are things Jesus said which calls one to be non-aggressive, not approving of slavery.

 

In Timonthy, again, Christians are called to give their masters full respect so that God's teachings are not shamed. Its like being the bigger man and avoided confrontation and teach the way of a good person.

 

As for you say one of the sons of Noah will become the slave of another? I have never read or heard of that in the Bible. However, that is a possible passage. But you cannot look at that literally. Or perhaps you can. It would just mean that the people of one reason will get their [wagon] kicked by the ones of another since supposedly everyone is a descendant of Noah, that's all that that means, not that God supports slavery.

 

As for you say Yahweh commanding Moses to lead his people out of the Egypt was only meant to be about freeing the "chosen" people, you are right. It wasn't saying slavery was wrong. Yahweh gave Moses a theophany which was to show that the Jews were being watched over, and later on in Deutronomy, God reminds the Jews to treat people nicely because it was He who let them out of Egypt. It is a part of a conditional covenant, they disobey the commands of Yahweh, they end up in the crap they were before. Which is what they ultimately end up believing because the North is linked with idolatry and then the Assyrians crush and deport them, and later on Babylon takes over the South.

 

It is very easy to say the Bible is "evil" if you look at small pieces and disregard other pieces and its history. However, if you look at it in a whole and know its background, it's not so easy.

 

And while you Americans enslaved Africans, my ancestors (the Phoenician/Lebanese people) refused to have slaves, even though they were surrounded by slave trade, that's why a lot of people in the middle east are quite dark and the Lebanese people are really white, because we never had slaves so we never had sex with them. Lebanese are dominantly Christian. You must look at the Bible as poetry and works of inspiration, not as something that is blatantly written.

[Saru Inc]

...why is gay marriage such a big issue? Mainly becase the bible says it's bad. I'm Jewish. I shouldn't be bound by a law based off of a bible passage...

 

 

You're Jewish. Old Testiment still applies to us, buddy. We were the ones that wrote it. Sort of. Read up on your Leviticus.

 

But yeah, seperation of church and state would be a nice amendment to follow, wouldn't it?

 

 

1) I hate these topics

 

 

2)The Bible doesn't say Homosexuality is bad; simply homosexual rape is bad.

 

3) There already is separation of church and state, simply not separation of church and those who run the state.

"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female"

Leviticus 18:22

 

And the argument that homosexuality itself isn't bad but homosexual rape is bad (from the Biblical perspective) is an idea from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah were the Sodomites try to sodomize the angels of God and then God destroys the area with fire and sulfur.

 

It is stated many times, Jesus loves EVERYONE. However, as God has stated, love cannot exist, where sin exists. Thats where Jesus came in, he died for my sins, just as much as he did for yours. Have you ever stolen a cookie from the cookie jar? Checked out a girls [wagon]? Lied abotu anything? Then you are just as sinful as I am. However, since I ask Jesus to forgive my sins, and I'm assuming you did as well, then we both are on equal grounds. Now, if Jesus can forgive my sins of homosexuality, then they're really no different then your sins of stealing a little cookie when you were 8 years old. Now, that was all off topic, man may not lay with a man like a woman yes. But also in Leviticus it lists we can't eat shrimp etc. Homosexuality was banned, in my opinion because God was trying to populate the earth with his people, and gay men and lesbian women cannot procreate. However, I believe that and many other laws are now done away with. For example, in the Old testament, if your kid rebelled, you stoned the mofo, if your house had mold, you burned it down. It was about spreading the human race.

 

You can also attribute slavery in America to Christianity, seeing as how slavery had Christian backing to it.

That's probably the biggest load of BS I've ever read on this forum. Sorry.

You'll also note that there were many Christians involved in the abolition movement and later the 1960s civil rights movement which had many of its leaders actively involved in their respective churches.

 

Please read the Bible more often before you attempt to call me out. The Bible gives directions on how to sell your daughter into slavery, and it says one of the sons of Noah is destined to be slaves of the other brothers. http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm For more information of slavery in the Bible. Never try to call me out on a subject because of your ignorance.

 

Any law not given by God but given by a nation was acceptable. The Bible does not have any stance on slavery, and it was the norm of the day. However, Christians have always been anti-slave considered in the early Church, many Christians would be captured by Romans and sold into slavery or forced to fight in arenas. The most vocal abolitionists throughout the past 250 years have been Christians and a Christian movement actually succeeded in abolishing slavery throughout the British Empire (see the film, Amazing Grace. The song was written in commemoration of the event).

 

The link also applies to your post. The Bible encouraged selling daughters and children into slavery.

 

The above post reminded me of this thought that I had. Was slavery ever mentioned in the Bible? Because slavery was around then, so I personally think that if slavery was never "contested" in the Bible, doesn't that in a way make it a PRO-slavery document?

What do you make of the story of Moses then?

 

The story of Moses was only meant to be about freeing his "Chosen" people, not saying slavery is bad.

 

Dude, the website you quoted says "evilbible.com" could you really consider such a bias source still credible?

[Romy]

The above post reminded me of this thought that I had. Was slavery ever mentioned in the Bible? Because slavery was around then, so I personally think that if slavery was never "contested" in the Bible, doesn't that in a way make it a PRO-slavery document?

What do you make of the story of Moses then?

 

Actualy...

 

God, supposedly (I'm an Atheist...), determined certain rules for Slavery (which would openly mean God accepted it, else he wouldn't have suggested any rules in the first place), such as having to respect slaves even though they're your slaves, not letting them over-work, and giving them the option to free themselves every 7th year. You can even find the circumstances in which one should become a slave (when in big debt if I'm not wrong).

[Romy]

As for you say one of the sons of Noah will become the slave of another? I have never read or heard of that in the Bible. However, that is a possible passage. But you cannot look at that literally. Or perhaps you can. It would just mean that the people of one reason will get their [wagon] kicked by the ones of another since supposedly everyone is a descendant of Noah, that's all that that means, not that God supports slavery.

 

Yeah, Noah cursed him because he stared at his (Noah's) genitals- Highly unaccepted in the Patriarchal society.