Well I certainly agree it stated to enslave certain people, but the circumstances for which is what they twisted.

 

I'm not sure how you really need a different circumstance. They were cursed to be slaves by God, that alone is a good enough reason.

Well I certainly agree it stated to enslave certain people, but the circumstances for which is what they twisted.

 

I'm not sure how you really need a different circumstance. They were cursed to be slaves by God, that alone is a good enough reason.

 

 

Oh, sorry, I don't agree on that. I was referring to the parts in the Bible where after Israel (or another tribe\country) won a battle, they would enslave the losers.

Well I certainly agree it stated to enslave certain people, but the circumstances for which is what they twisted.

 

I'm not sure how you really need a different circumstance. They were cursed to be slaves by God, that alone is a good enough reason.

 

 

Oh, sorry, I don't agree on that. I was referring to the parts in the Bible where after Israel (or another tribe\country) won a battle, they would enslave the losers.

 

Oh, I'm referring after the Flood whenever Ham's family was cursed to be slaves by the family of the other brothers. Ham's family is also happened to be the family who moved into Africa after the Flood.

Ahh I see. That is the one thing I well, really dislike about the Bible/God. he curses whole family lines because of what one person does.

Ahh I see. That is the one thing I well, really dislike about the Bible/God. he curses whole family lines because of what one person does.

 

Why would a perfect entity do that though?

Life isn't pointless if there's no god. You just have to make one for yourself. A lot of non-religious people get a lot of joy out of life, whether it's from friends, family, a job, charity work, whatever.

 

What is the point in God existing? What is the point in going to heaven?

 

 

I sometimes ask myself that and I've come to two conclusions:

 

 

1) Who says there has to be a point? Surely humans want to rationalize why things happen, but maybe there just isn't a point.

 

2) Flip it around, why are humans here? Clearly an atheistic standpoint, but sometimes I wonder myself. The Bible says to 'bring' glory to God, but why does God need glory?

 

My point in asking those questions is really to show that Christians think they have a purpose to their existence for the same reason atheists with an existentialist philosophy do. Presumably, Christians want to go to heaven because they will enjoy it, which is exactly why atheists don't just mope around or go all suicidal on everyone - we're rather fond of life. We enjoy it, so we stick with it.

 

(I like your thinking in those responses, though)

tl:dr

 

If you want to believe in fairy tales, feel free to do so but don't annoy other people with it.

A few things/ ideas I'd like to share on this never ending topic...

 

- Science vs Bible first:

Both the use of scientific method and interpreting the word of the bible are ways of getting information about the world. Science, naturalism (whatever you want to call it) comes from the pre-assumption that THE only way to learn to understand the world is to look at the world. Religions come from the pre-assumption that their holy scriptures are THE most important source for all knowledge and if the world and your own experiences contradict the scriptures, obviously the scriptures are still right (one way or another). Because of this underlying difference between the two stances, you can't really say which is right or wrong. But you can (and you should) decide which sources of information you want to base your worldview on; the word of God that explains the world, or the world itself.

If you find a way to incorporate the two pre-assumptions (in a rational manner, so that others can come to the same conclusion without the need to ride an invisible pink unicorn), then I salute you. Personally I believe (firmly) that it can't be done, because if there was a way, we wouldn't need to be here discussing this topic.

 

- The existence of free will, pre-deternemism, fatalism and suggested omnipotent god

I study physics. I believe in causality, that there are a set of laws in nature that can not be broken. The idea of cause and effect implies that everything I'm going to write in this post is already decided. The idea of not having true free will is both fascinating and frightening. But the other way, that the world at it's heart is completely random, is crazy as well; try to imagine an irrational, lawless machine, that operates unexpectedly and in an unexplainable manner.

Although I think the future in a way already exists, this doesn't mean I should become careless about tomorrow. Although my decisions in the future are there, I don't yet know about them. I think of life as a movie, where the story and characters are set, and you just sit there watching it. Except in this case we are very much a part of the movie.

Now, I do not know what caused the "initial push". There are theories that try to explain it, but I don't think they are testable. Because of this I prefer to think of myself as "religionless" instead of being an atheist. I can not deny the existence of an omnipotent deity (or the matrix), but I'm very firm that any scriptures don't tell much anything about it, and I don't think that the "pusher's" opinions would need to be considered when we decide our morals.

 

- Theists, atheists and new atheists

This is maybe what interests me the most in this debate at the moment. I think we are not living a "rise" of atheism at the moment, at least not in a large scale. There may be more talking about the subject, but that's mostly because people are talking more in general nowadays (that's what comes with the information age and all). I doubt the "fighting atheists" that "come out of their cupboards" will achieve much, except for those profiting from book sales. The ideas and arguments are old and if people didn't get them earlier, why would it be any different now?

Of course this doesn't mean debating this topic would be pointless. Even if we don't get anywhere (on a national or global level), individual fence-sitters are still looking for these arguments and it's important someone is there to spread the good memes onwards.

 

 

http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian

That was a good read, thanks :)

- Science vs Bible first:

Both the use of scientific method and interpreting the word of the bible are ways of getting information about the world. Science, naturalism (whatever you want to call it) comes from the pre-assumption that THE only way to learn to understand the world is to look at the world. Religions come from the pre-assumption that their holy scriptures are THE most important source for all knowledge and if the world and your own experiences contradict the scriptures, obviously the scriptures are still right (one way or another). Because of this underlying difference between the two stances, you can't really say which is right or wrong. But you can (and you should) decide which sources of information you want to base your worldview on; the word of God that explains the world, or the world itself.

If you find a way to incorporate the two pre-assumptions (in a rational manner, so that others can come to the same conclusion without the need to ride an invisible pink unicorn), then I salute you. Personally I believe (firmly) that it can't be done, because if there was a way, we wouldn't need to be here discussing this topic.

 

I think what we should be asking ourselves is- Did God create mankind or did mankind create God?

I think what we should be asking ourselves is- Did God create mankind or did mankind create God?

Could be both if deism / general theism is correct. God creates universe -> science! -> man creates God to fill void?

pegpenguin, on 22 February 2010 - 07:27 PM, said:

About the homosexuality thing...It is a sin, it's a warping of the way things God intended. Any urges of homosexuality or anything with anyone is a sin. The problem people have is coming to terms with the fact that they're sinners. Instead people deny some parts of scripture and take others out of context to say that it's okay, which is completely self-refuting.

 

 

 

 

Umm, without coming off as a douche:

 

I respect your opinion, however I beg to differ, allow me to explain.

 

I was raised Presbyterian Christian, (Mother was Catholic, Father Free Methodist) and now I'm non denominational, which I like better. I believe as I'm assuming (correct me if I'm wrong) you believe as well: that everyone is born with original sin. From birth we are sinful, and need Jesus' forgiveness to become clean. However, after this point, I define sin as something that is done wrong, on purpose, and is morally, or faithfully incorrect, as well as unlawful by the laws in the establishment. (from stealing cookies from the cookie jar, to rape and murder in the big city.) No one is sinless save Jesus, because know one can overcome sin, though there are some that sin quite rarely, if you even look at a girl based on her body (based on some translations of the bible) that is considered lust, and is a sin. Ever miss church? Unless it was a complete accident, that is a sin (unless you are unable to get to church). These are on purpose, you chose to check out the girl's [wagon], or party Saturday night and miss church. Its your fault and no one else's (an exception is as stated there's no way to get there, like you have no ride etc.)you have put an idol before God, and sinned.

 

Now, along the years, the Church has twisted the words of the Bible to promote Slavery, war and racism. (The Isrealites enslaved a tribe, therefore we can enslave Africans!) Without really even trying to get the real meaning out of a message. As posted on either this thread, or same sex marriage the Christian church used to not allow interracial marriages, etc. However, it has come to light that being of a different race is infact not a sin, as some honestly believed. If you are born black, you will stay black. Theres obviously nothing wrong with it, and you were born that way, you didn't choose it.

 

Now I ask, whats the difference between being Gay, and being an African-American? They're both quite similar inthat they are not a choice, they're not 'inferior,' they're not detrimental to society and most certainly not a sin to be. If you say being Gay is unnatural, its tantamount to saying being black is unnatural.

 

If I, and many others did not choose to be Gay, and no malicious ideas are behind us being gay, how is being gay a sin? Ever read the Bible? Ruth, a woman God dearly loved, was a lesbian. SAY WHAT. She even had a book dedicated to her.

 

P.s. sorry if I came off as a douche, or condescending etc.

 

 

You weren't condescending in anyway fyi, and I agree with a lot of what you said.

 

Except for one point. How is homosexuality in anyway not a choice? Admittedly someone raised by a homosexual parent/couple will be more inclined to it, but is still a choice. From whatever standpoint you look at it from, evolutionist or religious, it still doesn't make sense. From an evolutionist, gay couples can't reproduce, so if it was a gay gene it would more than likely die out. From a religious standpoint, you've probably heard many arguments why it's wrong. But here's another. You were right that sin is a choice, it's a warping of the things God intended for us. And as for the original sin, I think it's more of an ability to rebel against the Law, which is part of free will. And when you do look at a woman lustfully, it is considered the same as sleeping with that woman because in your heart you want to. It's the same with a man, if a man looks at a man and lusts after him, it's the same as him sleeping with him. It's not the act itself it's the intention behind the act. And from a Christian standpoint, even a non-denominational one(which I am too, meaning I take everything I believe directly from the bible and not from what some preacher said) marriage is solely between a man and woman, and it always has been, you can't deviate from that. And it's a sin to lust after someone other than your husband/wife.

 

and as for the Ruth being a lesbian thing, I'll look into that, I have read Ruth as of yet, so I'm not sure. Although I'm not so sure it would matter much, seeing as Sinners run rampant in the bible. King David slept with someone other than his wife, and many other examples are everywhere in the bible. Just cause it's in the bible doesn't mean that God agrees with it.

pegpenguin, on 22 February 2010 - 07:27 PM, said:

About the homosexuality thing...It is a sin, it's a warping of the way things God intended. Any urges of homosexuality or anything with anyone is a sin. The problem people have is coming to terms with the fact that they're sinners. Instead people deny some parts of scripture and take others out of context to say that it's okay, which is completely self-refuting.

 

 

 

 

Umm, without coming off as a douche:

 

I respect your opinion, however I beg to differ, allow me to explain.

 

I was raised Presbyterian Christian, (Mother was Catholic, Father Free Methodist) and now I'm non denominational, which I like better. I believe as I'm assuming (correct me if I'm wrong) you believe as well: that everyone is born with original sin. From birth we are sinful, and need Jesus' forgiveness to become clean. However, after this point, I define sin as something that is done wrong, on purpose, and is morally, or faithfully incorrect, as well as unlawful by the laws in the establishment. (from stealing cookies from the cookie jar, to rape and murder in the big city.) No one is sinless save Jesus, because know one can overcome sin, though there are some that sin quite rarely, if you even look at a girl based on her body (based on some translations of the bible) that is considered lust, and is a sin. Ever miss church? Unless it was a complete accident, that is a sin (unless you are unable to get to church). These are on purpose, you chose to check out the girl's [wagon], or party Saturday night and miss church. Its your fault and no one else's (an exception is as stated there's no way to get there, like you have no ride etc.)you have put an idol before God, and sinned.

 

Now, along the years, the Church has twisted the words of the Bible to promote Slavery, war and racism. (The Isrealites enslaved a tribe, therefore we can enslave Africans!) Without really even trying to get the real meaning out of a message. As posted on either this thread, or same sex marriage the Christian church used to not allow interracial marriages, etc. However, it has come to light that being of a different race is infact not a sin, as some honestly believed. If you are born black, you will stay black. Theres obviously nothing wrong with it, and you were born that way, you didn't choose it.

 

Now I ask, whats the difference between being Gay, and being an African-American? They're both quite similar inthat they are not a choice, they're not 'inferior,' they're not detrimental to society and most certainly not a sin to be. If you say being Gay is unnatural, its tantamount to saying being black is unnatural.

 

If I, and many others did not choose to be Gay, and no malicious ideas are behind us being gay, how is being gay a sin? Ever read the Bible? Ruth, a woman God dearly loved, was a lesbian. SAY WHAT. She even had a book dedicated to her.

 

P.s. sorry if I came off as a douche, or condescending etc.

 

 

You weren't condescending in anyway fyi, and I agree with a lot of what you said.

 

Except for one point. How is homosexuality in anyway not a choice? Admittedly someone raised by a homosexual parent/couple will be more inclined to it, but is still a choice. From whatever standpoint you look at it from, evolutionist or religious, it still doesn't make sense. From an evolutionist, gay couples can't reproduce, so if it was a gay gene it would more than likely die out. From a religious standpoint, you've probably heard many arguments why it's wrong. But here's another. You were right that sin is a choice, it's a warping of the things God intended for us. And as for the original sin, I think it's more of an ability to rebel against the Law, which is part of free will. And when you do look at a woman lustfully, it is considered the same as sleeping with that woman because in your heart you want to. It's the same with a man, if a man looks at a man and lusts after him, it's the same as him sleeping with him. It's not the act itself it's the intention behind the act. And from a Christian standpoint, even a non-denominational one(which I am too, meaning I take everything I believe directly from the bible and not from what some preacher said) marriage is solely between a man and woman, and it always has been, you can't deviate from that. And it's a sin to lust after someone other than your husband/wife.

 

and as for the Ruth being a lesbian thing, I'll look into that, I have read Ruth as of yet, so I'm not sure. Although I'm not so sure it would matter much, seeing as Sinners run rampant in the bible. King David slept with someone other than his wife, and many other examples are everywhere in the bible. Just cause it's in the bible doesn't mean that God agrees with it.

 

Did you choose to be attracted to the opposite gender, or is that just how it is for you? The same thing goes for homosexuals. If it was a choice, then we wouldn't observe differences such as: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm between straight and gay people. As for the gay gene, instead of viewing it as one, view it as multiple different traits together. Those traits also have other effects, close relatives of gay person are more likely to produce more children, passing on the trait. Also, homosexuals can reproduce, why people ignore that I don't understand.

 

From a religious standpoint, it doesn't matter. They would still believe the Earth is flat had we not corrected them. Marriage is not religious, a majority of things involved with marriage are actually due to the State. Also, your idea isn't the same as other religions, which others do allow marriage between male/male, female/female. Hell, we also had to force them to allow interracial marriage, because they're too incompetent to be allowed to run something such a marriage.

They would still believe the Earth is flat had we not corrected them.

This always bugs me... People have known that the Earth was round for centuries before Christianity. It wasn't discovered by the scientific elite, but by sailors (Phoenicians, unless I'm wrong) who noticed that boats disappear over the horizon.

 

With the knowledge that it was curved an ancient Greek scientist whose well-known name escapes me was able to measure its diameter though.

 

...And I think that the interracial marriage thing was more based on racism than religion. There have been racist atheists too, look at H.P. Lovecraft, showing us that racism and religion aren't necessarily related...

They would still believe the Earth is flat had we not corrected them.

This always bugs me... People have known that the Earth was round for centuries before Christianity. It wasn't discovered by the scientific elite, but by sailors (Phoenicians, unless I'm wrong) who noticed that boats disappear over the horizon.

 

With the knowledge that it was curved an ancient Greek scientist whose well-known name escapes me was able to measure its diameter though.

 

...And I think that the interracial marriage thing was more based on racism than religion. There have been racist atheists too, look at H.P. Lovecraft, showing us that racism and religion aren't necessarily related...

 

By we, I'm referring to anyone who doesn't just take what the book says and call it a fact. The interracial marriage is not allowed going by what the Bible says.

Care to cite then?

Care to cite then?

 

I could use one verse an attempt to defend it, but it's not worth the effort. Instead, the Bible speaks more of not allowing Jews to marry outside of Jews because of mixing religions and cultures.

pegpenguin, on 22 February 2010 - 07:27 PM, said:

About the homosexuality thing...It is a sin, it's a warping of the way things God intended. Any urges of homosexuality or anything with anyone is a sin. The problem people have is coming to terms with the fact that they're sinners. Instead people deny some parts of scripture and take others out of context to say that it's okay, which is completely self-refuting.

 

 

 

 

Umm, without coming off as a douche:

 

I respect your opinion, however I beg to differ, allow me to explain.

 

I was raised Presbyterian Christian, (Mother was Catholic, Father Free Methodist) and now I'm non denominational, which I like better. I believe as I'm assuming (correct me if I'm wrong) you believe as well: that everyone is born with original sin. From birth we are sinful, and need Jesus' forgiveness to become clean. However, after this point, I define sin as something that is done wrong, on purpose, and is morally, or faithfully incorrect, as well as unlawful by the laws in the establishment. (from stealing cookies from the cookie jar, to rape and murder in the big city.) No one is sinless save Jesus, because know one can overcome sin, though there are some that sin quite rarely, if you even look at a girl based on her body (based on some translations of the bible) that is considered lust, and is a sin. Ever miss church? Unless it was a complete accident, that is a sin (unless you are unable to get to church). These are on purpose, you chose to check out the girl's [wagon], or party Saturday night and miss church. Its your fault and no one else's (an exception is as stated there's no way to get there, like you have no ride etc.)you have put an idol before God, and sinned.

 

Now, along the years, the Church has twisted the words of the Bible to promote Slavery, war and racism. (The Isrealites enslaved a tribe, therefore we can enslave Africans!) Without really even trying to get the real meaning out of a message. As posted on either this thread, or same sex marriage the Christian church used to not allow interracial marriages, etc. However, it has come to light that being of a different race is infact not a sin, as some honestly believed. If you are born black, you will stay black. Theres obviously nothing wrong with it, and you were born that way, you didn't choose it.

 

Now I ask, whats the difference between being Gay, and being an African-American? They're both quite similar inthat they are not a choice, they're not 'inferior,' they're not detrimental to society and most certainly not a sin to be. If you say being Gay is unnatural, its tantamount to saying being black is unnatural.

 

If I, and many others did not choose to be Gay, and no malicious ideas are behind us being gay, how is being gay a sin? Ever read the Bible? Ruth, a woman God dearly loved, was a lesbian. SAY WHAT. She even had a book dedicated to her.

 

P.s. sorry if I came off as a douche, or condescending etc.

 

 

You weren't condescending in anyway fyi, and I agree with a lot of what you said.

 

Except for one point.1) How is homosexuality in anyway not a choice? Admittedly someone raised by a homosexual parent/couple will be more inclined to it, but is still a choice. From whatever standpoint you look at it from, evolutionist or religious, it still doesn't make sense. From an evolutionist, gay couples can't reproduce, so if it was a gay gene it would more than likely die out. From a religious standpoint, you've probably heard many arguments why it's wrong. But here's another. You were right that sin is a choice, it's a warping of the things God intended for us. And as for the original sin, I think it's more of an ability to rebel against the Law, which is part of free will. And when you do look at a woman lustfully, it is considered the same as sleeping with that woman because in your heart you want to. It's the same with a man, if a man looks at a man and lusts after him, it's the same as him sleeping with him. It's not the act itself it's the intention behind the act. And from a Christian standpoint, even a non-denominational one(which I am too, meaning I take everything I believe directly from the bible and not from what some preacher said) marriage is solely between a man and woman, and it always has been, you can't deviate from that. And it's a sin to lust after someone other than your husband/wife.

 

2)and as for the Ruth being a lesbian thing, I'll look into that, I have read Ruth as of yet, so I'm not sure. Although I'm not so sure it would matter much, seeing as Sinners run rampant in the bible. King David slept with someone other than his wife, and many other examples are everywhere in the bible. Just cause it's in the bible doesn't mean that God agrees with it.

 

1) Wow, I thought today only extremely religous or extremely old people believe that. Everyone else knows sexual orienation is not a matter of choice, and never has been. Why would anyone choose to be something discriminated against and that is seen as wrong sometimes even by his own parents and environment?

Do me a favor, try to be gay for a week, see if you could choose to.

 

2) Actualy.... No. Marriage wasn't always between a man and a woman and the concept does not belong to the Christian Church-

A. Marriage had existed long before Jesus was even born, and was not invented by neither Christianity, Judiasm or Islam.

B. Same-sex Marriage is accepted in some cultures and religions. Which would totally kill the argument of hurting the right to practice religion, because not marrying gay and lesbian couples or not allowing that IS hurting the right to practice religion.

C. In a Democracy, the church shouldn't have a say in lawful marriage. They should possibly have the freedom not to marry couples in a religous way, but that shouldn't change the fact that marriage is marriage regardless of what the church thinks of it, and that gays should have the right to legally marry in any democratic country.

Romy, I know a few people who decided to go from being straight all their life to turning gay.

 

Admittedly they were all girls, but the point still stands.

if you're not going to take the time to cite your points and provide sources, i'm not going to take the time to post a counter point >.>

Romy, I know a few people who decided to go from being straight all their life to turning gay.

 

Admittedly they were all girls, but the point still stands.

 

That's questionable. I suppose it's possible to try to go gay, but I doubt those girls actually tricked their minds into having libidos for the female anatomy. Or maybe by "going gay" they just decided that guys were jerks and they'd rather have a an emotionally driven relationship as opposed to a sexual one.

 

I don't know, that just sounds really strange.

Romy, I know a few people who decided to go from being straight all their life to turning gay.

 

Admittedly they were all girls, but the point still stands.

 

Again, try to *choose* to be gay. If you ever succeed, it's because you always were.

 

 

These girls either only found it out about themselves late in their lives, or are not gay, or something similar to what Zierro mentioned.

 

 

You cannot choose your sexual orientaion, if that was possible, I doubt anyone would be gay.

Care to cite then?

 

I could use one verse an attempt to defend it, but it's not worth the effort. Instead, the Bible speaks more of not allowing Jews to marry outside of Jews because of mixing religions and cultures.

Ah. Okay, thank you.

 

Beginning to see that many contradictions come from between the old and new testaments...

 

 

Again, try to *choose* to be gay. If you ever succeed, it's because you always were.

 

 

These girls either only found it out about themselves late in their lives, or are not gay, or something similar to what Zierro mentioned.

 

 

You cannot choose your sexual orientaion, if that was possible, I doubt anyone would be gay.

 

I agree with this.

 

Being gay myself, I can say that I didn't choose it, and wasn't raised in a setting where I would be inclined to do so.

 

I consider myself an intelligent person, and what smart person would choose to have a number of their rights stripped away, and to be deeply hated by a large number of people? None.

Romy, I know a few people who decided to go from being straight all their life to turning gay.

 

Admittedly they were all girls, but the point still stands.

That sounds awfully weird to me, but let's suppose you are right, and those girls really turned to lesbians. That still doesn't say anything about everyone else, and how their homosexuality came to be. Again, I'll argue that even the most cruel of violences and state oppressions haven't made gays disappear, and that that shows homosexuality is not a choice, at least for a large amount of gays.

 

Or we could even agree hypothetically and think, just for a second, that homosexuality was a choice. That still wouldn't justify any discrimination and it still wouldn't be a good argument against LGBT rights or marriage equality, would it?

Weird how the Same-Sex Marriage thread turned into a religous debate and this one turned into a same-sex Marraige debate....