:unsure:

 

I like the Unitarians.

The Bible was written by man so who cares what evidence people have? The creators of links are just as fallible as those who use (or don't) use them.

 

It's a matter of personal preference and debating it just makes people more entrenched in their own views.

 

E:@Nex - I grew up UU and I think it's a great ideology to begin with, but my personal experiences with it have been negative. It's still faith and it's still wrong, plus it's enabling of stuff like Pascal's Wager.

You posted a passage saying it is a sin, fair enough it is their doctrine, now if I ask why is it a sin, and under who's authority is it considered a sin I am sure you would find it impossible to prove that it is under God's authority and not mans.

 

The problem with an interpretation like that is it does not follow evidence that Jesus explicitly said homosexuality is a sin, so why do you believe it? Because the church says they interpreted the new testament to infer that if jesus was asked he would indeed say it is a sin? Or is it because YOU PERSONALLY have read the new testament and found evidence to support that interpretation.

 

Edit: if its the case that you personally have read the new testament to decide this, post the evidence you found that could support such an interpretation (again if we were talking about your interpretation of the theme of any novel I would want you to do the same)

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm193/krexuzeitor/implied-facepalm.jpg[/mg]

 

I will just take that as a *no reply*

 

The problem with this point of view, this blind zealotry without even stopping to question why you believe something is the real cause of terrorism. If the Catholic Church had their own jihad section that ALL catholics must follow to get to heaven, I am certain we would have many christians who would be strapping themselves with bombs to gain control of planes to aim them towards Saudi Arabian buildings.

 

Edit: an extremist branch of Islam did make that interpretation to justify their actions

 

You're just trolling now? This is getting a little ridiculous.

Is it ever? :P

 

Although, I've been meaning to read that book for a while. Bought it, should be interesting.

 

Apparently his brother writes very good books as well (from the other perspective).

 

 

Someone who's name will not be known, once said that the fact that God said in one chapter "And he was pleased with his works," and then in a different chapter "he was not pleased with his works." as proof that not only is the Bible full of contradictions, but God is a temperamental pouty little girl.

Silly atheist, if you're going to mock Christians, do it right. There's this thing called biblical criticism were the sources of biblical stories were dissected. There are not inherent contradictions in the Bible because it is the same writer, there are redundancies and such because there were several different sources (principally J and P) which represent God differently and one guy came along and fused all the different accounts leaving elements from each source to retain something from each version. If you read other than verses out of context like most atheists who like to argue, you can see that God is shown as an anthropomorphic being while other times he is not able to be seen directly.

 

As for that flawed argument of Christians HAVING to believe in the OT, lulz no. Jesus said not a letter was to be changed, but he also said he fulfilled it. Thus we entered into a new covenant based around the NT. The OT remains for use of wisdom that can be salvaged from its texts which show an overt expression of Jewish thought [and not surprisingly, as it was written by Jews]. I understand people have a right to not like religion, but please peeps, know what you speak of.

 

By the way, please quote those verses. You can't quote without saying we're they're from, that's called plagiarism, you might as well not have used quotation marks.

 

 

Now the above which I have responded to is an example of religious ignorance. It is like how America panics about all Muslims being extremists yet they can't even pronounce the name of their holy book, let alone know any of the content.

Nope that post was relevant to the thread. Interpretations on a belief system is the root cause of terrorism. Is that fair to say? (if not I guess I will see your replies when I get back as I have to leave for class now)

So american judges interpreting the laws of the country is the root cause of terrorism?

You posted a passage saying it is a sin, fair enough it is their doctrine, now if I ask why is it a sin, and under who's authority is it considered a sin I am sure you would find it impossible to prove that it is under God's authority and not mans.

 

The problem with an interpretation like that is it does not follow evidence that Jesus explicitly said homosexuality is a sin, so why do you believe it? Because the church says they interpreted the new testament to infer that if jesus was asked he would indeed say it is a sin? Or is it because YOU PERSONALLY have read the new testament and found evidence to support that interpretation.

 

Edit: if its the case that you personally have read the new testament to decide this, post the evidence you found that could support such an interpretation (again if we were talking about your interpretation of the theme of any novel I would want you to do the same)

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm193/krexuzeitor/implied-facepalm.jpg[/mg]

 

I will just take that as a *no reply*

 

The problem with this point of view, this blind zealotry without even stopping to question why you believe something is the real cause of terrorism. If the Catholic Church had their own jihad section that ALL catholics must follow to get to heaven, I am certain we would have many christians who would be strapping themselves with bombs to gain control of planes to aim them towards Saudi Arabian buildings.

 

Edit: an extremist branch of Islam did make that interpretation to justify their actions

Christian terrorism? Quit trolling.

You posted a passage saying it is a sin, fair enough it is their doctrine, now if I ask why is it a sin, and under who's authority is it considered a sin I am sure you would find it impossible to prove that it is under God's authority and not mans.

 

The problem with an interpretation like that is it does not follow evidence that Jesus explicitly said homosexuality is a sin, so why do you believe it? Because the church says they interpreted the new testament to infer that if jesus was asked he would indeed say it is a sin? Or is it because YOU PERSONALLY have read the new testament and found evidence to support that interpretation.

 

Edit: if its the case that you personally have read the new testament to decide this, post the evidence you found that could support such an interpretation (again if we were talking about your interpretation of the theme of any novel I would want you to do the same)

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm193/krexuzeitor/implied-facepalm.jpg[/mg]

 

I will just take that as a *no reply*

 

The problem with this point of view, this blind zealotry without even stopping to question why you believe something is the real cause of terrorism. If the Catholic Church had their own jihad section that ALL catholics must follow to get to heaven, I am certain we would have many christians who would be strapping themselves with bombs to gain control of planes to aim them towards Saudi Arabian buildings.

 

Edit: an extremist branch of Islam did make that interpretation to justify their actions

Christian terrorism? Quit trolling.

More specifically Catholic terrorism [don't use terms that are so general they detract from accuracy]. They also had campaigns against other Christians, which the Crusades were opposed by ;).

Wish I knew what that meant, Dupin. Religion interests me after a fashion, and I consider myself Christian, but I've never read the Bible and don't go to church. I'm also fond of Philosophy, which I also know little about and which is generally a bit contradictory to the various faiths. I like the Unitarians, generally, because in my community I've seen people from every religion I've heard of go to their churches.

Im simply saying the only reason why we dont have christians behaving in similar manor is because the church did not make an interpretation that says that is allowed, like islam did.

 

Christians did behave in a similar manner at one point, during the crusades. That was also when you couldn't get your hands on a Bible and the Catechism wasn't widely available...

Whats nice about technology is we've all got access to the Bible, the Catechism, the Qu'ran, and Hadith. One set says "turn the other cheek", the other set says Jihad...

Im simply saying the only reason why we dont have christians behaving in similar manor is because the church did not make an interpretation that says that is allowed, like islam did.

 

Christians did behave in a similar manner at one point, during the crusades. That was also when you couldn't get your hands on a Bible and the Catechism wasn't widely available...

Whats nice about technology is we've all got access to the Bible, the Catechism, the Qu'ran, and Hadith. One set says "turn the other cheek", the other set says Jihad...

Another Western misconception. Then context you used them in could make them synonymous. The supposed widespread nature of Islamic terrorism is probably due to accusations through misunderstanding, leading to Western invasions and ignorance which lead to terrorism in response to being discriminated against.

Wish I knew what that meant, Dupin. Religion interests me after a fashion, and I consider myself Christian, but I've never read the Bible and don't go to church. I'm also fond of Philosophy, which I also know little about and which is generally a bit contradictory to the various faiths. I like the Unitarians, generally, because in my community I've seen people from every religion I've heard of go to their churches.

Unitarianism as a faith is pretty rare, the Unitarian and Universalist churches merged, so I believe what you're describing is actually Unitarian Universalist. UUs accept and teach all faiths, so it's a good church for people who believe something in general, but don't believe something specific or don't like the strict rules you may find in other faiths. It's basically agnosticism with a God.

 

My dislike of the church stemmed from personal experience, so I don't expect it carries over to all churches. I felt that they were less accepting of atheism in general, and as an atheist all the little rituals just annoyed me.

 

Pascal's Wager is the idea that whether God truly exists or not, one should practice religion, as you lose nothing if he doesn't exist, and gain everything if he does. However, most atheists will call this "philosophical suicide", as it rejects the truth and our desire for a solid answer, and discourages thinking.

If the Catholic Church had their own jihad section that ALL catholics must follow to get to heaven, I am certain we would have many christians who would be strapping themselves with bombs to gain control of planes to aim them towards Saudi Arabian buildings.

 

I'm interested in your reason behind this. This is by far one of the most idiotic statements I've read in this forum and I've been here for a while.

Pascal's Wager is the idea that whether God truly exists or not, one should practice religion, as you lose nothing if he doesn't exist, and gain everything if he does. However, most atheists will call this "philosophical suicide", as it rejects the truth and our desire for a solid answer, and discourages thinking.

 

Yeah, but does God really want a person that's just hedging their bet? :mrgreen:

Im simply saying the only reason why we dont have christians behaving in similar manor is because the church did not make an interpretation that says that is allowed, like islam did.

 

Christians did behave in a similar manner at one point, during the crusades. That was also when you couldn't get your hands on a Bible and the Catechism wasn't widely available...

Whats nice about technology is we've all got access to the Bible, the Catechism, the Qu'ran, and Hadith. One set says "turn the other cheek", the other set says Jihad...

And yet the White Man still manages to find away to spend billions of dollars sending troops and machines of war to the Middle East. And we didn't have any problem sponsoring anti-Communist terrorism in Cuba and the Middle East during the Cold War, nor with sending armies and priests into Africa and Asia during the 1800s.

 

It's only terrorism if it's a minority, I guess.

 

E:@ two posts above (stupid posting limit): Is it any more idiotic than the idea that Islam and terrorism are closely related? I've seen that idea expressed on these forums often. People forget that, aside from the laundry list above, there are Israeli terrorists waging their own Jihad against Palestinians in the Middle East.

E:@ two posts above (stupid posting limit): Is it any more idiotic than the idea that Islam and terrorism are closely related? I've seen that idea expressed on these forums often. People forget that, aside from the laundry list above, there are Israeli terrorists waging their own Jihad against Palestinians in the Middle East.

 

A more rational thing to do is to point this out, or point to the crusades then try and make some blanket statement about all of Christianity in its present form without proof...

E:@ two posts above (stupid posting limit): Is it any more idiotic than the idea that Islam and terrorism are closely related? I've seen that idea expressed on these forums often. People forget that, aside from the laundry list above, there are Israeli terrorists waging their own Jihad against Palestinians in the Middle East.

 

You keep using that word over and over and yet you fail to understand. The Israel issue is a political conflict, not religious. Your inability to differentiate religion from politics is hilarious

E:^NO U.

a) Both cases are political issues being portrayed as religious issues

b) Your inability to recognize the inherent and permanent connection between religion and politics is shameful

c) Religion and politics in the Middle East are literally the same thing. If you need me to be more specific, I will.

 

E:@ two posts above (stupid posting limit): Is it any more idiotic than the idea that Islam and terrorism are closely related? I've seen that idea expressed on these forums often. People forget that, aside from the laundry list above, there are Israeli terrorists waging their own Jihad against Palestinians in the Middle East.

A more rational thing to do is to point this out, or point to the crusades then try and make some blanket statement about all of Christianity in its present form

You missed the point. I'm saying that terrorism and religion are two completely different things. There are extremists everywhere, to try to categorize by religion is just silly.

 

without proof...

That is a case of atheists being more religious than the people they slander. My problem is not really with religion, but moreso "acting religious" - the religious mindset that can be seen amongst atheists and theists alike. As long as society can hold an average conversation without "god" or "the nonexistence of god" being brought up, I think we could get a lot more done.

From there it's more of not having people foam at the mouth when those beliefs are inevitably brought up.

c) Religion and politics in the Middle East are literally the same thing. If you need me to be more specific, I will.

...

You missed the point. I'm saying that terrorism and religion are two completely different things. There are extremists everywhere, to try to categorize by religion is just silly.

 

I think you just contradicted yourself in the same post #-o

c) Religion and politics in the Middle East are literally the same thing. If you need me to be more specific, I will.

...

You missed the point. I'm saying that terrorism and religion are two completely different things. There are extremists everywhere, to try to categorize by religion is just silly.

 

I think you just contradicted yourself in the same post #-o

Think again. Maybe the wording is a bit difficult, but you get what I'm saying, right? I mean, you're just picking it apart because I disagreed with you.

 

Terrorism is independent of religion

Religion is a huge factor in politics in the Middle East

 

Do you disagree?

c) Religion and politics in the Middle East are literally the same thing. If you need me to be more specific, I will.

...

You missed the point. I'm saying that terrorism and religion are two completely different things. There are extremists everywhere, to try to categorize by religion is just silly.

 

I think you just contradicted yourself in the same post #-o

Think again. Maybe the wording is a bit difficult, but you get what I'm saying, right? I mean, you're just picking it apart because I disagreed with you.

 

Terrorism is independent of religion

Religion is a huge factor in politics in the Middle East

 

Do you disagree?

Terrorism can be independent of religion, but it isn't independent of politics...

First statement's religion and politics, second's religion and terrorism. That's only a contradiction if politics and terrorism are the same thing.

There are too many jokes that I could make here... Can't decide.

c) Religion and politics in the Middle East are literally the same thing. If you need me to be more specific, I will.

...

You missed the point. I'm saying that terrorism and religion are two completely different things. There are extremists everywhere, to try to categorize by religion is just silly.

 

I think you just contradicted yourself in the same post #-o

Think again. Maybe the wording is a bit difficult, but you get what I'm saying, right? I mean, you're just picking it apart because I disagreed with you.

 

Terrorism is independent of religion

Religion is a huge factor in politics in the Middle East

 

Do you disagree?

Terrorism can be independent of religion, but it isn't independent of politics...

Well, sure. But people from all areas of the political spectrum can be terrorists, especially by the OP definition.

Well, sure. But people from all areas of the political spectrum can be terrorists, especially by the OP definition.

 

Then I have to disagree with something in that string of logic...

Well, sure. But people from all areas of the political spectrum can be terrorists, especially by the OP definition.

 

Then I have to disagree with something in that string of logic...

Go ahead. A summary can be found here.