For the Torah, Qur'an, and Bible tells me so

[IlyaK1986]

How much longer do we have to keep marginalizing and watering-down the Abrahamic religions until we can move on and be done with them?

Reform/Cultural/Secular Judaism is definitely on the right path though. I think Jews have taken to secular and liberal ideas much better than Christians, and 10x better than Muslims.

I guess I just want the practically-agnostic Jews to come over to the secular agnostic/atheist team.

Already there! Love Jews, hate religion. Religion is bullshit. That doesn't change the fact that just about every single Jewish holiday can be summed up in nine words:

"They tried to kill us. We won. Let's eat."

Except for Yom Kippur, when we own up to the fact that we're not perfect by NOT eating :lol:

 

[01011010]

How much longer can reform movements in religion take non-religious modern and Enlightenment ideas and critique and change their religion until their movement becomes more a reflection of those non-religious ideas? I'm all for progression in religion though, I think my issue is mostly semantic.

I don't have a problem with faith though, some people seem to need it.

Religion typically includes a supernatural element, but not always.

Religion seems to be a specific collective of personal beliefs, that people physically participate in. Technically, people could believe anything. What makes a set of ideas religious, is how they institutionalize it.

 

[tenINsFJ]

Sorry, I haven't read the thread yet, just read the first post and watching the movies, and typing a response as the movie progresses.

Response to intro - I notice that I heard a lot of "KILL THEM" "HATE FAGGOTS" etc. "The bible has been used to segregate race, women, and now gays."
Often times, I suppress my beliefs on topics such as this because I don't care to get into debates with people about MY beliefs, nor do I care to push MY beliefs on others. Before going any further, yes, I am religious. No, I am not perfect in any way, shape, or form. To be completely honest here, any Christian that ever says "Hate Faggots" "They should die" or anything along that line, is not a Christian. You must keep that in mind. It is actually a tactic used to help spread hatred against Christianity, thus ruining it's reputation. Anyone can embrace a religion and say they represent it when they don't. It's hypocritical, and many people don't see past that, and automatically assume that all Christians share that belief. How often I hear people trash talk my religion, and I don't categorize all atheists.

Part 1- The biggest misconception about Christianity(because it is spread so much.. a rumor) is that God and all Christians HATE gays. Incorrect. Homosexuality is considered to be a SIN, and it is the sinful behavior that is not tolerated. It is not the people. And by no means is homosexuality considered any worse than any of the other sins, gluttony, sloth, promiscuous, etc. For God does love all, including homosexuals, he hates none. Just the acts. I've had lots of gay friends in middle school and high school, some close, some not, and it's not about hating people. Being an Asian guy, I've gotten hit on a lot by gay people, and I don't get offended in any way, I just let them know I'm not gay, and that's all.

Oh wow, there are a lot of parts, I can't watch all of it.
Anyways, I'll cut my post short and leave it at that, lol.

 

[runvardh]

I actually cringe at many of the modernizations of the Bible and it's teachings. It actually gets me quite angry when I see bits and pieces being hacked off (see Matthew 17:21 in the newer editions of the NIV for one such example). That said, the whole thing can be summarized pretty nicely: Love and obey God; Love the people around you. The second is easy to understand and accept by most people, but the first has always been an issue from day six.

First, we have been given a will of our own and license to do with it as we please even though every action has it's consequence. God did not want robots, he wanted people who would choose him. The thing is, to choose him you must also obey him.

The act of homosexuality, though talked about by most as a fire and brimstone situation is really just a disobedience to what was set in motion on the 6th day:

21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. 22 Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.
23 And Adam said:
“This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”

24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

God set it in motion to be and Jesus did not undo it in the New Testament making it just as valid now as it was then. It is part of what is in there as much as people want to question the origin of the writings.

This, however brings me back to the issue of only taking what you like and throwing the rest when it comes to the Bible. There is actually a curse at the end when dealing with adding or removing:

18 For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add[j] to him the plagues that are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away[k] his part from the Book[l] of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

If you're going to take some of it, take all of it. There is no rule saying "Do not question anything," but for the love of God don't go cutting things up; especially if you just don't like it or it doesn't jive with what you understand in the moment.


Ok, so I'm ready to be filleted now. Do keep in mind I'd make a good pillow. =^.^=

 

[BlueScreen]

Interesting excerpt:

"...we watched the end of one of those old Bible movies, and the end was the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. My little girl turned to me with big eyes, and said, "Is God a monster, Mommy?" I said, "Of course, not." "Then why did he do that to all those people?..."

I'm halfway through the video.

Ahh. Religion would go so much more smoothly if no children were born with Fi.

 

[Anja]

Not really.

All religions are completely unfounded. Regardless of creation and interpretation, they are all equally fiction until proven otherwise. So, it doesn't matter if new branches are created from an Orthodox source. They all have the same nebulous value.

This is funny. Another example of the difference and misunderstandings between the Tee and Eff.

I was saying what you are saying in a different way. "Just drop it and make something new up!"

Like, why try to twist something which exists, and is not what you want, into something different which is what you want? Seems absurd to me.

I suppose revisionism makes people feel more comfortable. It feels as though one hasn't abandoned the "one true faith." But it seems to me like a dishonest concept. It is no longer the one originally offered. To make it subjective robs it of its universal application. The problem with religion.

 

[Totenkindly]

You know, I'm getting tired of discussing with people on a theological basis what is and is not wrong. On that sort of basis, we're all bullshitting each other -- none of us have a definitive corner on what we're talking about. None of us. In any abstracted conversation, we're all just making noise. (Even myself.)

If there's a God, and He made all this, and he has some sort of inherent morality, the only "objective" stance as to what that morality is is that it needs to conform to real life.

If certain acts in real life consistently and directly lead to bad places and destroyed relationships, then they can be considered "morally wrong" from a psychological and relational-health POV.

(And the word "directly" is crucial here because often a particular behavior is considered taboo on what actually is a personal and arbitrary basis, and the judgment is actually what is leading to the conflict -- if people would just leave well enough alone and stop damning others over it, the negative ramifications would not manifest.)

If those acts damned by the theology do NOT lead to those broken relationships and a stunting of psychological growth as inherent qualities of those acts themselves, then I can't believe them to be inherently wrong and the theology just needs to be ignored or at least not imposed on others.

Morality is not theoretical; if particular moral rules are not inherent within the framework of how people function and grow, then it's an arbitrary judgment and causes a lot more harm than good.

A lot of the crap people argue about (homosexuality included) is argued on a theological basis rather than an experiential/realistic one, and it has wreaked hell on earth for a long long time. My heart's just tired over all of this.

I'm also tired of hearing "I love the sinner, hate the sin." It never plays out that way; the implicit judgments cause a lot of crap to occur anyway. In practice, it's not as big a distinction as people make it out to be; it tends to just be a cop-out for, "I'm not going to engage in conversation because I don't feel like changing what I believe, but don't worry, I'll try real hard not to be mean to you anyway." It allows the misunderstanding and distance to remain -- a lack of awareness of the shared humanity of the people in question. I'd rather have people seriously engage each other on an intimate basis and maybe forge some relational bonds.

 

[Anja]

You know, I'm getting tired of discussing with people on a theological basis what is and is not wrong. On that sort of basis, we're all bullshitting each other -- none of us have a definitive corner on what we're talking about. None of us. In any abstracted conversation, we're all just making noise. (Even myself.)

If there's a God, and He made all this, and he has some sort of inherent morality, the only "objective" stance as to what that morality is is that it needs to conform to real life.

If certain acts in real life consistently and directly lead to bad places and destroyed relationships, then they can be considered "morally wrong" from a psychological and relational-health POV.

(And the word "directly" is crucial here because often a particular behavior is considered taboo on what actually is a personal and arbitrary basis, and the judgment is actually what is leading to the conflict -- if people would just leave well enough alone and stop damning others over it, the negative ramifications would not manifest.)

If those acts damned by the theology do NOT lead to those broken relationships and a stunting of psychological growth as inherent qualities of those acts themselves, then I can't believe them to be inherently wrong and the theology just needs to be ignored or at least not imposed on others.

Morality is not theoretical; if particular moral rules are not inherent within the framework of how people function and grow, then it's an arbitrary judgment and causes a lot more harm than good.

A lot of the crap people argue about (homosexuality included) is argued on a theological basis rather than an experiential/realistic one, and it has wreaked hell on earth for a long long time. My heart's just tired over all of this.

I'm also tired of hearing "I love the sinner, hate the sin." It never plays out that way; the implicit judgments cause a lot of crap to occur anyway. In practice, it's not as big a distinction as people make it out to be; it tends to just be a cop-out for, "I'm not going to engage in conversation because I don't feel like changing what I believe, but don't worry, I'll try real hard not to be mean to you anyway." It allows the misunderstanding and distance to remain -- a lack of awareness of the shared humanity of the people in question. I'd rather have people seriously engage each other on an intimate basis and maybe forge some relational bonds.

Me too and I doubt that it will ever change. That's why I opted out. Couldn't stand the inconsistencies anymore.

It reminds me of the thread I started where I talked about being puzzled by Christians who, in an attempt to modernize their religious viewpoint, say that God and Buddha and Zeus and all them other guys are all the same thing anyway. Bible says not. But you can't be politically incorrect and be a good Christian these days so we have to make an effort to twist it to fit.

I truly don't see how anyone can live in modern culture and practice nearly any religion!

 

[01011010]

I apologize Jennifer. I just have one final statement to make on the subject.

I suppose revisionism makes people feel more comfortable. It feels as though one hasn't abandoned the "one true faith." But it seems to me like a dishonest concept. It is no longer the one originally offered. To make it subjective robs it of its universal application. The problem with religion.

By that logic, every religion that isn't Orthodox Judaism is dishonest. Including Christianity and Islam, as they were branches off the first widely used and documented "original." Religions aren't superior to each other. Only people's perceptions of them. Even the "original" states there are many paths to God.

Here:

Jews have never believed themselves possessed of the only "true" faith or exclusive pathway to God, which is why Judaism was never a missionary religion. Since the rabbis taught that all the righteous among the nations could attain "the world to come," there was no need to save the souls of non-Jews; their own religions gave them access to the Holy One and salvation.

ALL religion is subjective. It doesn't become even more so, just because it's a branch off of.

 

[Warm]

To be completely honest here, any Christian that ever says "Hate Faggots" "They should die" or anything along that line, is not a Christian. You must keep that in mind. It is actually a tactic used to help spread hatred against Christianity, thus ruining it's reputation. Anyone can embrace a religion and say they represent it when they don't. It's hypocritical, and many people don't see past that, and automatically assume that all Christians share that belief. How often I hear people trash talk my religion, and I don't categorize all atheists.

Part 1- The biggest misconception about Christianity(because it is spread so much.. a rumor) is that God and all Christians HATE gays. Incorrect. Homosexuality is considered to be a SIN, and it is the sinful behavior that is not tolerated. It is not the people. And by no means is homosexuality considered any worse than any of the other sins, gluttony, sloth, promiscuous, etc. For God does love all, including homosexuals, he hates none. Just the acts. I've had lots of gay friends in middle school and high school, some close, some not, and it's not about hating people.

Amen.

 

[Not_Me]

For God does love all, including homosexuals, he hates none. Just the acts.

Hate the sin but not the sinner. But wouldn't you say the same about pedophiles or murderers for all that matter?

Wouldn't believers still be in favor of suppressing the behavior with deadly force if necessary?

 

[Nihilen]

For God does love all, including homosexuals, he hates none.

Thus burning Sodom and Gomorrah to the ground were divine acts of -fiery- passionate love; for indeed God works in mysterious ways.

 

[anii]

Watched the whole thing, cried a little, proud of that family for getting arrested outside of Focus on the Family.

Oh and, having spent too many years attending "biblical literalist" churches, it was eye-opening to hear the scholarship re: the cultural context in which the passages in question were written.

Especially the bit about Sodom's sin being that of inhospitality. Inhospitality among the wealthy seems to be common in our modern times. One could argue that the US's immigration policies reflect that. Part of me would be very interested to see a higher power scorch our asses because of it.

Shocking to see the incomes of those 'men of god'.

I typed the African American family: dad is ISTJ, mom is ESFJ, daughter is INTP. That's why dad came around sooner than mom. Loved the daughter's comments about coming out to her mom - "remarkably unsuccessful." Such a witty NT way of saying it. Made me laugh.

Finally, I should be put to death immediately for all of the shellfish I've consumed.

 

[Totenkindly]

I apologize Jennifer. I just have one final statement to make on the subject.

Please don't apologize to me.
I was just stating my personal feelings at the moment.
That's just where I've gotten right now.

You are all free to continue or discontinue the conversation as you believe you should do. I'm not an authority.

Finally, I should be put to death immediately for all of the shellfish I've consumed.

Yet one more good reason for me to eat that steak!

Especially the bit about Sodom's sin being that of inhospitality.

I don't think our modern western culture "gets" just how BIG that "hospitality" thing was to the culture of the time. We see some reflections of it in the etiquette of the eastern/asian cultures (in its concept of "social face"), and in fact the Judaic culture was much more eastern than western in style and thinking.

Really, mistreating and not ministering to outsiders was pretty contemptible business... and attempting to gang-rape them in order to publicly embarrass them is an abuse beyond imagining... totally believable as a "final straw" towards Sodom and Gamorrah's destruction, which is why the New Testament specifically alludes to the inhospitality of the cities as the reason for their demise.

 

[Anja]

Finally, I should be put to death immediately for all of the shellfish I've consumed.

Hope it'll still make rainbows.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Please don't apologize to me.
I was just stating my personal feelings at the moment.
That's just where I've gotten right now.

You are all free to continue or discontinue the conversation as you believe you should do. I'm not an authority.

There is text in her avatar that betrays her lies!

 

[anii]

Hope it'll still make rainbows.

How come we never see this outside Red Lobster?

 

[Eric B]

Homosexuality on it's own isn't negative. It's only the human constructs and perceptions that make it so. The best objective measuring stick is nature. There are thousands of documented cases of homosexuality across many species of animals. Some even remain together throughout their lives, choosing a surrogate when they want children, only to go back to their homosexual partner and raise the offspring. Nothing bad occurs. None of the other animals seem to have a problem with it and the species continues as usual. If it was truly wrong, wouldn't nature (empirical science) reflect that?

the film claimed that, including housecats, even! I had forgotten to mention this.
I had never even heard this claim before, and it had always appeared to me that nature spoke against it. Animals get together for procreation, not for "love" as we know it; which is a factor in who we hook up with; and same sex won't achive their goal of having offpring. Animals like dogs will sniff each other, when they see they're both the same gender, they won't try to mate.
Could this be a new argument devised in the argument? Years ago, I saw one pro-gay book trying to argue from nature have to appeal to other life forms such as many plants and perhaps lower animal forms to try to prove nature favors it. Now, all of a sudden, where are they getting these claims with all of these other, more developed animals from?

 

[01011010]

Now, all of a sudden, where are they getting these claims with all of these other, more developed animals from?

Homosexuality in the animal kingdom has been known for quite some time. Giraffes and Sheep in particular. Even Gorillas and Elephants. The real question is, can animals answer whether or not homosexuality is natural for homo sapiens.


Homosexual Behaviour in Animals - Cambridge University Press

Bisexual Species: Unorthodox Sex in the Animal Kingdom: Scientific American

Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate

Biology Behind Homosexuality In Sheep, Study Confirms

Same Sex Couples Common in the Wild | LiveScience

Homosexual Animals Out of the Closet | LiveScience

1,500 animal species practice homosexuality

List of animals displaying homosexual behavior - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Science News Online - This Week - Feature Article - 1/4/97

"Animals prefer Homosexuality to Evolutionism"

BBC NEWS | Europe | Oslo gay animal show draws crowds

Birds do it, bees do it . . . - Times Online

Homosexual animals exhibit opens | Herald Sun

Gay animals out of the closet? - LiveScience- msnbc.com

A wild, and gay, kingdom

450 animal species gaily indulge in homosexual behaviour - Science - www.smh.com.au

Gay gorillas (From The Northern Echo)

 

[Totenkindly]

There is text in her avatar that betrays her lies!

Silly mortal, do you think if I was lying I would make my duplicity so obvious? Bwa ha ha ha! (You'll burn for this, Magic!)