Jump to content

Smart people don't believe in god...


Recommended Posts

In the Country I live in, the christians want to go backwards and put church and state together again even though when they came here they wanted to be free from the combined forces. Gays here are getting shoved aside and illegalized their right to marry.  before the civil rights act it was that they couldn't interracially marry. do you see a pattern?  next we are going to pick on the handicap!  I say the bible is WRONG in accusing people to of wrong doing just because of where love or lust took them if the 2 people were BOTH old enough and in the state of mind.

 

 

" I dont tolerate Intolerence"

 

A assume you mean the US, and I totally oppose the union of Church and state, as well as the persecution of anyone. But you can't ban the bible, or you are intolerant! You can only choose to disagree with it, which everyone should be free to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of sexuality in regard to the OT/NT is based on a couple of assumptions that have since been challenged - convincingly I would argue - that include, but are not limited to, several insights of Reason as a mode of Biblical Authority - from a Protestant point of view to a certain extent. First is that sexuality from a Biblical perspective was founded on the male as normative - patriarchy. Furthermore, the Roman/Hebrew prohibition is in regard to agency in relationship to sexuality: Passive/Active. The Passive agent - both male (in a same-sex relationship) and female were considered sub-standard - but the female was normative as a bi-product of ownership and reproduction. Finally Reason now indicates rather strongly - I would contend convincingly - that sexuality is not normative male-female. There are enough mammalian examples of homosexuality, as well as genetic/psychological indicators, to indicate that sexuality is in fact multi-faceted and determined by such factors as genetics, biology and environment (again not exhaustive). I would challenge a literal interpretation of male-female sexuality as normative from a Biblical perspective with such evidence, but again this is not exhaustive, and does not begin to wrestle with the Intent as opposed to the Isolated textual criticism in this regard.

The universe is change;
your life is what our thoughts make it
- Marcus Aurelius (161)

:dragon:

Link to post
Share on other sites
FaramirK,

 

The idea of sexuality in regard to the OT/NT is based on a couple of assumptions that have since been challenged - convincingly I would argue - that include, but are not limited to, several insights of Reason as a mode of Biblical Authority - from a Protestant point of view to a certain extent. First is that sexuality from a Biblical perspective was founded on the male as normative - patriarchy. Furthermore, the Roman/Hebrew prohibition is in regard to agency in relationship to sexuality: Passive/Active. The Passive agent - both male (in a same-sex relationship) and female were considered sub-standard - but the female was normative as a bi-product of ownership and reproduction. Finally Reason now indicates rather strongly - I would contend convincingly - that sexuality is not normative male-female. There are enough mammalian examples of homosexuality, as well as genetic/psychological indicators, to indicate that sexuality is in fact multi-faceted and determined by such factors as genetics, biology and environment (again not exhaustive). I would challenge a literal interpretation of male-female sexuality as normative from a Biblical perspective with such evidence, but again this is not exhaustive, and does not begin to wrestle with the Intent as opposed to the Isolated textual criticism in this regard.

 

As a Doctor of Psychology, primarily focusing on the cause of mental disorders and their cures, I am yet to be convinced that people are genetically homosexual. Out of faith, I take the bible at its word when it speaks about the gender roles. I believe it was concieved by an all-knowing God who was not restricted to the moral values of ancient middle-eastern society. I also believe that the Bible continues to be relevent today.

 

I realize that my very conservative view is in the minority, and I would like to make the following clear:

 

1) I believe that Christianity is a relationship between an individual and their God, and was never intended to be imposed on anyone against their will at a local or national level. I actively vote against any union of any Church and State.

 

2) Regarding sexual preference in a free society, it is not the right of any governing civil authority to dictate the individuals sexual behaviour. I fully support the Gay and Lesbian community's right to openly live out their lifestyle free from persecution.

 

3) The financial/civil benefits of marriage should be designed to help families raise children or abolished. As only heterosexual couples can reproduce, and since only heterosexual couples can teach children of both genders their role in society, I see no reason for Homosexual civil union if the first sentence of this point is being carried out. If it is not, than what is true for one sexual preference should be true for the other.

 

4) Many of the people who oppose my moral values want my religion to be abolished and my Bible to be banned. I desire the freedom to choose my own religion, and the freedom to disagree with and question the beliefs of others. A convinced Christian should be left in peace, as should a convinced Anti-Christian.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I do not want to ban anything, but many christians here are. i just want to say, if you do not like gay marriage, don't have one.

 

Well, its complex.

 

If "Marriage" is simply a public profession of lasting love, symbolised by *insert custom/ceremony/object/paperwork here*, I agree. Why shouldn't Homosexual couples be allowed to do this?

 

However, if "Marriage" is the system in which children are raised to function in their cultural gender role and includes financial bonuses to make it easier to raise a family, why should Homosexuals get married? Is it motivated by financial reasons, or a fear of persecution?

 

If it is the latter, I'd rather have a constitution that protected the right to be homosexual than invent gay marriage, which seems pointless to me...

Link to post
Share on other sites
...
(oh, I could spend all day pointing out the misogyny)

While I'm not an expert in anything, let alone the Bible, I don't think the misoginy stems from it. It's a later (Catholic, mostly) invention. Christianism isn't inherently misogynistic.

...

Well, according to the latest research (into the Gospel of Mary Magdelene) the Christian religion was birthed from misogyny: Peter (y'know, the great-granddaddy first Pope) was more politically astute / hostile / effective in white-anting Mary and her support in the new organisation. He wanted to be in charge, and he didn't like the fact that Jesus used to "give the word of God" via "the mouth", i.e. Jesus used to kiss her and she also had a closer spiritual relationship with Jesus and she also was a more capable theologian than Peter. Allegedly. (The Gospel of Mary is arguably a little more reliable in the grand sceme of things because only the really old copies survive the purges of the early era.)

 

You are correct, though, that Pope Grogory (as in the guy who gave his name to the chanters) was a true misogynist and he codified the sexist rules of the Church.

OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS

ingsoc.gif

OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT

Link to post
Share on other sites
Josephus does not call him Christ.  He refers to him as Jesus of Nazareth.  There is no reason to believe Josephus thought him anything more than a local oddity.  I call him Christ out of respect. ...

...  I agree that a Jew would never call him the Christ.  A Christian forger might, but the passage wasn't forged was it?

FaramirK, I thought "Christ" was a secular title given to the senior ranking Jewish leader of the time -- hence why Jesus was regarded as a political threat in the region and why the Romans crucified him. And one of the reasons the Jewish Rabbis turned on him.

 

Jesus the Christ. He was the most senior direct decendant of Solomon (the Christ). I thought his cousin had a similar ranking which is why John "The Baptist" and his annoiting of Jesus is so important (to signify his support for Jesus the political leader).

 

And wasn't Doubting Thomas Jesus's younger twin (thomas meaing "twin"); whilst his younger brother was Judas ... who Jesus gave the job that he couldn't do himself: a betrayal that would see his name besmirched for all time.

 

flame away! :)

OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS

ingsoc.gif

OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT

Link to post
Share on other sites
3) The financial/civil benefits of marriage should be designed to help families raise children or abolished.  As only heterosexual couples can reproduce, and since only heterosexual couples can teach children of both genders their role in society, I see no reason for Homosexual civil union if the first sentence of this point is being carried out.  If it is not, than what is true for one sexual preference should be true for the other.

 

1.what about heterosexual couples that can't reproduce?

 

2.

and since only heterosexual couples can teach children of both genders their role in society,"

bollocks! prove it or shut it!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Whats this about mary magdelen, i thought that was just a hypothesis. could not prove or disprove what happened.

Well, they have some original texts (one of those Dead sea scrolls sites) and there is some very interesting stuff in "Mary's" Gospel.

OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS

ingsoc.gif

OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT

Link to post
Share on other sites
1.what about heterosexual couples that can't reproduce?

 

Read the first sentence. The only financial benefits should be to aid raising children, ie Child Benefit payment, or tax cuts per child. There is no reason for a secular society to rank loving heterosexual couples over loving homosexual ones.

 

bollocks! prove it or shut it!

 

"Prove it or shut it"? Are you saying that if something can't be proved it can't be spoken about? Put your sword away...

 

 

You are actually in need of proof that a heterosexual couple are better equipped to raise children of both genders? Surely not...

 

I merely point out that Women understand girls much better than Men do...I think that is obvious. What do two gay men know of growing up as a little girl?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm wondering something...In Cristianism,it's said that persons that don't believe in God and pray another god will be doom(kinda).But if a child knows nothing of Cristianism and his parents made him believes in another religion like freaky sect,would he burns in hell after his dead even if he didn't chose that religion by his own will?Because God is supposed to love us all  I think... :)

Yep, Roman Catholics believe that, for example, stillborn babies (who naturally haen't been baptised) go to a "special" afterlife called limbo. There was even a case last year (in the headlines because it was a politician's family) where the Catholic priest refused to baptise a fatally ill baby in hospital. Good ol' Anglican priest had no compunction and they baptised the little girl before she died, a couple of hours later.

 

The Protestant (Apostolic) churches (formed after the reformation) are not so strict.

OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS

ingsoc.gif

OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT

Link to post
Share on other sites
So, you don't care what Buddhists think and yet you're willing to attack Christianity on their behalf.  Okay.

 

...And, by attacking all Christians, you are attacking me personally.  I thought that would be apparent.

 

As for your other arguments, I'm more than willing to let them stand beside my own and let others decide which of us is more tolerant.

I think the argument is derailed: we are not necessarily talking about physical violence.

 

The issue I believe revolves around the Christian imperative to actively evangelise: it is a hostile act to assume moral, spiritual and theological superiority and try to convert the "heathens" to the word of God.

 

If you are a Buddhist, you do no such thing. Live and let live.

 

:)

OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS

ingsoc.gif

OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT

Link to post
Share on other sites
Josephus does not call him Christ.  He refers to him as Jesus of Nazareth.  There is no reason to believe Josephus thought him anything more than a local oddity.  I call him Christ out of respect. ...

...  I agree that a Jew would never call him the Christ.  A Christian forger might, but the passage wasn't forged was it?

FaramirK, I thought "Christ" was a secular title given to the senior ranking Jewish leader of the time

 

Nope. It is a title of divinity. As for Mary's Gospel, I doubt its validity, and I am confident that it will be disproved in time...

 

But believe it if you will, it's your right after all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The issue I believe revolves around the Christian imperative to actively evangelise: it is a hostile act to assume moral, spiritual and theological superiority and try to convert the "heathens" to the word of God.

 

Agreed, but people assume superiority all the time. It's just natural. And even the most "peaceful" of religions have spilled into violence, Christianity included.

Link to post
Share on other sites
For the Nth time. Wikipedia is not a reputed source on ANYTHING.

Ah, but the sources quoted in a wikipedia article can (and should) be confirmed just as easily (and moreso) than any other article in any other library. So don't just stop at the Wikipedia, go forth and research!

 

For example, one of the quoted sources was an article (translated from German) of Dr Albert Schweitzer's thesis on the historicity of Jesus. I am quite prepared to accept him as an expert (D. THEOL., D. PHIL., D. MED.)

 

Unless we follow Rosbjerg's existentialist position, and doubt everything outside our heads (which, I suppose includes our heads ...) then we have to make some assumptions. The alternative is spending the rest of the thread arguing semantics.

 

I think it is a little arrogant to conclude the reverse is true: that other sources are any more reliable (Bible? :)" )

OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS

ingsoc.gif

OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT

Link to post
Share on other sites
Josephus does not call him Christ.  He refers to him as Jesus of Nazareth.  There is no reason to believe Josephus thought him anything more than a local oddity.  I call him Christ out of respect. ...

...  I agree that a Jew would never call him the Christ.  A Christian forger might, but the passage wasn't forged was it?

FaramirK, I thought "Christ" was a secular title given to the senior ranking Jewish leader of the time

 

Nope. It is a title of divinity. As for Mary's Gospel, I doubt its validity, and I am confident that it will be disproved in time...

 

But believe it if you will, it's your right after all.

You seem very confident. I would say almost fundamentally confident. :)"

Hubris is Mother Nature's way of bringing the overconfident down to earth.

OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS

ingsoc.gif

OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT

Link to post
Share on other sites
Misogyny and homophobia all in one here...

Romans 1:26 - 1:27 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

There may be arguments about "natural use" being misogynistic, but I know I don't feel good being told that my "natural use" is a receptacle for male seed.

 

You must hate the Science of Biology, then. Are you actually arguing that your sexual organs natural use is not to reproduce? Whether or not you decide to have children is your business...but saying that the male/female reproductive organs are not for reproduction is a little silly...

I don't think you're quite getting how "men, leaving the natural use of the woman" could be interpreted to read that our "natural use" is nothing more than baby-making machines for men. This has nothing to do with biology and everything to do with integrating both sexes as complete human beings into functioning societies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But a thought is not the same as an action. I hate George W. Bush, but shouldn't be thrown in prison for that.

 

One- No, you shouldn't be thrown in prision, but you are still sinning.

 

However, you're arguing that Thought Crimes are the equal of actual crimes. Ever read 1984?

 

Two- Yes, and I also had the unpleasent experience of growing up in a country where I was persecuted for the faith of my parents. Humans have no right to punish or attempt to regulate thought like in 1984. But since God made you and is perfect, he can.

 

I disagree, I'm not a sinner and I'm not in rebellion against anyone. Tell me what I have done that deserves eternal torture.

 

Three- Well, disagree with the Bible. As for torture, your idea of hell is probably similar to your idea of a concentration camp, which is not what hell is. No one is going to be poking you with a branding iron. Hell is a place of everlasting separation from God, which you choose to exile yourself too or be saved from. And since all the good things in life (like Love, hope, contentment etc.) are from God, you will experience none of them. You are able to express these on earth only because you were made in God's image. Without God, we are all evil, as bad as Hitler or Stalin.

 

By that logic, a jaywalker is as bad as a murderer. I'm not being facetious here, because that is exactly what you're saying. Remind me to never jaywalk in Texas.

 

Four- Yes that is exactly what I'm saying. Therefore, you can't say you are any better or less guilty than anyone else, and no one can say they are better or less guilty than you.

 

That is just messed up. "I won't show myself, but believe in me or I'll beat you up!"

 

Five- He has shown himself. You just refuse to accept him his way.

 

Hmmm. The fictional sequal to a work of fiction shows that a prophesy in the first came true? Colour me unimpressed.

 

I wouldn't be impressed either, but its non-fiction, so there goes that argument...

One- I disagree, but then, I don't believe in the concept of "sin".

 

Two- How does a "perfect" god have a complete change in personality from one Testament to the next? How can he have a "Chosen People"? What are the others, pawns in a sick game? The god of the Bible is as much as ass as the likes of Zeus, but believers keep saying he's "perfect" and that his assness is just peachy. I'm particularly curious why a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient deity would insist on being worshipped under pain of eternal punishment. How is this making sense to you? He displays all the signs of an omni-inferiority complex. If I were to create life and insist it get down on its knees and worship me, that would be pretty sad.

 

Three- I've heard this concept of hell before, of it being just "seperation from God" which would be great, I'd love to go to hell if it existed, but lakes of fire are still being mentioned. That can't be pleasant. And speaking of sad, the idea that without God we're as bad as Hitler or Stalin is really... sad. And scary too that you feel without God you'd be as bad as some of the worst mass murderers in history. Me, I don't have God and I'm doin' just fine!

 

Four- I knew this was a waste of time coming in, some people are too far gone, especially when they feel sins with all the horrible equivalence of jaywalking are just as bad as murder. The only reason to go on with this conversation is, hey, why not?

 

Five- Nope, never showed himself. You just have a tremendous psychological need for him to exist because a world without purpose and an everlasting death are too much for you to handle. Hey, you read my mind and I'll read yours.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to add a further reflection to this ongoing discussion. For some, the Bible is not so much an authority owing to it being the word of God, as much as it is an attempt of a people within in a continuum of faith to articulate that which they hear and feel God emote. As a result, the act of freeing God from our hubris is always stunted, to a certain extent, by the cultural norms with which language limits expression. Though I can appreciate the desire to 'prove' or disprove' that which one does not feel represents the Divine for them, I think it is also important to realise that Belief is, ultimately, an imperfect attempt to articulate with the imperfection of language, one's Faith. And I feel Faith is that which one knows intimately as true, but defies articulation. Ultimately the word itself is idolatrous if we fail to recognise it as a moment in time to express that which is intangible.

The universe is change;
your life is what our thoughts make it
- Marcus Aurelius (161)

:dragon:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Two- How does a "perfect" god have a complete change in personality from one Testament to the next? How can he have a "Chosen People"? What are the others, pawns in a sick game? The god of the Bible is as much as ass as the likes of Zeus, but believers keep saying he's "perfect" and that his assness is just peachy. I'm particularly curious why a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient deity would insist on being worshipped under pain of eternal punishment. How is this making sense to you? He displays all the signs of an omni-inferiority complex. If I were to create life and insist it get down on its knees and worship me, that would be pretty sad.

 

Perfection can be subjective. If people try to define what is a god I bet some will turn out differently then others. When parents try to punish their children, what is better - to Hit and make them fear physical pain, or to teach and make them understand? I think a god would be much like a teacher if there was one. i don't see much of this from "God" himself in the bible.

Always outnumbered, never out gunned!

Unreal Tournament 2004 Handle:Enlight_2.0

Myspace Website!

My rig

Link to post
Share on other sites
Perfection can be subjective. If people try to define what is a god I bet some will turn out differently then others. When parents try to  punish their children, what is better - to Hit and make them fear physical pain, or to teach and make them understand? I think a god would be much like a teacher if there was one. i don't see much of this from "God" himself in the bible.

I don't agree. Perfection is not a comparative: you cannot be more perfect anymore than you can be "a little bit pregnant".

 

Goodness might be subjective, but not perfection.

OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS

ingsoc.gif

OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT

Link to post
Share on other sites
I would like to add a further reflection to this ongoing discussion. For some, the Bible is not so much an authority owing to it being the word of God, as much as it is an attempt of a people within in a continuum of faith to articulate that which they hear and feel God emote. As a result, the act of freeing God from our hubris is always stunted, to a certain extent, by the cultural norms with which language limits expression. Though I can appreciate the desire to 'prove' or disprove' that which one does not feel represents the Divine for them, I think it is also important to realise that Belief is, ultimately, an imperfect attempt to articulate with the imperfection of language, one's Faith. And I feel Faith is that which one knows intimately as true, but defies articulation. Ultimately the word itself is idolatrous if we fail to recognise it as a moment in time to express that which is intangible.

If you are saying that this helps explain the conflation of so many different concepts of "god" as portrayed in the moveable feast that is the Bible (God of Vengence, God of Mercy, Mother Earth Goddess, etc), I guess this is an interesting point. Unfortunately there are far too many fundamentalists who demand strict observance of their literal interpretation. This viewpoint is itself quite progressive.

OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS

ingsoc.gif

OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...