:beer:
rudeguy, where did you get the idea that the world is working for a greater goal? we ARE living for now. Saying we truly care what the world would be like in 50 years is, unfortunately, not very true for most of the world.
ThePresence
Elite Member
- Nov 19, 2001
- 27,727
- 16
- 81
don't have a religion, don't like gays, but if they're not bothering you, leave them alone. nothing wrong with 2 women/men getting married, what are they doing to you that you need to protest?
and there's nothing wrong with a penis up a girl's butt.
and there's nothing wrong with a penis up a girl's butt.
I love how all the atheist/agnostics here continually bash religion, which they're rightly entitled to do, but they also continually complain about religious folk when I have YET TO SEE ONE THREAD ON ATOT started by one of religion bashing those without it.
Originally posted by: amnesiac
I love how all the atheist/agnostics here continually bash religion, which they're rightly entitled to do, but they also continually complain about religious folk when I have YET TO SEE ONE THREAD ON ATOT started by one of religion bashing those without it.
Yeah, atheiests annoy religious people over the internet, religious people annoy athiests by going door to door.
Ok, but if you ditch all the points in that letter I linked to, you ditch the whole "sleep with" thing.
I hate to interupt a pleasant fantasy, but religion and culture have gone hand in hand for the entire history of man. History and religion are inseperable. Religion has influenced the art and architecture of all the ancient peoples, and through them even our own. Government has always been deeply rooted in religion. All the things that make civilization what it is, for good or bad, have been deeply impacted by the religion of the day. It would be a completely different world if man had never bowed down to his gods, and no one can say how things might have been. It's silly to pretend that we would still have everything we hold dear, but all of our problems would just go away.
[Bleeb:] "A quick conjecture: You will notice that all of those questions are based off Old Testament books. You must remember in Christianity, that things changed when Jesus came into existence. The older laws of the Old Testament had their meanings clarified or completely changed through Jesus's teachings. If you read the new testaments, you will find that some of these absurd questions are quickly answered."
I do understand what you're saying, but I have to correct an impression: The book of Romans (including another book) too has something on the subject of homosexuality. Not everything in the old testament is abandoned in the new testament.
Interestingly, Jesus said he was there not to change the laws. . . . However, from my understanding of the concept of consistency, it's hard for me not to see inconsistency with the old and new testaments.
Also, I would like not to take the Bible literally, but it's hard for me not to. If I'm to perceive the Bible as a divine authority, then I would have to take it literally. Why? Well, if we do not take it literally, then we subject the Bible to interpretations. And it's so easy for people to interpret the Bible to suit their personal agendas. If I accept the Bible as interpretive, then I can't give it the divine authority.
However, we're once again faced with the fact that the Bible as it is has gone through translations to various languages, which could easily lose context. I remember for instance some homosexual preacher writing an article on the 'net about the meaning of Leviticus' verses and the meaning of Romans' reference to what was unnatural (Romans 1: 26, 27 in addition to 1 Cor. 6:9-10). He interpreted the events of Lot, his daughter, and the angels (Genesis 19: 5-8) as having been a message of spirituality. In other words, the people wanted to "know" the angels. So I guess If they had asked to "know" the real men, not angels disguised as men, then it wouldn't have been a sin in God's eyes. He also used David's love for Jonathan and the kiss he gave to Jonathan as proof that homosexuality was condoned in the Bible. (
As if culture/perception then is the same as culture now and in the USA.) Then his other reference was Ruth's relationship with Naomi. Remember she said, "Where you go I will go, and where you live I will live." I disagree with this argument, but that's what he argued. I forget his argument for Romans. I think he may have said it referred to male prostitution. Once again, it's so easy to lose meaning when interpreting and translating. Anyway, I think I'm done for now.
I just think it's ridiculous for anyone to try to change a religion and mock people who choose to accept the belief system. Maybe God's universe does not entail consistency or time. If you don't like Christianity or sects, leave them alone. No, I'm not Christian, but I do strongly believe in freedom of thought. I don't see why anyone needs validation from a religion or its followers if it's so outdated or lame in your view. The homosexuals have started their own sects; so more power to them.
I do understand what you're saying, but I have to correct an impression: The book of Romans (including another book) too has something on the subject of homosexuality. Not everything in the old testament is abandoned in the new testament.
Interestingly, Jesus said he was there not to change the laws. . . . However, from my understanding of the concept of consistency, it's hard for me not to see inconsistency with the old and new testaments.
Also, I would like not to take the Bible literally, but it's hard for me not to. If I'm to perceive the Bible as a divine authority, then I would have to take it literally. Why? Well, if we do not take it literally, then we subject the Bible to interpretations. And it's so easy for people to interpret the Bible to suit their personal agendas. If I accept the Bible as interpretive, then I can't give it the divine authority.
However, we're once again faced with the fact that the Bible as it is has gone through translations to various languages, which could easily lose context. I remember for instance some homosexual preacher writing an article on the 'net about the meaning of Leviticus' verses and the meaning of Romans' reference to what was unnatural (Romans 1: 26, 27 in addition to 1 Cor. 6:9-10). He interpreted the events of Lot, his daughter, and the angels (Genesis 19: 5-8) as having been a message of spirituality. In other words, the people wanted to "know" the angels. So I guess If they had asked to "know" the real men, not angels disguised as men, then it wouldn't have been a sin in God's eyes. He also used David's love for Jonathan and the kiss he gave to Jonathan as proof that homosexuality was condoned in the Bible. (
I just think it's ridiculous for anyone to try to change a religion and mock people who choose to accept the belief system. Maybe God's universe does not entail consistency or time. If you don't like Christianity or sects, leave them alone. No, I'm not Christian, but I do strongly believe in freedom of thought. I don't see why anyone needs validation from a religion or its followers if it's so outdated or lame in your view. The homosexuals have started their own sects; so more power to them.
To everybody who bashes Christianity (myself included) please read the Bible in its entirety before you go around taking verses out of context. I disagree with the religion as a whole, but you guys are making a bad name for agnostics out there that disagree with Christianity. Like others have stated, Jesus Christ in the New Testament supposedly died to save our sins, therefore all the rituals and customs in the Old Testament aren't needed anymore.
Time for another flame war...
Thank goodness I'm an agnostic, not homophobic, and therefore don't really give a shiat.
Thank goodness I'm an agnostic, not homophobic, and therefore don't really give a shiat.
Quoth the Reverend in a thong and backless chaps.Originally posted by: Fausto1
Methinks someone doth protest too much.
Especially someone who wears "flame pants".
Originally posted by: notfred
Originally posted by: amnesiac
I love how all the atheist/agnostics here continually bash religion, which they're rightly entitled to do, but they also continually complain about religious folk when I have YET TO SEE ONE THREAD ON ATOT started by one of religion bashing those without it.
Yeah, atheiests annoy religious people over the internet, religious people annoy athiests by going door to door.
I've never heard of a normal, nondenominational Christian going door to door recruiting others and harassing them.
Don't criticize every single religious person out there because a couple freakish offshoots decide that everyone and their mother needs to hear their words whether they like it or not.
The argument used in the article is not one of the best arguments to use. There are different types of laws in the Old Testament- Ceremonial and moral laws. Ceremonial laws were put into place in order to reinforce pricniples. Moral laws are drastically different. Homosexuality falls under the moral category, the whole clothing thing does not.
Many times, people bash the Bible without knowing the historical or even literary tools and references that are used. To read certain aspects of the Bible with a modern frame of reference can really mess things up. You have to study the Bible within its culture and guidelines. That being said, if you are going to bash the Bible, at least know the history, culture and literary aspects of it. At LEAST read through it. Otherwise you have no real reason for bashing what you don't understand.
Do I think homosexuality is wrong? Very much so. Do I think homosexuals are the "debbil" or should be persecuted? Nope. I have worked and taken classes with people who are homosexuals. I never had a probelm with them and in actuality we got along pretty well and had some very good discussions. Do I think I'm better than them? Nope. But do I think homosexuality is wrong? Yep. But I will not mistreat, ignore, persecute them simply because they are homosexuals. They are just simply people. We laugh at the same things, enjoy the same things and live our lives. But it doesn't mean i agree with what they do or how they live.
I try not to judge anyone - unfortuantely there are times that I do. But as I grow older the more I realize I'm just as messed up as anyone else - I have no legitimacy to thinking I am better than anyone else. That is what judging is - thinking you are better. Judging someone is NOT saying that something someone does is wrong - its saying that I am better than them when they are doing something wrong.
The life of Jesus did away with the ceremonial laws which in all simplicity was purposed to point people and help people focus on God. Jesus loved sinners, he never judged them and rebuked those who did. He never condoned what they did in fact he denounced all sin. He talked about hell many times over. But he was also compassionate and loving.
EDIT: correction
Many times, people bash the Bible without knowing the historical or even literary tools and references that are used. To read certain aspects of the Bible with a modern frame of reference can really mess things up. You have to study the Bible within its culture and guidelines. That being said, if you are going to bash the Bible, at least know the history, culture and literary aspects of it. At LEAST read through it. Otherwise you have no real reason for bashing what you don't understand.
Do I think homosexuality is wrong? Very much so. Do I think homosexuals are the "debbil" or should be persecuted? Nope. I have worked and taken classes with people who are homosexuals. I never had a probelm with them and in actuality we got along pretty well and had some very good discussions. Do I think I'm better than them? Nope. But do I think homosexuality is wrong? Yep. But I will not mistreat, ignore, persecute them simply because they are homosexuals. They are just simply people. We laugh at the same things, enjoy the same things and live our lives. But it doesn't mean i agree with what they do or how they live.
I try not to judge anyone - unfortuantely there are times that I do. But as I grow older the more I realize I'm just as messed up as anyone else - I have no legitimacy to thinking I am better than anyone else. That is what judging is - thinking you are better. Judging someone is NOT saying that something someone does is wrong - its saying that I am better than them when they are doing something wrong.
The life of Jesus did away with the ceremonial laws which in all simplicity was purposed to point people and help people focus on God. Jesus loved sinners, he never judged them and rebuked those who did. He never condoned what they did in fact he denounced all sin. He talked about hell many times over. But he was also compassionate and loving.
EDIT: correction
Originally posted by: amnesiac
Originally posted by: notfred
Originally posted by: amnesiac
I love how all the atheist/agnostics here continually bash religion, which they're rightly entitled to do, but they also continually complain about religious folk when I have YET TO SEE ONE THREAD ON ATOT started by one of religion bashing those without it.
Yeah, atheiests annoy religious people over the internet, religious people annoy athiests by going door to door.
I've never heard of a normal, nondenominational Christian going door to door recruiting others and harassing them.
Don't criticize every single religious person out there because a couple freakish offshoots decide that everyone and their mother needs to hear their words whether they like it or not.
Don't criticize every single atheist person out there because a couple freakish offshoots decide that everyone and their mother needs to hear their words whether they like it or not.
agreed. yet i do not hate them as people, i do not believe they should have special rights to be gay. our govt seems to be encouraging the idea of being gay by changing all these laws and etc...
I agree. They should not have special rights to be gay, and we should not have special rights to be straight. Ban marriage!
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter