Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Why do we respect religious beliefs?
Options
Comments
-
Every sparrow.
gnomically,
Scofflaw0 -
These two examples are disconnected from the rest of the post in the sense that the desires aren't a sin. These aren't sinful impulses, so in this case how is God being fair?PDN wrote:A friend of mine is a woman with fairly severe facial deformities. She would love to find a boyfriend & get married but knows that this is unlikely. However, she does not see God as being wicked because of this.
Another friend of mine longs to have children, but is medically unable to do so. She sees adoption as a poor second-best. God created her with maternal desires, but for one reason or another those desires cannot be fulfilled.0 -
Son Goku wrote:These two examples are disconnected from the rest of the post in the sense that the desires aren't a sin. These aren't sinful impulses, so in this case how is God being fair?
It's not a case of God being fair. Life, whether you believe it is by God's design, man's choices, or for some other reason, is not fair. It is not fair that millions of children go to bed hungry while the offspring of a privileged few fret whether their bums look big in their latest designer clothes. That is, of course, a much bigger question than the issue of homosexuality.
I am simply trying to make the point that we all have to live with unfulfilled desires. If you're looking for a reason to call God wicked or inconsistent then I think there are much bigger issues to deal with than whether someone should be allowed to engage in homosexual practices and still be part of a church.0 -
Fair enough. Sorry, it was just that those two examples seemed out of place with the others, but I get your point now.PDN wrote:It's not a case of God being fair. Life, whether you believe it is by God's design, man's choices, or for some other reason, is not fair. It is not fair that millions of children go to bed hungry while the offspring of a privileged fret whether their bums look big in their latest designer clothes. That is, of course, a much bigger question than the issue of homosexuality.
I am simply trying to make the point that we all have to live with unfulfilled desires. If you're looking for a reason to call God wicked or inconsistent then I think there are much bigger issues to deal with than whether someone should be allowed to engage in homosexual practices and still be part of a church.0 -
Jakkass wrote:
I have to say though, I'm glad that this is the only part of the post that you all disagreed with or challenged
We're only getting started honey.0 -
Advertisement
-
PDN wrote:I am simply trying to make the point that we all have to live with unfulfilled desires.
But God isn't saying to the girl "Because you have facial deformity, therefore you shall not be allowed marry because of my law, even if you find someone who loves you and wishes to marry you"
He is on the other hand saying to a homosexual couple "If you find someone who loves you with an ever lasting and pure love, as strong as any married heterosexual couple, then tough on you. You cannot marry, and therefore all sex with be fornication so you also cannot give the gift of sex to that person."
He is actually saying that, or at least that seems to be your interpretation of what he is saying from the Bible.
Is that really what God would do?
Or a more important question, what purpose does that law serve?0 -
PDN wrote:
Recently I counselled a paedophile who has intense sexual attraction towards children. He knows that part of being a Christian, indeed part of being a member of society, is to live without fulfilling those desires.
I'm sure the main reason is not because he's a christian but because he knows that MOLESTING CHILDREN ISN'T GOOD. It doesn't take a deep christian faith to discern that. I'm sure you'll agree that a child being abused and raped is a whole different issue to two consenting adults expressing their sexual desire for one another.
Personally I think it's a bloody lazy argument to say 'it's because you don't love god enough and you're going against his word and because the devil is telling you to be gay' etc. etc.
Homosexuality is unnatural, and unfortunately just the same way people were burned at the stake for being witches, homosexuals have been similarly tortured and killed in the past in many different cultures, and likewise today.
However, as we progress, we understand that religion and superstition gets it wrong often enough. Supposed witches are accused because people come in contact with narcotic substances which make them hallucinate, and these horrible hallucinations they blame on for or people who work with herbs. Autistic people are not possessed by the devil, they are mentally retarded (I've chosen to use this diagnosis because the cause of autism is not conclusive, it is definitely genetic, probably neurological but not known in which region exactly etc.). And apparently homosexuals choose to go against the word of God, even though it more than often would be in their favour to choose heterosexual relationships over homosexual ones and even though there has been significant findings to indicate a cumultive of different reasons causing it (testosterone to oestrogen ratios, as well as upbringing and cultural stimulus received). Why condemn what we can't understand?0 -
Because public condemnation is lucrative?acid_violet wrote:Why condemn what we can't understand?0 -
Acid_Violet wrote:I'm sure the main reason is not because he's a christian but because he knows that MOLESTING CHILDREN ISN'T GOOD. It doesn't take a deep christian faith to discern that. I'm sure you'll agree that a child being abused and raped is a whole different issue to two consenting adults expressing their sexual desire for one another.
He didn't say it was the main reason. However one's main reason could be because they are looking for forgiveness when they know they have done wrong and that they want to repair their lives. Not many people propose that they can do that as far as I know apart from God. Far fetched it may be for some of you, but it's a valid reason why one would turn to Him. He also mentioned "indeed part of being a member of society", so that satisfys your point.
Of course you are going to say that when you have never had a divine experience with God, you don't understand our motives for wishing to uphold with these rules. Infact for Christians it isn't an argument, we're not trying to debate anyone. We're just believing what we believe in and standing what we stand for. It is written how God regards homosexual activity, therefore as he is our creator I'd be willing to stand by the law that he has given us as human beings. It isn't that complicated is it?Acid_Violet wrote:Personally I think it's a bloody lazy argument to say 'it's because you don't love god enough and you're going against his word and because the devil is telling you to be gay' etc. etc.Acid_Violet wrote:Homosexuality is unnatural, and unfortunately just the same way people were burned at the stake for being witches, homosexuals have been similarly tortured and killed in the past in many different cultures, and likewise today.
Indeed it's unfortunate. It is punishable by death in Saudi Arabia to be a homosexual. However, I don't know of many countries in the west that have persecuted homosexuality quite so severely, with the exception of the recent events in Israel, where there was a bomb plot on the Jerusalem Gay Pride parade recently by an Orthodox Jew. However I wouldn't see this as a satisfactory way of interacting with anyone, and punishment by death is not God's wish for homosexuals.Acid_Violet wrote:However, as we progress, we understand that religion and superstition gets it wrong often enough. Supposed witches are accused because people come in contact with narcotic substances which make them hallucinate, and these horrible hallucinations they blame on for or people who work with herbs. Autistic people are not possessed by the devil, they are mentally retarded (I've chosen to use this diagnosis because the cause of autism is not conclusive, it is definitely genetic, probably neurological but not known in which region exactly etc.). And apparently homosexuals choose to go against the word of God, even though it more than often would be in their favour to choose heterosexual relationships over homosexual ones and even though there has been significant findings to indicate a cumultive of different reasons causing it (testosterone to oestrogen ratios, as well as upbringing and cultural stimulus received). Why condemn what we can't understand?
Your point? You claim religion is at fault, where it is people and humankind who are really to fault for misinterpreting situations over the years. However I'd like to point out that anyone of any creed at the time would have had a similar reaction due to the lack of understanding anyone had of the situation to be fair. I think this is overly critical of religious people for a time when the entire population would have held the same view. I don't know of any theist who holds the same views of witches and people with autism.
Apparently? it's quite clear whats written on the matter. And it's quite clear that they have indeed turned against God if they are sexually active. However this is no need for persecution and ultimately it is their choice if they want to abstain from sexual activity and accept God once more. You claim that condemning homosexuals is condemning what we don't understand, however some including myself would claim that God has given us understanding over what is right and wrong, and how we are meant to live our lives. You don't have to accept it, nobody said you did.0 -
Acid_Violet wrote:Why condemn what we can't understand?
Because we're too lazy to actually try to understand Christianity rather than just condemning it?0 -
Advertisement
-
So you love God even though he's a dude?Jakkass wrote:Who said God creates people with the intention of being attracted to the same sex? This is what I have an issue with. I don't think that He does, well thats obvious since I pointed out that. The point is, if you were willing to love God with the fullness of your heart "Love the Lord with all your heart, soul and might" you'd have very little issue with it.
I have to say though, I'm glad that this is the only part of the post that you all disagreed with or challenged
I'm getting mixed messages...0 -
Sangre wrote:So you love God even though he's a dude?
I'm getting mixed messages...
thats not entirely true. The Hebrew of when Moses first heard his name "I AM", YHWH the female and the male versions are both used. I'd always see Him as a He though. Theres a difference between a sexual love and a platonic love. God is a father figure to all Christians. That is how he is to be regarded. Although I thought this might come up.0 -
Jakkass wrote:However one's main reason could be because they are looking for forgiveness when they know they have done wrong and that they want to repair their lives. Not many people propose that they can do that as far as I know apart from God. Far fetched it may be for some of you, but it's a valid reason why one would turn to Him.
Its not far fetched at all to understand, but it is debateable as to whether it is valid.
This point has come up before, but to stress it again, why does someone feel that God's forgiveness in anyway forgives people for what they have done.
Leaving aside the fact that an atheists doesn't believe in God in the first place so it is really just a person forgiving themselves, even if God does exist surely forgiveness from the people a person has actually hurt or harmed is more important.
It all seems like a bit of a cop out TBH, though I can see why it would appeal to some people.
Not complicated, just a little worrying.Jakkass wrote:It is written how God regards homosexual activity, therefore as he is our creator I'd be willing to stand by the law that he has given us as human beings. It isn't that complicated is it?
Well clearly he hasn't, since you don't know why homosexuality is wrong, you just believe it is because it is written in your holy book. Is that understanding?Jakkass wrote:however some including myself would claim that God has given us understanding over what is right and wrong0 -
Jakkass wrote:He didn't say it was the main reason. However one's main reason could be because they are looking for forgiveness when they know they have done wrong and that they want to repair their lives. Not many people propose that they can do that as far as I know apart from God. Far fetched it may be for some of you, but it's a valid reason why one would turn to Him. He also mentioned "indeed part of being a member of society", so that satisfys your point.
You don't need to do this ridiculous tit for tat point making!
To reiterate; it doesn't take christian morality or any religious morality for that matter to decipher that paedophilia is wrong.Of course you are going to say that when you have never had a divine experience with God, you don't understand our motives for wishing to uphold with these rules. Infact for Christians it isn't an argument, we're not trying to debate anyone. We're just believing what we believe in and standing what we stand for. It is written how God regards homosexual activity, therefore as he is our creator I'd be willing to stand by the law that he has given us as human beings. It isn't that complicated is it?
So whatever God apparently says goes. You do realise that according to that statement that your whole ideological and moral beliefs are built on the premise that there is a god? It appears to be the case that you don't even know why homosexuality is wrong.
That's something that's wrong with all religions and moral codes and laws for that matter. People blindly obey them without questioning why those laws are implemented or why they should obey them. Jesus also said it's a sin to eat shellfish and wear linen and cotton together.....Your point? You claim religion is at fault, where it is people and humankind who are really to fault for misinterpreting situations over the years. However I'd like to point out that anyone of any creed at the time would have had a similar reaction due to the lack of understanding anyone had of the situation to be fair. I think this is overly critical of religious people for a time when the entire population would have held the same view. I don't know of any theist who holds the same views of witches and people with autism.
Apparently? it's quite clear whats written on the matter. And it's quite clear that they have indeed turned against God if they are sexually active. However this is no need for persecution and ultimately it is their choice if they want to abstain from sexual activity and accept God once more. You claim that condemning homosexuals is condemning what we don't understand, however some including myself would claim that God has given us understanding over what is right and wrong, and how we are meant to live our lives. You don't have to accept it, nobody said you did.
Bear in mind that religion is the interpretation of God.
You my good sir are missing the point. I was pointing how human kind misinterprets things and acredits them to witch-craft etc., ie. condemning them. Same has happened for homosexuals, accept they have been called sinful people who deviate from god's law, because 'apparently they have a choice in whether they are homosexual or not', yet you are not accepting evidence that people are predisposed because of cultural factors, their upbringing and most significantly high oestrogen to testosterone levels or vice versa. The latter explains how many lesbians and homosexuals tend to share more interests generally attributed to members of the opposite sex and often physical features similarly.0 -
We realise that, I didn't miss that point.... What I was claiming was the main reason could be because they were looking for forgiveness from God for the wrongs they have done against humanity perhaps?Acid_Violet wrote:To reiterate; it doesn't take christian morality or any religious morality for that matter to decipher that paedophilia is wrong.
What were you expecting? That God wouldn't come into this at all at all even though we are talking about Christianity (which has a strong reliance on God incase you didn't realise). It's not my fault that you don't believe in Him, but yes it does take the premise that there is a God. The whole faith takes that into account. It appears to be the case, that I know perfectly well why it is wrong, just that you won't accept it because you don't accept the premise of there being a God. He created us male and female for a reason. It was his plan that man and woman would come together as one in marriage and that the woman would concieve if she wanted to. That is the reason. It wasn't his intention for same sex relationships. If it had been two guys would be able to have children.Acid_Violet wrote:So whatever God apparently says goes. You do realise that according to that statement that your whole ideological and moral beliefs are built on the premise that there is a god? It appears to be the case that you don't even know why homosexuality is wrong.Acid_Violet wrote:That's something that's wrong with all religions and moral codes and laws for that matter. People blindly obey them without questioning why those laws are implemented or why they should obey them. Jesus also said it's a sin to eat shellfish and wear linen and cotton together.....
Jesus didn't say that. Thats in the Torah. Linen and Cotton is in Leviticus, and the shellfish is in Leviticus also. See Acts 15 to see what from the Torah is required to be followed by Christians.
About eating shellfish? That is in Leviticus 11.Leviticus 11:9-10 wrote:You may eat any kind of fish that has fins and scales, but anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales must not be eaten.
That book was written a long long time before Christ was even born. Do you want to see what Christ thought about certain foods making you ritually unclean?Mark 7:14-15 wrote:Then Jesus called the crowd to him once more and said to them, "LIsten to me all of you and understand. There is nothing that goes into a person from the outside which can make him ritually unclean. Rather it is what comes out of a person that makes him unclean".
I think you need to reacquaint yourself with the Bible before you use it to argue your case.Acid_Violet wrote:Bear in mind that religion is the interpretation of God.
How can something that allegedly doesn't exist interpret something? Who else is better to interpret it than God, on the assumption that He exists. I would argue nobody would be better.Acid_Violet wrote:You my good sir are missing the point. I was pointing how human kind misinterprets things and acredits them to witch-craft etc., ie. condemning them. Same has happened for homosexuals, accept they have been called sinful people who deviate from god's law, because 'apparently they have a choice in whether they are homosexual or not', yet you are not accepting evidence that people are predisposed because of cultural factors, their upbringing and most significantly high oestrogen to testosterone levels or vice versa. The latter explains how many lesbians and homosexuals tend to share more interests generally attributed to members of the opposite sex and often physical features similarly.
I'd consider them if you gave me some source material to read that they are predisposed, or that they were brought up that way, or that they had high oestrogen levels. You haven't backed it up with any sources. I don't believe it to be true though. People can break out of the way they were brought up, and they don't have to accept cultural factors that they were predisposed to? To be brutally honest, I'm not so certain about the oestrogen levels as I've not recieved any sources.0 -
I replied Friday morning, but my post decided not to post, so I was left with no post......you can imagine just how happy I was.Jakkass wrote:Aha, any reports for this? How people can't change their sexual orientation? I'd be interested in reading reports that say that changing your sexual orientation makes you superstitious and violent? Also the Bible doesn't require them to change their sexual orientation, all the Bible requires of gay people to do is abstain from sexual intercourse with another man. I don't think that gays are born that way, and to be honest with you I actually find it a bit rediculous. Where do bisexuals come in then?
I think we're dealing with this already. However;
A SEXUALLY REPRESSED society tends to be a more violent and superstitious one.
If you take into account that I stated the very likely hormonal causes of homosexuality, it takes nothing but a bit of logic to figure out where bisexuals come into the picture.Just a thought, considering I'm thinking you're using the same argument as Richard did in The Prayer Experiment. But something Richard didn't take into account, is that by testing God, you are doubting your trust in Him.
A likely excuse! Lol. I doubt god would punish the people who unknown to them are being prayed for and for their recovery. Again, tis merely an example dahling.That's your choice I'm not forcing you to do anything. Although I would say don't knock it before you've tried it. Faith didn't magically come to me either you know.
Fine so. On such a note, do not consider 'you don't have a strong faith so how would you understand?' to be a valid argument. It's a bit like saying 'well santa never comes to you so you WOULD say he doesnt exist!'You really do listen to that man too much if you are starting to use his title for God... but anyway. The moral opinions of Christianity, are truly beneficial to society, so yes I would base a lot of my moral opinions on the Bible. Well I'd take them into account, doesn't mean I'd hold them as highly as the word of God. Also that isn't my reasoning on how it is true. What I base my faith on is how I've felt through God's word and through praying etc. I've experienced God for myself, I don't need to trust that someone else has got it right. I trust God? You probably think thats wierd but I really don't care to be brutally honest.
You wouldn't hold the words of the bible as highly as the word of god? Do explain what you mean by this.
I think just about...here is where I start to lose all respect for your argument. You've experienced it for yourself, the same way some religious sects believe they experience it by smoking hash. You could be just hallucinating you know, amongst other things, 'feeling it for yourself' doesn't neccessarily mean there's a god.I'd be curious to know why or how the Vatican could let them away with that?
Because it is common knowledge as opposed to stated in a code of practice. Very few people would be prepared to forgot wimmin for the priesthood (lets be blunt and honest about it!) and I suppose they're just turning a blind eye to it.Bear in mind that was in the Hebrew Scriptures not in the New Testament. God encourages mercy and forgiveness to all. So I assume that position has changed since the coming of Christ. Not entirely sure however. I imagine because of the sons of the priest also becoming priests at that time and if the other wife had sons through prostitution then they would have to be priests too even if they weren't descended from the original priest.
So current practice is based upon tradition from a couple of centuries ago? Don't tell me this is true and then say christianity or whichever church this originates from isn't behind the time.Just wondering what your point is. A lot of the peoples observations of the universe were not God given. God didn't say a lot of it. However I have a link that shows how the Bible is often v.consistent with science. I'd be interested in you giving a few Bible quotes to back up your position on the earth being the centre of the universe?
You indeed claimed that science had never contradicted the word of god, or god, yet time and time again it has. Personally, I doubt science will ever conclusively disprove the existence of god (my personal beliefs on god come into account here, but that's for another post) but it has proved all the said dogma and doctrine of christianity to be false.
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml
I had a look and read everything in this link and I have never read such crap in my life! It has no scientific connection at all. Most of those quotes claim to refer to scientific findings when it's only one of two words which could be portrayed as such, which is clearly by chance ('the earth hangs.....' or 'look down on the cirle of the earth'.) Not only that, it would have as much to do with the translation as to do withwhat was said! So many of them claim to be things that directly correlate to science and thus prove the bibles word true, but so many of them are solely because someone could observe these things, you don't need god to tell you that there are ****load of stars in the sky! I would pick one of the quotes as an example but all of them would do!Ah here.... that is symbolic. Actually I used part of that quote earlier on the bit on homosexuals. Look at the context of it please... There are 2 accounts of the creation of human kind also. One as it was, and one to help understand. This is how mainline Christian theologians would see it.
Tell me of the second account so.
Symbolic? So much for the creationist lobby.......:DHow do you think I got to this point? Do you think I haven't thought about it? Seriously...
Yes! Any logical and perfectly reasonable point I make you dismiss out of hand! You think 'feeling the spirit upon you' is reason enough!You need to start to form your own opinion instead of relying on Richard's book.
Oh good point. You need to start to form your own opinion on the world around you and morality instead of relying on the bible, which doesn't appear to really explain even why homosexuality is wrong! Nice of you to resort to low blows, funny even!As for you saying, that it is as empirically based as belief in horoscopes. You haven't experienced a deep faith before, so it's very easy for you to compare a thing you haven't experienced with something else isn't it?
Maybe I've experienced deep faith before but you just don't know about it. Maybe I've experienced deep faith before in horoscopes. Don't knock it till you've tried it.Sigh... the suicide bomber routine. All I'll say here, is if you're interested in finding the truth about what kind of faith Islam is go out and get a translation of the Qu'ran. To be honest with you, my faith doesn't motivate me to kill anyone so what's it to you?
I know plenty about Islam, so much that I'd even be a supporter of the choice to wear the veil. But what you claim to be feeling the spirit upon you is also how suicide bombers feel god calling them to martyr themselves.Do you not think people come to a conclusion about their faith before they have it? Of course it takes thought! Of course! But, why should I constantly question it if I'm sure He exists? Do you want me to do an audit of my faith every day or something? But on another note, why should I weigh up my beliefs to yours if you refuse to respect me and my right to have that belief. It seems a bit odd doesn't it?
I work in an accountant's office, there's no way I'd ever make some-one do an audit:p Everyday, as new evidence is revealed to me about something, I would take that into account of my opinion on whatever it applies to. I expect everyone else to do the same. Otherwise, there will be no progression in the world and no improvement in the individual.
What I am putting before you aren't my set of beliefs. They are facts and logical arguments. If you want to call them anything, I'd say that they're the factors that make up my beliefs. The only factor that makes up your belief that I'm aware of is feeling the spirit upon you. That is spiritual and abstract, as opposed to what I'm saying which is logical, realistic and concrete. I respect your right to practice and believe in those beliefs which you have and I never said I don't respect christianity. I said I don't respect a belief that is held even though all evidence points the other way. Is your belief that kind of one?0 -
PDN wrote:Because we're too lazy to actually try to understand Christianity rather than just condemning it?
And henceforth the claim that hypocriscy in christianity only existed in the past is null and void.0 -
Acid_Violet wrote:I think we're dealing with this already. However;
A SEXUALLY REPRESSED society tends to be a more violent and superstitious one.
If you take into account that I stated the very likely hormonal causes of homosexuality, it takes nothing but a bit of logic to figure out where bisexuals come into the picture.
Did you totally ignore my post or something?Jakkass wrote:Aha, any reports for this? How people can't change their sexual orientation? I'd be interested in reading reports that say that changing your sexual orientation makes you superstitious and violent? Also the Bible doesn't require them to change their sexual orientation, all the Bible requires of gay people to do is abstain from sexual intercourse with another man. I don't think that gays are born that way, and to be honest with you I actually find it a bit rediculous. Where do bisexuals come in then?
I didn't ask you to repeat what you'd said. I know fine well that you think that. I'd like to see some psychologists reports on it. Particularly on gays trying to be hetrosexuals. You also haven't given any sources for the hormones either.Acid_Violet wrote:A likely excuse! Lol. I doubt god would punish the people who unknown to them are being prayed for and for their recovery. Again, tis merely an example dahling.
The point is, we have no right to test God. The creator of you and me and everyone in this world we have around us. He's done so much for mankind, that I don't honestly think it's right to test him. I'm judging from Biblical sources (compared to the sources you have presented us with). I'm satisfied that he exists, and as far as I'm concerned I'd see it as a failing on your part if you are considering testing Him.Acid_Violet wrote:Fine so. On such a note, do not consider 'you don't have a strong faith so how would you understand?' to be a valid argument. It's a bit like saying 'well santa never comes to you so you WOULD say he doesnt exist!'
Do you know what? I really don't care what or what you do not consider to be a valid argument. Facts are you don't understand what kind of faith we have in God, if you have never experienced it. To be brutally honest with you I think it's not that God hasn't come to you. I think it's that you've never given faith a chance with and open mind. To be honest with you, I'd regard that as a shame. But you can choose as you wish.
No, I was replying to this post and to what was being said in the bold:Acid_Violet wrote:You wouldn't hold the words of the bible as highly as the word of god? Do explain what you mean by this.
I think just about...here is where I start to lose all respect for your argument. You've experienced it for yourself, the same way some religious sects believe they experience it by smoking hash. You could be just hallucinating you know, amongst other things, 'feeling it for yourself' doesn't neccessarily mean there's a god.
I was saying that I don't regard the word of man to be better than the Bible or anything God has given us.Acid_Violet wrote:So because you feel the 'spirit of god' within you you base most, if not all, of your moral opinions on a few thousand year old book and refuse to take into account any other descriptions or explainations of how we have life as we know it and if some story was passed down through the generations it must be true? Pretty much the same way one may feel touched by the noodly appendages of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
I don't really know what context you are talking about as I don't know why forgot is there doesn't make grammatical sense. But if you are talking about the Vatican not allowing women in the priesthood, again that is another thing that is permitted in the Church of Ireland.Acid_Violet wrote:Because it is common knowledge as opposed to stated in a code of practice. Very few people would be prepared to forgot wimmin for the priesthood (lets be blunt and honest about it!) and I suppose they're just turning a blind eye to it.
It's not based from tradition from a couple of centuries ago. It's based on the last and greatest revelation of Jesus Christ. However, this stands forever, it's not subject to change after this revelation. Although others think it has (Muslims, Mormons, Rastafarians etc).Acid_Violet wrote:So current practice is based upon tradition from a couple of centuries ago? Don't tell me this is true and then say christianity or whichever church this originates from isn't behind the time.
Give some solid examples then? Instead of coming out with statements like that. You're very very poor with sources. What I will say that has contradicted it in a sense, is the cosmology theories of the universe. But then again some people believe that it's fully compatible with it. (the NOMA theory in Richard Dawkins' book). Due to 2 Peter 3:8-9.Acid_Violet wrote:You indeed claimed that science had never contradicted the word of god, or god, yet time and time again it has. Personally, I doubt science will ever conclusively disprove the existence of god (my personal beliefs on god come into account here, but that's for another post) but it has proved all the said dogma and doctrine of christianity to be false.
However I'm skeptical of that as it isn't in relation to the worlds cosmology (and I was always thought to compare like with like) , therefore I would consider the cosmology theories to be conflicting to what is written in Genesis.2 Peter 3:8-9 wrote:But do not forget one thing, my dear friends! There is no difference in the Lord's sight between one day and a thousand years; to him the two are the same. The Lord is not slow to do what he has promised, as some think. Instead, he is patient with you, because he does not want anyone to be destroyed, but wants all to turn away from their sins.
Creationism is a valid standpoint, nothing which should be laughed at by the way. The first Biblical account describes in detail of how it is made and created. However the second account is believed by many to use symbolism. You can read Genesis 1 and 2 if you wish to gain a better insight into it.Acid_Violet wrote:Tell me of the second account so.
Symbolic? So much for the creationist lobby.......:D
Well I've made an informed decision about it. I wasn't always as faithful. Also, to reiterate again. You don't know what it's like to feel the spirit on you, so who are you to say how it should influence my life? You're nobody actually in relation to the greater sphere of things.Acid_Violet wrote:Yes! Any logical and perfectly reasonable point I make you dismiss out of hand! You think 'feeling the spirit upon you' is reason enough!
If you believe Richard Dawkins is on the same par as God that is. Fair enough if you do. But I don't. God has done an awful lot more for me in my life than Richard Dawkins has done for anyone else, and on that note I'm going to follow his rules.Acid_Violet wrote:Oh good point. You need to start to form your own opinion on the world around you and morality instead of relying on the bible, which doesn't appear to really explain even why homosexuality is wrong! Nice of you to resort to low blows, funny even!
I don't know what religion they are following then because as far as I know, Islam gives double the punishment for unprovoked killing after death.Acid_Violet wrote:I know plenty about Islam, so much that I'd even be a supporter of the choice to wear the veil. But what you claim to be feeling the spirit upon you is also how suicide bombers feel god calling them to martyr themselves.
Of which we have had little or no sources to back up these facts or logical arguments. Well that shows how very little you understand it, if you think it's all just the spirit. It's largely due to life experience as well. Well you are going to talk about what is "logical, realistic, and concrete", when you don't believe that you could recieve eternal life with Him. My faith is very real, and to be honest I think that creation is a more logical theory than believing that there was an explosion and we are here by chance through evolution. It helps me find meaning to it all anyway, to why certain things happen, and how certain things happened as well. Evidence does not point to Christianity being wrong, nor does it disprove God. So according to your theory of how to respect someones beliefs (a theory which I consider to be highly ****ed up), my faith wouldn't be that way.Acid_Violet wrote:What I am putting before you aren't my set of beliefs. They are facts and logical arguments. If you want to call them anything, I'd say that they're the factors that make up my beliefs. The only factor that makes up your belief that I'm aware of is feeling the spirit upon you. That is spiritual and abstract, as opposed to what I'm saying which is logical, realistic and concrete. I respect your right to practice and believe in those beliefs which you have and I never said I don't respect christianity. I said I don't respect a belief that is held even though all evidence points the other way. Is your belief that kind of one?0 -
Which would make sense if any theory said there was explosion. As has been said countless times, no theory says that. Sigh!Jakkass wrote:My faith is very real, and to be honest I think that creation is a more logical theory than believing that there was an explosion and we are here by chance through evolution.
No it isn't. Rocks in the ground disagree with it and they don't lie.Creationism is a valid standpoint0 -
-
Advertisement
-
hmm if you look further back in the thread I've given reasons why stoning is condemned in Christianity and not in the books of Judaism, and in Islam. (It's in John when the woman who committed adultery was being stoned, I quoted it earlier). Romans 1:26-27 also mentions it.0
-
Lol, stoning is wrong but murdering homosexuals is alright. And the bible does not contradict?0
-
Egh... that wasn't the point! Killing anyone is wrong.... but if you want to be extra pedantic about it.0
-
I am devoid of any respect for any religion.0
-
Jakkass wrote:Did you totally ignore my post or something?
I didn't ask you to repeat what you'd said. I know fine well that you think that. I'd like to see some psychologists reports on it. Particularly on gays trying to be hetrosexuals. You also haven't given any sources for the hormones either.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002340883_gayscience19m.html
This was a wonderful find. It covers androgen levels, pheremones among other scientific findings. If you want any more just ask.
I shall look for the report about sexual repression and violence presently.The point is, we have no right to test God. The creator of you and me and everyone in this world we have around us. He's done so much for mankind, that I don't honestly think it's right to test him. I'm judging from Biblical sources (compared to the sources you have presented us with). I'm satisfied that he exists, and as far as I'm concerned I'd see it as a failing on your part if you are considering testing Him.
Personally, considering the logic that he shall not answer if you test him (of which I was aware in the past) I wouldn't test him. Nor has anything I said in the thread denoted that (as I said before, the prayer experiment was an example.) Instead, I question his existence. Two very different things. Surely if he gave us free will to act against him he gave us free will to consider things for ourselves. (I'm sure you don't need me to give a list of how/when/why I questioned him.) A failing on my part to believe in him without reason?Do you know what? I really don't care what or what you do not consider to be a valid argument. Facts are you don't understand what kind of faith we have in God, if you have never experienced it. To be brutally honest with you I think it's not that God hasn't come to you. I think it's that you've never given faith a chance with and open mind. To be honest with you, I'd regard that as a shame. But you can choose as you wish.
Indeed, shut your ears and presume, shut your ears and presume.....
Facts are you know NOTHING about my faith. You know nothing about whether I've experienced a deep faith before. Facts are I could've considered becoming a nun at one stage or another. However, presume as you like about my beliefs.
Tbh, I don't believe in the god you believe in. I think it possible that there is a god. I keep an open-mind on things. And if there is a God, he's one that religion has so distorted into something of a monster at times, no doubt about that. It's my opinion that religion and god are very different things, considering the way religion goes about it's business is not necessarily the way god orders it to do so (of course, this is all on the premise that there is a god.)
I’m now really not sure if there’s any point in replying to your posts and trying to have a debate when you’re getting aggressive and personal.I was saying that I don't regard the word of man to be better than the Bible or anything God has given us.
You’re basically admitting to blind faith. That it doesn’t matter what evidence we find, you will always believe that god exists. It is particularly interesting to note that the Bible is written by man. Not only could the word of the bible be wrong by human fallibility, it is a likely scenario that someone just made it up! The word of man all over again! (Personally, I wouldn’t call scientific findings the word of man. They’re concrete findings! Fossils ain’t words! Evolution isn’t an opinion or theory without any basis!)It's not based from tradition from a couple of centuries ago. It's based on the last and greatest revelation of Jesus Christ. However, this stands forever, it's not subject to change after this revelation. Although others think it has (Muslims, Mormons, Rastafarians etc).
I was replying to this;I imagine because of the sons of the priest also becoming priests at that time and if the other wife had sons through prostitution then they would have to be priests too even if they weren't descended from the original priest.
Not based on it, eh?Give some solid examples then? Instead of coming out with statements like that. You're very very poor with sources. What I will say that has contradicted it in a sense, is the cosmology theories of the universe. But then again some people believe that it's fully compatible with it. (the NOMA theory in Richard Dawkins' book). Due to 2 Peter 3:8-9.
I would give out examples other than I really don’t know what I’m meant to be disproving. The six day creation story an Adam and Eve; are they literal or symbolic? Let me know so I can actually get sources!
I have done research on some of the other points I made and found they were not part of the Bible. My genuine apologies.
They were however part of Christian doctrine, of some churches at least. We have only to look at reasons for people being brought the inquisition for evidence.
However I'm skeptical of that as it isn't in relation to the worlds cosmology (and I was always thought to compare like with like) , therefore I would consider the cosmology theories to be conflicting to what is written in Genesis.Creationism is a valid standpoint, nothing which should be laughed at by the way.
According to different gospels, the world is a different amount of generations old. Creationism is no more valid than babies and storks!The first Biblical account describes in detail of how it is made and created. However the second account is believed by many to use symbolism. You can read Genesis 1 and 2 if you wish to gain a better insight into it.
Will cross-examine said witness.Well I've made an informed decision about it. I wasn't always as faithful. Also, to reiterate again. You don't know what it's like to feel the spirit on you, so who are you to say how it should influence my life? You're nobody actually in relation to the greater sphere of things.
You claim creationism to be a valid standpoint and say you’ve made an educated decision?
I’m sure you can appreciate my skepticism considering the hash-smoking religious sect. I’m merely remarking how ‘feeling this spirit’ may not exactly be god, for the same reason why the suicide-bombers and hash-smoking religious sect may not be feeling god also. It may even be the devil influencing you and telling you to be catholic as opposed to a member of the COI.
I never claimed to be anyone! No need to get personal!If you believe Richard Dawkins is on the same par as God that is. Fair enough if you do. But I don't. God has done an awful lot more for me in my life than Richard Dawkins has done for anyone else, and on that note I'm going to follow his rules.
Well I don’t. And I’m not impressed at your personal jibes at me, particularly at the one about forming my own opinion. I would demonstrate how my opinion differs in many ways to Dawkins but I don’t feel the need to justify myself to you.
I was mainly pointing out the hypocriscy in telling me not to form my opinion of whatever subject on a book. Need I go any further?I don't know what religion they are following then because as far as I know, Islam gives double the punishment for unprovoked killing after death.
I wasn’t talking about the religion. I was comparing the feeling of the spirit, of which you have many times spoken.Of which we have had little or no sources to back up these facts or logical arguments.
Well some sources have been provided now. I’m sure you don’t need a quotation or link about everything I say. If you’d specify which, I’d honestly be more than happy to get them.Well that shows how very little you understand it, if you think it's all just the spirit. It's largely due to life experience as well.
Many, many things have happened in my life to make me believe in fate of some kind. But that doesn’t conclusively mean I should believe in it.Well you are going to talk about what is "logical, realistic, and concrete", when you don't believe that you could recieve eternal life with Him.
So I’m going to be a rational thinker if I’m not spiritual? That’s a bad thing because?My faith is very real, and to be honest I think that creation is a more logical theory than believing that there was an explosion and we are here by chance through evolution.
No, with evolution everything happens very specifically to produce the best off-spring. It’s not chance that nobody wants to go out with (if you’ll excuse my crudity) a fat, ugly, smelly girl, it’s because they’re not attracted to her. Again, she’s made such a way because her genetics dictate that (the amount she sweats is dictated although personal hygiene obviously is not.) As for an explosion E=mc2 is an incredibly interesting formula, get stuck into it.
I personally believe that the way that all that matter came about in the first place is a grounds for there being a God. I think that there could be a God because he’d be created/exist on a completely different plane/dimension/realm to us, or something that doesn’t necessitate him being created the same way we were.It helps me find meaning to it all anyway, to why certain things happen, and how certain things happened as well.
Fair enough. Humanism helps people find a meaning and reality helps find a meaning to why things happen too. The way in which to find these things is not exclusive to religion.
[QUOTES]Evidence does not point to Christianity being wrong, nor does it disprove God.[/QUOTES]
Hang on, I just realized something. You said that creationism is a valid standing point but that the story of Adam and Eve was symbolic? Do clarify in as many words as possible. I already said nothing proves god wrong and that it’s unlikely science ever will, my afore mentioned opinion of god is the reason why I think there will always be that gap there for him to squeeze in. But god’s word, if not religion’s word, has been proved wrong, time and time again. If you refuse to accept evolution than that’s really your own bad.So according to your theory of how to respect someones beliefs (a theory which I consider to be highly ****ed up), my faith wouldn't be that way.
(It’s not a theory btw, it’s part of my opinion of free expression.)
I shall clarify.
Everyone has a RIGHT to their opinion; I respect that RIGHT.
I do not respect someone forcing their opinion on another, they may offer it but not force it.
I do not respect ANY OPINION that does not take all facts, logic, reason, testimonials, etc. into account.
Therefore, I do not respect an opinion of someone when they don’t take all said entities into account to form their opinion and instead considers an old book to be the explanation to life, the universe and everything.
Or even, a book of symbolic tales, fables even, as somewhat proof in a god.
(I do not think any of the above are strictly resonant of your opinion.)
So you can respect the persons right to have the belief, just not the belief, and if the belief is really that attrotious you don’t have to respect the person.
Not so ****ed up.0 -
I've decided for you. I'm not going to bother due to the overly sensationalist language in your post. Infact I think you ought to apologise for this...Acid_Violet wrote:I’m now really not sure if there’s any point in replying to your posts and trying to have a debate when you’re getting aggressive and personal.Acid_Violet wrote:I’m sure you can appreciate my skepticism considering the hash-smoking religious sect.
I'll be glad to discuss with you after we establish the basic requirement of respect required. I never claimed any atheists smoked hash, or anything quite as offensive as that. I've never insulted a group of people quite as harshly on that on this forum since I registered actually as far as I know.0 -
Jakkass wrote:I've decided for you. I'm not going to bother due to the overly sensationalist language in your post. Infact I think you ought to apologise for this...
I'll be glad to discuss with you after we establish the basic requirement of respect required. I never claimed any atheists smoked hash, or anything quite as offensive as that. I've never insulted a group of people quite as harshly on that on this forum since I registered actually as far as I know.
You misunderstood me. I was refering to an actual religious sect in america who think smoking hash is 'the seed of life', they think smoking hash is their communion.
http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_spirit3.shtml0 -
Jakkass wrote:hmm if you look further back in the thread I've given reasons why stoning is condemned in Christianity and not in the books of Judaism, and in Islam. (It's in John when the woman who committed adultery was being stoned, I quoted it earlier). Romans 1:26-27 also mentions it.
Clearly though at some point in time God thought it was a great idea that homosexuals get stoned to death. The idea that Christians no longer are told to do that is a bit irrelevant to that point0
Advertisement