The great and all powerful religion thread!

[Dak]

Whatever, moving on:

Yo Dakryn, I have one question for you that I want a real answer to. I get that, to you, the homosexual lifestyle is disgusting, inhuman, immoral, etc. but what gives you the right to believe you are entitled to judge another person's private lifestyle choice insomuch as you can actually affect his/her rights through the proper outlets/channels? I think that is where religion becomes intensely dangerous. Having beliefs is perfectly fine, but why are you able to impinge on what someone else does? Isn't your entire belief system about personal entitlement, autonomy and survivalism? If so, and, if you were given the option to choose whether a gay man is allowed to do (insert contentious issue relating to homosexuality and its related lifestyle here) or not, am I wrong in thinking you would indeed vote to restrict his right to do the above thing? Is that not pretty much contrary to what you would normally understand as basic and necessary i.e. that people have their own right to choose what they do, etc.?

I mean, you may play it off like you are reserving (pertinent) judgment on gay people, but really, you would definitely act with clear bias against gay people if given the option to (between allowance and forbidding of a particular, sexual-preference related issue); this represents a major danger of religion, and a major problem with the people who ally themselves with one.

Good question, although I was hoping for a response to my questions.

You are probably going to consider this a pretty "weasely" answer but it's as close as I can get to explaining.

Based off of the laws governing the United States, if I was in a political office, I would have no choice but to follow the laws set out to make everyone equal.

However, if I was some sort of king/dictator of my own country, I would run it exactly according to the civil portion of the laws in the Old Testament.

Neither of the above situations would ever happen. I am pretty practical about my beliefs. I don't force them on anyone. I have enough faith in YHWH/Jesus that THEY will enforce their rules when they see fit. I am not in position to judge, and by judge I mean to convict/appoint a "sentence". Hating an action and hating a person are two different things.

People should have a the right to choose what they do, but that does not mean that all choices are equal, and that many choices don't have adverse affects, and also that some choices can't carry appropriate punishment.

 

[damnromulans]

what else am I going to do at work on a Monday when there are no classes to teach until next week?

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Yeah, that's a pretty much lame answer, but basically what I expected! Thanks though.

re: your questions...

Well, the way a lot of the Bible is phrased is pretty harsh and indiscriminately asshole-ish, such as the passage(s) you quoted. I don't see why a loving higher power would have to deliver such scathing words. Then again, I also don't understand a lot of why the Bible is written how it is (such as, if God is omniscient and can see into the future, why couldn't he see that so many people would misunderstand his words and, idk, deliver them a bit more clearly? Why be metaphorical if you want people to believe in you? Seems kind of dumb to me, but, then again, godless heathen speaking here )...

Along the same line of thinking; the Bible teaches the people who put all their faith in it to be judgmental and discriminating against various groups of people (hell, a lot of the Old Testament is misogynistic as fuck!). I don't see why this is necessarily a useful or faith-bolstering trait of Christianity. If anything, it's "false marketing" to say your religion is one full of mercy, pity and love when in reality, it blatantly is not.

 

[Einherjar86]

HEY GUYS! Noah got every wild land animal of each gender on a boat and SAVED them from the flood. OMFG!!! AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!

OH HEY GUYS! Did you know Moses split the seas?

OH HEY! JESUS CAN WALK ON WATER.

MARY HAD A VIRGIN BIRTH!!!!

OMFG OMFG OMFG! WOW!!!

But I'll be fairly honest with you, greek mythology is actually really interesting.

Oh yeah? Is it any more believable than the Judeo-Christian myths you just quite blatantly mocked?

Along the same line of thinking; the Bible teaches the people who put all their faith in it to be judgmental and discriminating against various groups of people (hell, a lot of the Old Testament is misogynistic as fuck!). I don't see why this is necessarily a useful or faith-bolstering trait of Christianity. If anything, it's "false marketing" to say your religion is one full of mercy, pity and love when in reality, it blatantly is not.

The Old Testament is the unmerciful, misogynistic text. The New Testament is a much more forgiving revision of faith than the Old Testament.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Nah, way sillier, but also MORE METAL!!

 

[Dak]

Yeah, that's a pretty much lame answer, but basically what I expected! Thanks though.

Sorry. I tried to be as complete as possible. Short version for actually how I live day to day. The laws in the US should be applied equally across the board (however, the military is an entirely different thing. There is discrimination for all sorts of reason in the military and for good reason). It's all about what will help complete the mission.

re: your questions...

Well, the way a lot of the Bible is phrased is pretty harsh and indiscriminately asshole-ish, such as the passage(s) you quoted. I don't see why a loving higher power would have to deliver such scathing words.

It's supposed to be a two way relationship, and you get your whole life to establish your end. The analogy used by the Bible for Jesus "return" is that his followers are a "bride". When a woman rejects a dude, there is no marriage. When someone rejects Jesus, there is no salvation. And rejection would include not following his instructions.
If you had a girlfriend who specifically did all the shit you hated, how long would it take for you to dump her? Even if you reeeeaaaally loved her, it wouldn't last forever.

Then again, I also don't understand a lot of why the Bible is written how it is (such as, if God is omniscient and can see into the future, why couldn't he see that so many people would misunderstand his words and, idk, deliver them a bit more clearly? Why be metaphorical if you want people to believe in you? Seems kind of dumb to me, but, then again, godless heathen speaking here )...

Proverbs 25:2

It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.

In any relationship, it takes time and effort to learn about the other person. It is an ongoing thing. It isn't supposed to be merely learning a list of facts for recital.

Along the same line of thinking; the Bible teaches the people who put all their faith in it to be judgmental and discriminating against various groups of people (hell, a lot of the Old Testament is misogynistic as fuck!).

Misogynistic? I don't think so, do you have some references?

I don't see why this is necessarily a useful or faith-bolstering trait of Christianity. If anything, it's "false marketing" to say your religion is one full of mercy, pity and love when in reality, it blatantly is not.

Well Christianity is full of so much false marketing and other things it's blatantly obvious. However, love, mercy, and pity are not part of the false marketing. It takes an extreme amount of love for YHWH to have allowed his Son to be killed (and for Jesus to allow it to be done to himself) at the hands of people he could have spoken instant death to, and to be killed to cover their sins if they accepted the covering.

The idea that we should be able to do whatever the hell we want and then expect acceptance is about as selfish as it gets (imo of course).

 

[Dak]

The Old Testament is the unmerciful, misogynistic text. The New Testament is the primary Christian text, and it internalizes sin. Whereas action is what used to condemn people to hell, now merely thinking about indecent action is sinful. The New Testament is a much more forgiving revision of faith than the Old Testament.

There is no difference in the teaching of the New Testament vs the Old Testament, other than that the things that were a picture of Jesus coming to die for sins were fulfilled.

Jesus kept every law in the OT (excepting the laws pertaining to the Levites), and didn't teach anything different.

 

[Einherjar86]

No, I think there is a difference, if you look at what Jesus teaches. He claims that even considering sin is sin. The Old Testament only teaches that acting sinfully is sin.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Why does it take love to let your son die? Pretty bizarre concept.

I'm still kind of interested to know why you feel you are somehow enabled to judge gay people (or rather, to judge their "gayness", as you'd claim you're doing; in reality, gay people ARE gay...sexual preference and lifestyle are, no matter how you slice them, a big part of an individual), especially considering you don't seem to understand them at all (case in point, you think gay men being in the same room as straight men in army barracks would incontrovertibly lead to gay men "ogling" straight men, which is kind of a huge generalization).

 

[Dak]

No, I think there is a difference, if you look at what Jesus teaches. He claims that even considering sin is sin. The Old Testament only teaches that acting sinfully is sin.

A lot is lost through translation into Greek and then into English, also, ignorance of the teachings in the OT is partially to blame.

The reference you are thinking of is Matthew 5:28

but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Adultery is sleeping with another person's spouse. A person's spouse belongs to them.

What is the 10th commandment? Exodus 20:17

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that [is] thy neighbour's."

All he did was reteach His Father's original word.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm without a Bible at the moment, and I'm not home for the weekend, but there are other examples. When I get home I'll try and find them.

 

[damnromulans]

How much denial of human nature before someone becomes a psychopath?

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

A lot is lost through translation into Greek and then into English, also, ignorance of the teachings in the OT is partially to blame.

The reference you are thinking of is Matthew 5:28



Adultery is sleeping with another person's spouse. A person's spouse belongs to them.

Well, you apparently disagree with God here, dude. Adultery is clearly not defined only as sleeping with another person's spouse according to the Bible and to the 10th Commandment.

 

[Dak]

I would argue psychopaths are those with inhuman nature, who do not deny it.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

So who are the ones with inhuman nature who do deny it? Religious nuts?

 

[Zephyrus]

Can you read the Greek, Dakryn? It's quite easy compared to the real stuff, such as Plato and Thucydides.

 

[damnromulans]

Uh, psychopaths are pretty much people who revert to hunter-gatherer status and embody the deepest darkest wickedest desires of human nature.

IMUHO (in my uninformed humble opinion) religion exists to curb the humanity in human nature by calling it "sin" or insisting that we move beyond it. Which in some cases is good - not murdering each other and fucking everyone in sight is of course a plus - but when children cry at night because they are worried about going to hell and there are nutters out there auto-flagellating in penance, perhaps it has gone too far.

 

[Dak]

Well, you apparently disagree with God here, dude. Adultery is clearly not defined only as sleeping with another person's spouse according to the Bible and to the 10th Commandment.

Deuteronomy
22:22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

Correction. Technically it is a guy sleeping with another man's wife. Women (excepting prostitutes/slaves) were not in a position to be chasing married men at the time.

 

[Dak]

Can you read the Greek, Dakryn? It's quite easy compared to the real stuff, such as Plato and Thucydides.

I am starting to dabble in Hebrew. There is less of a point in learning Greek, the majority of scripture is in Hebrew, to include some of the NT. All of the writers of the NT were Hebrew as well, so reading it from that standpoint makes much more sense.

Hebrew thought/language are entirely different from Greek thought/language.

 

[Dak]

but when children cry at night because they are worried about going to hell and there are nutters out there auto-flagellating in penance, perhaps it has gone too far.

I would agree.