Religion based intolerance...

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

I can't come up with a reasoned argument against that right now besides screaming THATS SO F***ING UNFAIR!!!!

Except that all you have to do is believe Christ. That's it. The whole thing. Just believe that Christ died for your sins and believe God will honor His word that for believing you get heaven. What could be simpler.

It really is merely an exercise of faith.

It's much easier to buy into the notion that there is a higher, but highly disinterested, being that created the world and is now off drinking guiness in the celestial pub. Because any divine being up there has no involvement with events down on earth. Writing off tragedies as "God's will" is a copout at best, or if we would steal for South Park, "God's sense of humor is different from you or I."

Following that, the notion that a greater being sits back idly but upon your death accepts you merely for believing in it is one of the least rational ones out there. It makes much more sense to live your own life, treat other people as well as possible, and try to have as few regrets as possible.

I respect anyone that can do that far more than a man of faith who spends considerable efforts attacking those outside their faith. And if the good book helps you in this life quest, more power to you.

[peregrinerose 0]

It is not in me to believe in the Bible, a text written with possible divine influence, but still written with the flawed words of flawed men. I can't choose to follow words that I know are by their very nature flawed. I also can't find it in me to believe in any one religion. God is something so vast no human mind could truly wrap around it so all that any of us see, if anything, is a little flicker of a glimpse. Like the blind men and the elephant, we all see something different, none truly right, none truly wrong. I see so much hate caused by religion, so much war and killing and evil at the root of religion... US in the Phillipenes, Manifest Destiny, WWII, the crusades, if I were to join a church, any church (Christian or otherwise), I would be tacetly giving my approval of such things, just by my presense. Morally, I can not do that. Arthur C. Clarke said that religion was invented by the devil to cloud our view of God. The more I read and experience, the more I tend to agree with that.

My ethical code, my morals, every fiber of my being is truly repulsed by the concept of following the Bible, the Quran, or any other work of man. To claim to believe in Jesus Christ would be a lie told out of fear, not a true belief in my inner soul, and I can't live a life as a liar, if I can't be true to myself first, how could I possibly be true to any deity?

It took many years of study, of soulsearching and introspection to determine this. I was raised in the Catholic church, in college was very active in the presbyterian church. I led Bible studies, I led 4th and 5th grade youth groups, but the more I did it, the more I realized that I was putting on a show, that I wasn't truly believing in what I taught, only doing so because that was how I was raised and the fear of believing differently kept me from being honest with myself.

I know in my heart that my way to God is not in a church full of hypocrasy or a Bible of words so dilute from translation, time, and the flawed fingers of the men who initially wrote them. To say otherwise would be untrue. I connect most with a great spirit, or deity, or god, or oneness, or whatever you want to call it, when I am alone, outdoors, listening to the whisper of the wind and the rustle of the trees or watching a hawk in flight or any other number of things around me. I don't know if it is God or just string theory that is tying us all together that I am perceiving, but that is what I do believe in.

Am I going to hell for my beliefs? Maybe, but I would just as surely go to hell for lying about the very fundamental things that make me who I am and living that lie. It is a catch 22, so I choose to believe in my heart.

I read all these words, back and forth, and wonder why some people are so intent on changing another man's heart or soul. No matter what you believe (or disbelieve), that is fundamental part of who you are and can not be changed by logic or arguement or anything else, only by experience and introspection, a journy of the individual soul, not a stampede of the masses.

Jen

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

[pajarito 0]

Quote

of course the argument is about the benefits. if it were simply about the commitment, well, that's already there. many churches perform gay weddings. however, to have the same benefits, the union must be recognized by the government.

The state has an obligation to protect and endorse the family, which is rooted in marriage. It is the foundational institution of our culture and its stability is necessary for our culture to be healthy and flourish. The government endorses and promotes it by giving benefits and entitlements to those who can legitimately enter into such a union. They are right in doing so and they are also right in denying it to those who cannot. It is the government’s responsibility. Homosexual couples are a completely different animal than heterosexual couples. It may be all about benefits to some but that doesn’t necessitate change.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

For many gays, it is exactly about recognition and equal rights. Some are even Christian and have pastors willing to marry them, if the law permitted.

That might mean something if it was an “equal right” issue.

Quote

But others would be settle for a "separate but equal" civil union so long as the same benefits would apply. I can't say what the numbers are in each category.

Same-sex couples are not legitimate in the context of marriage and therefore would not be entitled to the same rights/privileges that are awarded to legitimate married couples.

Quote

As for the list - spacing is the most effective way to delineate separate items in a list. Bullets would be another method.

Thanks for the definition. I was really confused on the whole line-spacing – bullet issue concerning lists, their purpose, and when each would be appropriate to use.

[pajarito 0]

I'm truly sorry you feel that way but I respect your beliefs. It sounds like you've thought it through.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

It's much easier to buy into the notion that there is a higher, but highly disinterested, being that created the world and is now off drinking guiness in the celestial pub. Because any divine being up there has no involvement with events down on earth. Writing off tragedies as "God's will" is a copout at best, or if we would steal for South Park, "God's sense of humor is different from you or I."

Define tragedies. Bad things that people do or natural disasters.

Quote

Following that, the notion that a greater being sits back idly but upon your death accepts you merely for believing in it is one of the least rational ones out there. It makes much more sense to live your own life, treat other people as well as possible, and try to have as few regrets as possible.

Sounds like you haven’t absorbed everything that’s involved. It’s not as simple as you make it out to be.

I respect anyone that can do that far more than a man of faith who spends considerable efforts attacking those outside their faith. And if the good book helps you in this life quest, more power to you.

I don’t mean to “attack” anyone. Sorry if you took it that way.

[billvon 2,996]

>Like I said, what they do is their own business. Just like what I do is my own business.

I might believe you if you were not a proponent of removing rights from people who have nothing to do with you. Would you be OK with a law that said you could not have more than two kids because someone else thought that was a bad thing for society? Even if they had the best interests of the world at heart? I suspect such a law would bother you because it would tell you what you could and couldn't do with your wife. Gays have similar feelings, believe it or not. They just want to be left alone to live their lives, any way they choose, in the same way you do. They become upset when you try to rip apart their marriages, or deny them the same rights you have. And I can understand that.

[jakee 1,497]

Quote

Sounds like you haven’t absorbed everything that’s involved. It’s not as simple as you make it out to be.

If we assume that you are right then yes, it is more complicated than that.
If we assume that either god does not exist or, like kelpdiver said just lazes around in the pub (great image) rather than actually caring then it really is that simple. Live life and have no regrets, fantastic.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Define tragedies. Bad things that people do or natural disasters.

Someone dying of cancer in their 20s or 30s.
An infant being drowned by her mother.
Or for South Park, 13 people at the farmer's market being run down by a 75 year old woman looking for the Country Kitchen restaurant.

These events are not part of "God's plan." If one argues so, they obey a sick deity. At best we're left to our own devices, with the occasional (and rare) intervention that is labeled a miracle. More likely, life comes down in part to luck, and this notion is hard for many people to live it. Much easier to turn luck and nature into a God, esp if you want the peasants to stay subservient.

Quote

Sounds like you haven’t absorbed everything that’s involved. It’s not as simple as you make it out to be.

It's all I need to be comfortable with my existence. My need for religion is satisfied.

Quote

I don’t mean to “attack” anyone. Sorry if you took it that way.

That was not a reference to you. It's directed at churches that have actively worked to keep gays from pursuing their own happiness. It's one thing to welcome people into your fold, or to accept that they wish a different way. It's entirely different to spend your time on Earth trying to force others to your way. The Mormon Church spent millions in support of Prop 22 in California.
And while you've made claims that marriage needs protection, you still have shown that a threat exists.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

I might believe you if you were not a proponent of removing rights from people who have nothing to do with you. Would you be OK with a law that said you could not have more than two kids because someone else thought that was a bad thing for society? Even if they had the best interests of the world at heart? I suspect such a law would bother you because it would tell you what you could and couldn't do with your wife. Gays have similar feelings, believe it or not. They just want to be left alone to live their lives, any way they choose, in the same way you do. They become upset when you try to rip apart their marriages, or deny them the same rights you have. And I can understand that.

No one is saying what homosexuals can and can’t do with their partners just like no one is saying that my wife and I can only have 2 children. Marriage, however, is its own entity and it exists as the union of one man and one woman for the purpose of procreation, rearing children, companionship, and pleasure. Homosexual couples are illegitimate in that context. If you’re a proponent of blurring the definition of marriage and allowing same-sex couples, how would you feel about awarding the same to polygamists, incestuous couples, or even a man who wanted to marry his horse? Would they be “discriminated” against for the same reasons? They wouldn’t be hurting anybody else and, according to you and others, it wouldn’t affect my heterosexual marriage in the slightest. I’m sure they also “just want to be left alone to live their lives, any way they choose, in the same way” I do. I’m sure “they become upset when you try to rip apart their marriages, or deny them the same rights” I have as a married person also. You can’t say that there aren’t people like that out there.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

If we assume that you are right then yes, it is more complicated than that.
If we assume that either god does not exist or, like kelpdiver said just lazes around in the pub (great image) rather than actually caring then it really is that simple. Live life and have no regrets, fantastic.

I don’t know what to say to that other than the statement sounds like someone on a raft drifting in the middle of the ocean with no idea where he is or where he’s going. I accept that you don’t agree and respect your opinion. Good luck!

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Define tragedies. Bad things that people do or natural disasters.

Quote

Someone dying of cancer in their 20s or 30s.
An infant being drowned by her mother.
Or for South Park, 13 people at the farmer's market being run down by a 75 year old woman looking for the Country Kitchen restaurant.

These events are not part of "God's plan." If one argues so, they obey a sick deity. At best we're left to our own devices, with the occasional (and rare) intervention that is labeled a miracle. More likely, life comes down in part to luck, and this notion is hard for many people to live it. Much easier to turn luck and nature into a God, esp if you want the peasants to stay subservient.

A very close friend of mine (who is my Dad’s age) served as a Green Beret in SOG during the Vietnam War. I also served with him much later for a short period of time. He’s always been a very close friend of the family as well as a fellow soldier who I would step out in front of a truck for. He came back from Vietnam almost like an animal. He was a very high-strung and intense individual. It’s hard to describe him in words. He had a skydiving accident at the WFC in Quincy in 95. He had a compound fracture of a bone in his leg which stuck in the mud. They put it back together but infection set in and the bone at the break became necrotic. They had to go back in, cut off part of the bone (making him shorter), and kept him in a HALO brace for I can’t remember how long. Seemed like years. They kept the bone apart and it had to gradually grow back together. He also had a big rod stuck through his bone to keep it straight. He went from being one of the most outgoing persons I knew to being wheelchair bound, depressed, and miserable. He lost his athleticism and most of his identity really. Years later, he had the rod taken out of his bone which was voluntary and not necessary. It was just giving him some pain that he wanted to get rid of. Taking the rod out opened a pathway for more infection and he got really sick. It took him a very long time to recover from that. Many years after the accident and I don’t know how many operations later, he has mellowed out considerably, is a much better Dad to his kids, and appreciates more of what’s important in life. Granted that this is not a tragic story of a mother drowning her kids but I wanted to make a point with a personal experience of mine. Sometimes God uses bad things that happen to teach us humility, love, sacrifice, and to bring peace. The purpose may be to bring those things to others who are involved as well. There is always a purpose, though. Even if we can’t see it.

Quote

It's all I need to be comfortable with my existence. My need for religion is satisfied.

Like I’ve said before to others, I respect your beliefs.

Quote

That was not a reference to you. It's directed at churches that have actively worked to keep gays from pursuing their own happiness. It's one thing to welcome people into your fold, or to accept that they wish a different way. It's entirely different to spend your time on Earth trying to force others to your way. The Mormon Church spent millions in support of Prop 22 in California.
And while you've made claims that marriage needs protection, you still have shown that a threat exists.

I don’t believe in turning someone away just because they might be homosexual. Homosexuality is a sin just like any other sin. However, if that person continues to openly live in that lifestyle and, therefore, in sin, he/she should be instructed that what they’re doing is wrong by fellow believers and the church, if necessary. If they continue to live in sin, it is right to turn them away. That can be backed up biblically. I also do not believe that a person who is openly living as a homosexual can be effective in a position of authority in the church. Therefore, I do not believe that he/she should be allowed to hold a position of authority in the church. Again, that goes for anyone openly living in a sinful lifestyle (i.e. iv drug user) and not just homosexuals.

[3ringheathen 0]

Quote

It seems to me that there are an awful lot of people that were raised Catholic that later reject faith. Anyway, just a thought.

1) There are an awful lot of Catholics out there.
2) Catholic schools tend to be very good overall. I'm willing to bet that, on average, Catholic school students score higher on tests that are not related to religion than their counterparts at other religiously based educational institutions.
So aside from the indoctrination, students still learn basic logic, and critical thinking skills. It's not surprising that more Catholics dare to question the status quo and reject religion.

Quote

I say that God has to make the first move.

Quote

Thousands of years before Jesus,
Krishna was referred to as the son of god, and was part of a trinity. He was sent from heaven to earth in human form. At birth he was visited by wisemen that followed a star.

Even more intriguing are the parallels between Horus and Jesus:
Horus was born in human form during the winter solstice (late December), his virgin mother's name?
Meri.

Herut attempted to kill Horus. Herod attempted to kill Jesus.

Horus and Jesus were both baptised at 30 years of age. The baptiser in each story was later beheaded.
Thousands of years before Christ, Horus was said to have walked on water, cured the blind, healed lepers, and had 12 disciples.
To top it all off, Horus was crucified with two thieves, buried in a tomb, and resurected 3 days later.

There's actually quite a bit more, but if the above doesn't get your attention, nothing will.
Details

I would agree with you aside from the fact that there were many others who actually saw what happened and recorded what they saw. None of the other sources you mentioned have the specificities that the Bible has or can credibly make those claims of truth. As for ancient works, it is in a class of its own.


Yes, it's in a class of it's own.
No othe ancient work has so many blatant instances of plagiarism in it.

Next you'll be telling me that Vanilla Ice never listened to David Bowie.
Right....
de dune dune dune de dune dune...

Quote

So you accept information confirmed by various different people until the events that they’re describing as happened exceed your level of understanding?

No, not at all. I tentatively accept such claims, because there's nothing unbelievable about them.
If the same people were telling me that someone had landed a wingsuit, I'd be pretty skeptical, no matter how emphatic they were.

Quote

I’ll bet he didn’t have the credible sources or the historical evidence that the Bible has.

There's evidence of some of the mundane things mentioned in the bible, but there is no historical evidence for the remarkable claims in the bible!

Give me one specific claim of a miraculous nature, and a sample of the "evidence".
We'll go from there.

Quote

There are differences in denomination/tradition/ceremony but to all Bible teaching Christian groups (excluding groups that claim Christianity but are not like Jehovah’s Witness/Mormons, etc), there is a central theme.

[3ringheathen 0]

As it is written “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.” Romans 3:10-12

Yet another example of biblical errancy.
-Josh

If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me*
*Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.

[3ringheathen 0]

Referring to a non believer, Pajarito wrote: "Good luck with your plan. You'd better be right."

This is called Pascals wager, and it's flawed, too.

For to become a Christian just in case, is neither faith, nor reason.

-Josh

If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me*
*Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.

[3ringheathen 0]

Quote

Quote

Such people most certainly do exist. I didn't say anything about a perfect person, someone without sin. I simply described a basically decent person that doesn't believe in God.

The question was: How could a just, all knowing, loving god punish such a person? Especially if people with decidedly poorer track records in life are rewarded simply because they believe in God?
It's absurd.

Quote

I think this needs to be quoted again for clarity:

You didn't need to repost it, I got that the first time, and it doesn't make any more sense this time around.
You all but admit that it doesn't make sense when you write:
"I agree. It is beyond my human comprehension also."

And yet you continue to have faith. That my friend, is the blind faith we're talking about.

You are shutting your eyes to that which you don't understand.

The question is Why?
-Josh

If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me*
*Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.

• Quote

[3ringheathen 0]

Quote

How about since God is God he owes no explanation for what you do not understand?

Your hypothetical god owes us nothing, but if he created us, he gave us the ability to think, reason, and question.
Surely he wouldn't be upset if we used those gifts?

Quote

How about if you choose to disbelieve then no possible explanation will satisfy you?

How about simply choosing to think about it, and letting the logic take us where it may?

Again, we were born with the gift to think and question. Were we not intended to use it?
What sort of cruel joke is that?

Quote

You have made up your mind and every possible or conceivable piece of evidence will be lost on you.

Are you talking about Christians now?

Quote

In fact when Moses asked who He was, God said two words. "I Am." So even one of God's chosen got very few answers to his questions. Moses was however wise enough to understand that God was God.

Hey, if God appeared to me in the form of a burning bush and spoke, maybe I'd believe too.
The thing is, he's been strangely silent for some 2000 years!

Quote

He was wise enough to understand that Whoever created the universe had every right to run it His way.

I see. That explains birth defects, the Platypus, and Michael Jackson.

Quote

He owes me nothing. I will serve Him because I owe Him.

Hey:
I don't have any proof either, but you owe me $10,000.
Pay up or suffer the consequences!
-Josh

If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me*
*Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.

[3ringheathen 0]

Quote

My ideal is that anyone that wants to give the rights currently associated with marriage to another should be permitted to do so, no matter what.

I agree 100%, but I think it's important to emphasise that it's a double edged sword:

Along with the rights associated with marriage come equally serious responsiblities.
-Josh

If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me*
*Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.

[3ringheathen 0]

Quote

The Treaty of Tripoli, passed by the U.S. Senate in 1797, read in part: "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." The treaty was written during the Washington administration, and sent to the Senate during the Adams administration. It was read aloud to the Senate, and each Senator received a printed copy. This was the 339th time that a recorded vote was required by the Senate, but only the third time a vote was unanimous (the next time was to honor George Washington). There is no record of any debate or dissension on the treaty. It was reprinted in full in three newspapers - two in Philadelphia, one in New York City. There is no record of public outcry or complaint in subsequent editions of the papers.

Read this one again. Very interesting.

Some of our founding fathers were Christian. Some were deists (believed in some sort of more abstract god), I'm sure some held other beliefs altogether.

What they clearly agreed upon was that no religion, even their own, needed or deserved the endorsement of government.
-Josh

If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me*
*Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.

[3ringheathen 0]

I don’t know what to say to that other than the statement sounds like someone on a raft drifting in the middle of the ocean with no idea where he is or where he’s going. I accept that you don’t agree and respect your opinion. Good luck!

[3ringheathen 0]

Quote

The state has an obligation to protect and endorse the family, which is rooted in marriage. It is the foundational institution of our culture and its stability is necessary for our culture to be healthy and flourish.

Upon what do you base these claims?
I always kind of thought the primary goal of the state was to protect each individuals right to swing his arm as long as it doesn't strike anyone else's nose.
-Josh

If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me*
*Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

The state has an obligation to protect and endorse the family...

I do not want the state having anything to do with my family life. The state can't even balance it's own budget. It has no place interfering in my (or any one else's) family life.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[3ringheathen 0]

Quote

...procreation, rearing children, companionship, and pleasure. Homosexual couples are illegitimate in that context.

An awful lot of heterosexual couples are also illegitimate by the same reasoning.
Maybe we should draft a constitutional amendment requiring couples to breed within 5 years of getting married?

Quote

If you’re a proponent of blurring the definition of marriage and allowing same-sex couples, how would you feel about awarding the same to polygamists, incestuous couples, or even a man who wanted to marry his horse?

Each of these presents unique problems to society insofar as how best to regulate (or not) and provide equal treatment under the law.
In an ideal world polygamy amongst consentual adults probably ought to be legal, even if you and I can't fathom why someone would want to enter into such a relationship. It'd certainly present some problems relating to division of property in the event of death, divorce, and health insurance.


As for incest, it's held in disdain for reasons that are broader and deeper than any specific religion.
It usually occurs between an adult and children, as such it's wrong for reasons that span every religion and culture I'm familiar with. Show me an adult incestuous couple, and we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
As for a man marrying his horse, the day a horse can hold a job, provide an income, insurance and so forth to it's husband or wife, I say go for it!
-Josh

If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me*
*Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

And the books people write in the name of god doesn't make those books "of God"?

You're right. Just because someone writes a book about God doesn't necessarily make that book accurate about God. The entire collection of books, which is The Christian Bible however, was written over the period of about 1,500 years, by people in different places, of different education levels, from different cultures, and on 3 different continents. Some of the New Testament books were written well within 50 years of when the actual events occurred. Some, quite possibly, were written within the lifetimes of eye witnesses to the events. In comparison to most historical documents we have today, this time period is considered negligible by some historians. The books were written by more than 40 different people who came from different backgrounds. Hundreds of topics are discussed. It is claimed in the Bible that it, as a whole, was written by man with divine inspiration from God. In short, it claims to be the written word of God. This claim is supported by its organization and content. Even if you say that the books were "hand picked" to form the canon, all it really takes is to read just one of the gospels. The entire Bible fits together perfectly and flows from beginning to end.

Yeah, sure, it fits together perfectly except for all the parts I've heard (and I'm admitting I have not read the bible) contradict each other. I do know about the little, er, problem it has explaining where the rest of the population came from if not as direct descendents of Adam and Eve (which would make a whole lot of people incestuous).

Um, so if I wrote a book about life on earth and said that I wrote it with the divine inspiration of god, how do you propose to prove that I am not full of shit? What makes these thousands-of-years-ago, uninterrogatable people who supposedly wrote "god's word" any more credible than any whacko today who claims god talks to him?

How will we ever know if a NEW new testament is written? I could write it tomorrow, claim god guided my hand, and NO ONE would believe me except for maybe people whom you would call crackpots! In other words, the time for believing that anything biblical happens anymore is over. There are, at any moment, thousands of insane people who claim to be Jesus Christ. And yet, you believe thatpeople from thousands of years ago, whom you cannot interview or cross-examine for credibility, were somehow different at the time from any lunatic today who claims to be Jesus, or otherwise divinely inspired.

This double standard is part of what destroys the credibility of religion.

-
There is much fulfilled prophesy from the beginning to the end. It supports itself well to the scrutiny that it is not necessarily “of God” and just something conjured up by man.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

I'm truly sorry you feel that way but I respect your beliefs. It sounds like you've thought it through.

Boy, talk about arrogance! You're "sorry she feels that way?"

Rose, you might as well read that to mean:

"Rose, too bad you're wrong in your beliefs and you're going to hell for not believing in my bible and my religion and my god and my jesus. Oh, the poor misguided nonbelievers."

The ultimate in condescension. Unreal how pajarito does not see it.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"