Blog of the Week: My Feelings on Christianity/the bible

[Melomaniacal]

On the topic of sexuality being genetic...

Is love genetic? Is there a love gene? Is there a heterosexual gene?
All serious questions, because if there are, I'm very much so unaware.

Sometimes I wonder why I bother reading threads like these when it doesn't change that fact that I'm going to be treated less then a person for the people I love.

The way I see it, if you can change even one persons opinion, it was worth the effort.

Yes. At least it isn't intelectually dishonest.

"Intellectually."
lolirony

 

[pyrotek7x7]

Ah yes, of course. It's the glamor and attention that makes people be gay. I know all my gay friends would say that's the reason. I'm sure they didn't care about being treated as second-class citizens and being denied basic human rights in 40+ states. They didn't mind the risks that come with being gay. The stereotyping and hate-mongering against gays doesn't make them angry at all. Oh, and they of course wanted to risk being abused or killed just for being gay and out. /sarcasm

Seriously though, no. Just no. I've never met anyone who's chosen to be gay. I've met people who chose to embrace their homosexuality rather than suppress it, and people who weren't sure where they stood for a while. Do you actually know of anyone who's ever chosen to be gay because of the glamor? And would you happen to know how they feel about that choice today. There are far better and safer ways of getting attention. I'm sorry, but I refuse to accept your theory unless you have actual examples. Also, you suggest that there are good reasons to choose to be gay. Care to enlighten us? And don't say it's for the attention unless you've got examples.

It's apparent that we live in different parts of the world. Life isn't like that everywhere, and I know a handful of gay people who are entirely accepted; even favored (like the fun guy at a party) around most. Sure, a few people are going to discriminate, but that happens to everyone. I'm really skinny, and I'm made fun of all the time for it. People are jerks, that's just how it is.

But again, I don't believe homosexuality is a choice; just that if it were, there are some scenarios when it would seem like a good course of action for some people, most likely subconsciously.

 

[SuperBowser]

"Intellectually."
lolirony

booooo i hate typos. i'm going to go sulk now.

 

[Melomaniacal]

booooo i hate typos. i'm going to go sulk now.

Inconvenient typos are the worst.
They always seem to come at the worst times.

 

[GreenKirby]

I been meaning to ask this. What's koth? Seriously?

On topic: Does anyone else find it funny that Evangelicals are practically modern day Pharisees

 

[Firus]

I been meaning to ask this. What's koth? Seriously?

KOTH was a member of the boards, kingdomofthehearts_snucas. We call him "Koth" because he began to end all of his posts in "-KOTH" after a certain point.

It can also be used to mean an epic liar.

The story behind it is in this thread.

Or if you're too lazy to read all of the pages of that thread (even though it's hella lulzy), you can just refer to this lovely picture summing up the event, courtesy (once again) Frown.

On topic: Does anyone else find it funny that Evangelicals are practically modern day Pharisees

And on-topic:

Yes, I do...I basically find a lot of things in regards to beliefs funny. Hypocricy and elitism all over the place.

 

[Ganonsburg]

I been meaning to ask this. What's koth? Seriously?

On topic: Does anyone else find it funny that Evangelicals are practically modern day Pharisees

I think you mean Catholics. Granted, every denomination is bad at some point (lol, nobody's perfect, that's the point), but Catholics really take it away when it comes down to hypocrisy (they follow traditions that are discouraged by the Bible, the very same Bible that they read).

Also, on perfect pitch:

I forgot to mention that everyone has perfect pitch. Or did. Babies have perfect pitch (and animals. Birds and dogs are notorious for it). What happens is that as you grow, most people use it less and less, and thus the trait becomes obsolete. However, by using it, many people are able to retain the ability (your body isn't going to throw away an ability it's still using). People who have been trained by ear are 15 more times likely to retain perfect pitch. And even when you're older, you can still regain it through practice, even with no family history of perfect pitch. Saying it's genetic is like saying M2K's Brawl skill is genetic. Practice=/=biology

Many children stay within their comfort zones. Perhaps a child unwilling to hang out with the other sex because they're shy or uncomfortable or scared might never drop that trait, and thus stay around only members of the same sex. Just a theory, albeit poorly thought out and rushed. Still, food for thought.

 

[Palpi]

Why would someone choose to be attracted to the same sex? Why would you choose to not be able to create offspring? It is absurd to think that "homos" choose to be homosexual.

Being homosexual is not a choice. It is not a cry for help or attention. Stop using the bible, or production of offspring as a legitimate proof of why being gay is wrong or a choice, since that is biased opinion.

 

[Reaver197]

On the topic of sexuality being genetic...

Is love genetic? Is there a love gene? Is there a heterosexual gene?
All serious questions, because if there are, I'm very much so unaware.

Technically, yes, there are "love" genes of sorts. When your brain experiences emotional states, certain concoctions of hormones flood through it, stimulating it, and activating the different areas in different ways. These hormones are proteins that need to be manufactured from DNA and, thus, certain genes are in charge of the production of them.

But, it's so much more complicated than just that. How your brain responds to it, how it was developed in the first place, environmental pressures, etc. etc. It quickly becomes really difficult to determine if there really is any single gene or factor that predominates above all else.

As for homosexuality versus heterosexuality, I think I remember one possible factor was the levels of estrogen and testosterone that a fetus is exposed to during pregnancy. But, still, as said before, it's more complicated than just how much hormones you were exposed to.

Ah, I was pretty far off in my recollection of that article I read about perfect pitch. However, from what I'm now reading about the role of nature vs nurture in the development of and/or the retention of perfect pitch has no conclusive evidence to point to support either side.

 

[BSP]

Does anyone else find it kinda difficult to respond to the stuff in this thread? It was interesting to read and it got me thinking...

 

[Man of Popsicle]

Stop using production of offspring as a legitimate proof of why being gay is wrong or a choice, since that is biased opinion.

Gays can't have babies.
100% biased opinion right there.

 

[Melomaniacal]

Technically, yes, there are "love" genes of sorts. When your brain experiences emotional states, certain concoctions of hormones flood through it, stimulating it, and activating the different areas in different ways. These hormones are proteins that need to be manufactured from DNA and, thus, certain genes are in charge of the production of them.

But, it's so much more complicated than just that. How your brain responds to it, how it was developed in the first place, environmental pressures, etc. etc. It quickly becomes really difficult to determine if there really is any single gene or factor that predominates above all else.

As for homosexuality versus heterosexuality, I think I remember one possible factor was the levels of estrogen and testosterone that a fetus is exposed to during pregnancy. But, still, as said before, it's more complicated than just how much hormones you were exposed to.

Ah, I was pretty far off in my recollection of that article I read about perfect pitch. However, from what I'm now reading about the role of nature vs nurture in the development of and/or the retention of perfect pitch has no conclusive evidence to point to support either side.

Aren't these emotional states and brain activities exhibited in homosexuals as well? Of course they are. Thus, the whole "there is no homosexual gene" argument is essentially saying that homosexuals cannot feel love? No, that's wrong.

My wording is a little off, but I'm running on no food and three hours of sleep, so I can't really think straight right now, haha. Hopefully you get my point.

 

[mountain_tiger]

Gays can't have babies.
100% biased opinion right there.

Technically they could still have babies by being intimate with a girl, even if they don't fancy her. Now, if you're talking about a gay couple together, that isn't an opinion. That's fact.

Also, another thing, you do not choose to be gay. Period. Take me, for example. I'm bisexual, but if I got to choose my sexuality, I would choose to be straight without any hesitation. Being beaten up because you like people of your own sex is NOT fun. Why would anyone choose that? (Well, unelss they're a masochist, but most gays aren't...)

On the religion aspect of this blog, here's something I can't help but wonder. Why would God have made it so that we need to eat, sleep, breathe etc.? From the Bible, we can deduce that he wants us to worship him. Surely if that's true, he should have made it so that we didn't need to do those things so that we could spend more time worshipping him and doing good things for other people? Plus it causes suffering in its own right, what with starvation and the like?

 

[Melomaniacal]

Well, we aren't made to be perfect. We all inherit sin etc, etc. That is consistent amongst many, many creation myths.

Which brings up more discussion. I'm no expert on the subject, but how is it that so many creation myths (Greek, Egyptian, Mayan) have so many parallels?
If the Greek creation myth is just that - a myth - can Christianity or other current religions someday become the same?

 

[Reaver197]

Aren't these emotional states and brain activities exhibited in homosexuals as well? Of course they are. Thus, the whole "there is no homosexual gene" argument is essentially saying that homosexuals cannot feel love? No, that's wrong.

My wording is a little off, but I'm running on no food and three hours of sleep, so I can't really think straight right now, haha. Hopefully you get my point.

I think you misread or misinterpreted what I said. These hormones and emotional states apply to everyone with a functional brain, homosexual or heterosexual. The difference is what triggers these hormones to be released and to what intensity.

I'm pretty sure only the Abrahamic religions have the idea of "inherited sin" in them.

Also, the reason why a lot of religions have parallels, particularly the ones you mentioned, is because most religions are based of previous ones. They inherit similar ideas and concepts from another one. Like, for example, Christmas or the idea of virgin births.

 

[Melomaniacal]

I think you misread or misinterpreted what I said. These hormones and emotional states apply to everyone with a functional brain, homosexual or heterosexual. The difference is what triggers these hormones to be released and to what intensity.

I'm pretty sure only the Abrahamic religions have the idea of "inherited sin" in them.

Also, the reason why a lot of religions have parallels, particularly the ones you mentioned, is because most religions are based of previous ones. They inherit similar ideas and concepts from another one. Like, for example, Christmas or the idea of virgin births.

Right, I understand. What I'm saying is that homosexuals will get these emotionally states to the same gender, where heterosexuals get it towards the opposite gender (at least to a greater extent for both cases). So, if you say that there is no homosexual "gene" and that there's no "proof," you're essentially saying that homosexuals cannot feel love towards the same gender, which is not true. Also, I cannot choose when these emotions occur, really. If I'm not romantically attracted to males, I can't force my brain to change so I do.

I didn't mean for the "inherited sin" part to be included. That's just poor typing on my part, my bad. Just the "we are not made to be perfect" part.

That to me sounds like it's just building on the myths, creating a bigger myth. If we "know" that Greek mythology is nothing more than myths, and other religions - including Christianity - built upon these myths, can't we assume that it is just more stories and myths?

 

[professor mgw]

Gay and lesbians, when it comes to the bible on that subject, it all depends on if we listen to god or not. Thats your choice, if you feel the being that created everyone doesn't deserve to be obeyed because of the urge to be with the opposite sex, thats that persons personal choice.

So god gives everyone a choice,

Disobey him and disregard his laws,

or show appreciation for creating the human race and all the things that we enjoy. Is that feeling more important than listening to god?

Choice people, you can justify being gay or lesbian is okay according to human standards not gods, now who's do you think is more important?

 

[Reaver197]

What are you even trying to argue? That being a gay or lesbian makes god feel bad for not obeying him for making you? Also, the bible is also a fairly poor guide on moral decisions. According to it, we should also kill children for cursing at their parents and for working on Saturdays. Not something I'm sure many people would be inclined to "obeying".

Also, Melomaniacal, I'm just purely talking about the biological aspect of emotions in the brain. I never mentioned or talked about whether there is a "homosexual" gene, or even what these emotions are being activated by. Just the emotion in of itself. I don't know where you're getting the idea that I'm saying that homosexuals can't feel love.

 

[Melomaniacal]

Also, Melomaniacal, I'm just purely talking about the biological aspect of emotions in the brain. I never mentioned or talked about whether there is a "homosexual" gene, or even what these emotions are being activated by. Just the emotion in of itself. I don't know where you're getting the idea that I'm saying that homosexuals can't feel love.

First off, I'm not saying that you think homosexuals cannot feel love. I was using what you said against someone else.
You're not getting what I'm saying, and I'm terrible at explaining some things.

Basically, one person says homosexuality is a choice. I say that the "biological aspect of emotion in the brain" is pretty much involuntary. In other words, I can't chose for my brain to be sexually or romantically attracted to males.

Another person basically said that it's either a choice, or it's genetic. So, going on what I said before, given those two options, it's clearly genetic.

And you said that there is a "love" gene of sorts. I'm saying that this gene can act towards males or females, and to say that there is no gay gene is essentially saying there is no "love" gene in homosexuals.

Again, I'm terrible at explaining some of my thoughts. I make a lot of connections and logic in my head that I sometimes have a difficult time explaining, so I may be unclear. But... yeah, you aren't getting what I'm trying to say, haha. No offense.

 

[Reaver197]

First off, I'm not saying that you think homosexuals cannot feel love. I was using what you said against someone else.
You're not getting what I'm saying, and I'm terrible at explaining some things.

Basically, one person says homosexuality is a choice. I say that the "biological aspect of emotion in the brain" is pretty much involuntary. In other words, I can't chose for my brain to be sexually or romantically attracted to males.

Another person basically said that it's either a choice, or it's genetic. So, going on what I said before, given those two options, it's clearly genetic.

And you said that there is a "love" gene of sorts. I'm saying that this gene can act towards males or females, and to say that there is no gay gene is essentially saying there is no "love" gene in homosexuals.

Again, I'm terrible at explaining some of my thoughts. I make a lot of connections and logic in my head that I sometimes have a difficult time explaining, so I may be unclear. But... yeah, you aren't getting what I'm trying to say, haha. No offense.

I said there is technically a "love" gene only in the respect that there is a gene responsible for the production of the proteins necessary for the hormones and the operation of the brain. However, the triggering and actual use of the hormone goes far beyond the influence and activity of a single gene (and simply genetic factors as well), that it really is not a practical or feasible picture to imagine there is a single gene responsible for whether you love or not (much less deciding what you love).

Also, I don't know why you keep saying "to say there is no gay gene". I believe I never said or implied anything of the sort, so I was being thrown off by that. But, nonetheless, I shall try to respond to it.

I am no expert on this, but from what I have read and gathered, there are physiological differences between the brains of "straight" people and "gay" people. Such differences are beyond the scope of being controlled by a singular gene or factor. There may or may not be a gene that, if present and activated, can lead a person to being gay rather than not, but if there is, I am not aware of it. Rather, it seems to be a multitude of factors, both contingent on environmental pressures and exposure, to fetal development, to genetics.

I hope this clears it up some.

 

[Melomaniacal]

I said there is technically a "love" gene only in the respect that there is a gene responsible for the production of the proteins necessary for the hormones and the operation of the brain. However, the triggering and actual use of the hormone goes far beyond the influence and activity of a single gene (and simply genetic factors as well), that it really is not a practical or feasible picture to imagine there is a single gene responsible for whether you love or not (much less deciding what you love).

Also, I don't know why you keep saying "to say there is no gay gene". I believe I never said or implied anything of the sort, so I was being thrown off by that. But, nonetheless, I shall try to respond to it.

I am no expert on this, but from what I have read and gathered, there are physiological differences between the brains of "straight" people and "gay" people. Such differences are beyond the scope of being controlled by a singular gene or factor. There may or may not be a gene that, if present and activated, can lead a person to being gay rather than not, but if there is, I am not aware of it. Rather, it seems to be a multitude of factors, both contingent on environmental pressures and exposure, to fetal development, to genetics.

I hope this clears it up some.

I very much so understand that. My points still stand.

I've already said, it's a reply to what someone else said, not what you said. I'm using what you said to help reply to something else. I did not, and am not saying that you believe there is no gay gene. I don't know how I can make that more clear, haha.

Again, I never said that you believe there is no gay gene. I am still not saying that. I've explained that before.

 

[Reaver197]

I very much so understand that. My points still stand.

I've already said, it's a reply to what someone else said, not what you said. I'm using what you said to help reply to something else. I did not, and am not saying that you believe there is no gay gene. I don't know how I can make that more clear, haha.

Again, I never said that you believe there is no gay gene. I am still not saying that. I've explained that before.

Ahh, balls, I sucked hardcore at getting what you were trying to say. Probably cause I shouldn't be talking on a message board with little sleep. My bad. I thought you had been trying to critique something I had said this whole time.

Failzorz.

 

[Melomaniacal]

Ahh, balls, I sucked hardcore at getting what you were trying to say. Probably cause I shouldn't be talking on a message board with little sleep. My bad. I thought you had been trying to critique something I had said this whole time.

Failzorz.

No, it's all good. I could have done a much better job explaining what I was... explaining. Or something.
See, I still suck at it.

 

[mountain_tiger]

I realise that the following post may be very controversial, but I feel the need to say it nonetheless.

Personally, I think that many people believe because it gives them a reason to live, or comfort when bad things happen. Let's think about this with a practical example. Imagine that your home suddenly got destrooyed in a giant hurricane, destorying everything you owned. You'd obviously be extremely upset, and for many people they'd have to turn to God to stop themselves suffering a mental breakdown or something of that caliber. Likewise, if someone close to you has just died, then it's much more comforting to think that they're in heaven, rather than rotting in the ground, their existence removed forever.

I doubt that all the people who claim to be religious actually are so, but rather, they believe that being so stops them thinking that life is pointless, and that dead realtives they loved are gone forever. I imagine that a good deal of them feel pressured to be religious by their family (some families even disown children that say they're atheist).

Until around a year ago, I was a Christian myself, and a fairly strong one at that. But then I questioned why I ever believed in it to begin with, and it was for similar reasons to what I listed above, which eventually grew into fully fledged belief. I also realised that my so-called 'proof' for God's existence was not actually proof at all; it was merely fallacy. So I no longer follow any religions, and I believe that I am a better person than I was when religious.

Though I still can't believe some of the things I thought when I was religious. I read the Bible while asking very few questions about whether or not the passages can be attributed to modern life; I simply believed that they should cover all times, and that nothing should change. I also believed that abortion was always wrong outside of danger to the mother's health, and questioned whether or not contraception was acceptable.There are many others, but that's all been and gone, and I've started a new, fresh phase of my life, without religion. It makes me cringe just thinking about it.

Occasionally, I make jokes and stuff about religion, but I never mean it personally. I'm just trying to distance myself from my past as much as possible.

 

[Sephiroths Masamune]

roughly most of the first books in my opinion are following the laws of Moses not to be confused of the ten commandments. And that they had to obey those laws because they weren't ready to accept the higher laws as the ten commandments. Until they were ready for them as when Christ appeared that came into effect. So concerning the teachings of the old books most of the laws that did not comply with the ten commandments are not applied.

As to my view of homosexuality is everyone has their choice either it's right or wrong. Not to hate them/kill/burn them but to accept them and love them as you would another. I don't believe that your automatically gay when your born (the gay gene) and you choose the path you take, not etched in stone.

 

[Proverbs]

Disclaimer: I haven't read everything that's happened in this thread so far, I'm just responding to the first post.

I think this is probably the best blog I've seen written on Christianity that wasn't written by a supporter in a very long time. I definitely agree 100% that you cannot just pick and choose what verses of the Bible to follow.

You mentioned two scriptures and I'll respond to both of those.

1. Leviticus 20:13 "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads" (NIV). There are a number of ways I can respond to this, but I'll keep it as focused as possible. I believe homosexuality is 100% wrong. But that's not what I'm going to explain here. We can talk about that elsewhere if you want to PM me. I don't think User Blogs can handle that subject maturely.

However, I will respond to the putting to death part of it. You see, this is in the Old Testament, and Jesus changed a good deal of things when He came around. In the Old Testament, a good deal of sins were punishable by death. That was typically the way you dealt with them. I think God had this done because as cultures were forming, people were just absolutely despicably evil, so to show how serious He was about sin, He made this institution. He had to make it absolutely clear that sin separates us COMPLETELY from Him, and ends in death. If you read in James 1:15 and Romans 6:23 it's clear that sin leads to death without exception.

However, after Jesus came and died for our sins once for all, this institution is taken away. The first was put into place to show God's justice, and the latter to show God's love. God calls us to a high standard: Absolute perfection. And anyone who does not meet that standard cannot stand in God's sight without being obliterated. God is completely and totally just.

But He is also completely and totally loving, that's why He came down to bear our sins for us. Along with that, the idea of stoning people was taken away, take a look at John 8:1-11. The Pharisees and the teachers of the law bring to Jesus a woman caught in adultery and tell him that the law of Moses commands that she be stoned. This is the famous moment where Jesus says "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her" (verse 7, NIV). That's basically where stoning was done away with, and shows the beginning of the concept of forgiveness.

So yes, homosexuality is wrong, and according to Moses' law was punishable by death--as well as adultery and murder and a whole lot of other things. But now things are changed because Jesus has fulfilled the law (Matthew 5:17), and not abolish it as some people suppose.

2. Titus 2:9 "Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them..." Actually, the sentence doesn't end in verse 9, it keeps going and talks about how being trustworthy helps their masters to see that they are living godly lives and it makes Christianity "attractive" is the word Paul uses. You might dispute the use of that particular word, but let's not nitpick at this moment, other translations might use a different word. It's basically so that nothing hinders the Gospel message--basically how people get saved, a pretty worthy cause to not be hindered.

Now, here it doesn't talk about it being okay for masters to beat their slaves. It never does in the Bible. However, it does say that a slave's role is to submit, and at times even to being beaten. Why? Jesus was submissive to being put to death. It's to show that in everything, we submit to God and to the place He has put us in. That's Christian morality. We don't retaliate. In Matthew 5:39 (NIV) Jesus says "Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." You might disagree, but that's what Jesus taught.

Now, Paul says this as an instruction to slaves, and you might say he's not in a place to say that since he isn't a slave--but I disagree. Paul wasn't all talk. He actually goes on in one of the letters he writes about how he has suffered. He says in 2 Corinthians 11:23-27 (NIV) "I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my own countrymen, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false brothers. I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked." Paul says this to the church in Corinth basically to eliminate the idea of boasting. He boasts to silence others, in short. But regardless, it shows that Paul has really given everything over to God.

And that's what we're called to: To completely submit to God and our lot in life that He's given us. It never supports beating your slaves, or randomly killing people. It supports submission to your masters, and in the Old Testament to very strict justice. The part in the Old Testament has changed completely and the part in the New Testament is key to living as a Christian.

I hope this answered your questions and if you've got any others for me, feel free to PM me. I'd rather not get into too much here. But I'll tell you here that I don't pick and choose my parts of the Bible. I make it my goal to understand the Bible as fully as possible and to teach about matters not fully understood by many Christians. Things like faith and miracles--not to sugarcoat things or make excuses, but to really call Christians to what the Bible calls us to. For me, either God is the God of the Bible or He is not. For me, He is. And that means that I've got to either follow Him completely, or not at all. I choose completely, and to give Him my all. That's just because I've seen Him work so powerfully in my life, rescuing me from committing suicide long before I became a Christian, has given me great depth of insight into the Scriptures, and since I've become a Christian has shown me through my research that Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection is true beyond a shadow of a doubt.

If you've got any questions I would love to share about what God has done for me and what I've learned. I've got much more learning to do before I'm able to teach, but I know the basics at least. For absolutely any question I will either have an answer or get you one.

 

[CRASHiC]

This debate is silly because its an unconstitutional law to ban marriage since marriage is in part a religious institution, and there ARE gay churches.
You can't deny one group marriage rights and not the other.

 

[Reaver197]

It seems awfully arrogant and biased to me to suppose that all cultures and people before the Christian god supposedly came along, were "despicably evil".

Also, how is god just if he holds people to a standard that is impossible for anyone to achieve, and will completely "obliterate" us for it, yet loves us, but won't hold a more reasonable standard? Strikes me as somewhat incongruous.

Anyway, here's a great resource in looking this sort of stuff up in the bible.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm

Good for finding things such as this.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/sword.html

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/religious_tolerance.html

The bible is a contradictory and muddled thing; not the best for receiving moral and life instruction, I would think.

 

[_Keno_]

I think marriage itself should be COMPLETELY REMOVED from the legal system, and replaced by legal unions. After a legal union, a couple can have a marriage ceremony (religiously) if they wish to. If you disagree and think that marriage SHOULD be a legal issue, then don't use the bible as an excuse as to why same sex couples can't marry. Couples have had unions since before Christianity and Judaism existed, it isn't a religious thing.

 

[Proverbs]

It seems awfully arrogant and biased to me to suppose that all cultures and people before the Christian god supposedly came along, were "despicably evil".

Also, how is god just if he holds people to a standard that is impossible for anyone to achieve, and will completely "obliterate" us for it, yet loves us, but won't hold a more reasonable standard? Strikes me as somewhat incongruous.

Anyway, here's a great resource in looking this sort of stuff up in the bible.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm

Good for finding things such as this.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/sword.html

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/religious_tolerance.html

The bible is a contradictory and muddled thing; not the best for receiving moral and life instruction, I would think.

The Bible isn't contradictory. The passages from the second link are so taken out of context. When he says "I haven't come to bring peace, but a sword" He meant division. Hence why later on He says that he came to turn a father against his son, et cetera. Basically, Jesus is pointing out that He is going to be a huge dividing factor. The last one in which He tells His disciples to buy swords if they don't have one, I asked about that and some people think it's just to mentally prepare the disciples for what's going to happen. Regardless, Jesus rebukes Peter when he cuts off the servant of the high priest's ear (Matthew 26:52-54).

And about religious tolerance--are you kidding? Jesus' entire ministry was centered around John 14:6 "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (NIV). Just because you think religious tolerance should exist, that doesn't mean that Jesus contradicts Himself or is wrong in any way. You're just making that judgment on your own.

About stoning those who don't follow, that's Old Testament, and I've talked about that already. But the Bible makes it pretty clear that not everyone's going to Heaven. In fact, Jesus says that few are going to. "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it" (Matthew 7:13-14 NIV).

I think marriage itself should be COMPLETELY REMOVED from the legal system, and replaced by legal unions. After a legal union, a couple can have a marriage ceremony (religiously) if they wish to. If you disagree and think that marriage SHOULD be a legal issue, then don't use the bible as an excuse as to why same sex couples can't marry. Couples have had unions since before Christianity and Judaism existed, it isn't a religious thing.

As I said earlier, I was responding to the original post. I wasn't saying same sex couples couldn't marry. I'm saying that the Bible says homosexuality is wrong and that I believe the Bible is the truth. I never said anything about marriage or made any insinuation toward that.


Edit: Also, Reaver, don't go bashing the Bible about not being a good source for life instruction. Read Matthew 5-7, otherwise known as the Sermon on the Mount. That composes 90% of people's morals today. Not so good for life instruction, right? A psychologist was recorded to having said that if we took all of the authoritative texts on psychology and compiled everything we knew, cleaved out any unclear language, and took all of the meat and none of the parsley, then we should have a very awkward and incomplete version of the Sermon on the Mount that would pall in comparison. Another therapist said that he just reads people Jesus' words and that's often all the 'therapy' they need.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

The Bible isn't contradictory.

Oh really? I can't let you!

Being someone who has subscribed to and endless amounts YouTube channels which show very many flaws and/or contradictions in the Bible (like this one).

Tread lightly when you make equivocations of the truth like this, as that is certain to raise eyebrows. And no, I won't start a fight here (

Spoiler

that's more directed towards Teran

). I will say this--if you feel the need to say more on this, meet me in the PG or AIM or what not & we could possibly discuss this further.

But seriously man, don't just flat out lie like that.

 

[_Keno_]

As I said earlier, I was responding to the original post. I wasn't saying same sex couples couldn't marry. I'm saying that the Bible says homosexuality is wrong and that I believe the Bible is the truth. I never said anything about marriage or made any insinuation toward that.

Oh, dont worry. I wasn't responding to anyone. I just saw people talking about marriage, and just put in my two cents.

 

[Aurasmash14]

Link to original post: My Feelings on Christianity



I'm not entirely sure if this is the right place to put this, but I assume it is. Anyway...

I was discussing religion (specifically Christianity) with my mother the other day, and I realized that I have a lot of thoughts about it, and I really just feel the need to get it down somewhere. I rarely find opportunities to talk to anyone about these kinds of things, so I figure the best way is to post about it here.

So, let me start by saying a little about myself. If I had to call myself something in regards to religion, I suppose I would fall somewhere between Agnosticism and Atheism. I don't believe in a god, but I can't write off the possibility of one (or more). My father was raised Christian, but somewhere along the line came to the conclusion that it wasn't something he can believe in. My mother was raised Jewish. Neither of my parents are very religious; we may celebrate the holidays, but we have never gone to Church or Temple. I would say I have been raised with a very open mind to religion, and my parents kind of left it on me to build my own views. I've always been turned off by religion, and Christianity in particular. So, onto how I feel about Christianity (let me stress that this is how I feel, and I am by no means a scholar when it comes to religion).

I think Christianity can be a good thing. In fact, it can be a great thing. The problem is, this is only when one chooses to "cherry-pick" parts of the bible. So "love thy neighbor," may be a great moral (by the way, I apologize in advance if I botch any quotes. I'm doing most of this by memory), but "(homosexuals) must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads," or "Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters..." are things that I cannot follow. So, I looked in the bible, and found numerous verses that appear to tell me that beating my wife is okay, beating/owning a slave is okay, beating my children is okay, homosexuals should be killed, etc, etc (I can find/link these verses if anyone wants. Off the top of my head... Leviticus 20:13, Titus 2:9).

So we got some good verses that preach good morals.. then we have the other ones I come across. What I don't understand is how these verses seem to be ignored, or accepted. Now, I'm a very anti-sexism/racism/etc kind of guy, so when I read these things, it makes me sick.

The way I see it, if you are going to be a Christian who follows the bible - you follow all of the bible. Not parts of it. The entire thing. I mean, is it okay to support a person who gives homeless people a home, but also beats his wife? I say no. I think it's unfair to just cherry-pick parts of the bible you like, because by calling yourself a Christian and following the bible, you are still supporting the entire thing.

So when I bring this kind of thing up, the usual response I get is "oh, but you are misinterpreting it." I think this is ridiculous. First of all, it looks very clear to me. I don't know how you could possibly misinterpret some of these. Anyway, my response will always be, "well isn't it awfully convenient that it's only the terrible things that are a misinterpretation?" Why can't "love thy neighbor" be a misinterpretation? Why can't that mean "**** your neighbor"? In my eyes, the bible clearly advocates slavery, sexism, violence, and homophobia.

Then we have the belief in god. I'm sure you've all heard it all when it comes to debates on god's existence, but I still want to get my feelings on that down as well. Basically, my feelings are that it's just as reasonable to believe that the universe was infinite as that god was infinite. But, I can't write off the possibility of a god. The way I see it, if god did exist, he would be beyond our abilities to prove or disprove. I don't like the Christian idea of god... more so the Futurama idea of god: a formless, emotionless, omnipotent being. I've always said that if a god existed, it wouldn't possess humanly emotions, and thus wouldn't need to be worshiped, etc. It is this belief that leads me to believe that most of the bible was just, well, written. No more or less true than Greek mythology. Only stories.

So then I wonder "why do people follow this? Is it the want or need to be part of a group? Why not make your own beliefs? Do they ignore these verses? Do they support them?" Now, I'm aware that I could be totally wrong about this, and by all means correct me.

I would like to really, really stress that I do not mean any disrespect to any Christians who may be reading this. I do not hold anything against you for being Christian, and I really don't want any hostility here. I fully acknowledge that I may be completely wrong in all of this, and if I am, I would like to know where and why. But again, no hostility.

I didnt read the other posts so forgive me if im repeating stuff.

your right. your not misinterpreting anything in the bible. However this WAS during a time when chauvinism was the order of the day and such. No good christian would dare follow the bible word for word

We christians simply believe that, since he made us in his image, he will most likely have human-like emotions without the faults of a human being. sounds strange to outsiders. And it most certainly sounds wrong to the agnostic/atheist, but it is what we believe in, and im glad you respect that instead of firing out on how dumb we are.

Personally, I believe in my God because he has proven himself to me multiple times in my own life. But when i see someone who does not believe, I try to explain my side. If he really wont accept, thats his choice. No "BURN IN HELL!" ****, just acceptance. after all, thats what we are taught to do.

 

[GunmasterLombardi]

This debate is silly because its an unconstitutional law to ban marriage since marriage is in part a religious institution, and there ARE gay churches.
You can't deny one group marriage rights and not the other.

But it's not ok to commit a attracitve or relationship-like act towards the same sex. Men and women are supposed to grow a liking to the opposite sex. It's been that way for along time, and even the non-religious beings have followed such a standard. I don't understand the origin of homosexuality...

On the other hand, you can't blame someone being born with disfuntional hormones since the world has been imperfect for generations.

 

[LoganW]

But it's not ok to commit a attracitve or relationship-like act towards the same sex. Men and women are supposed to grow a liking to the opposite sex. It's been that way for along time, and even the non-religious beings have followed such a standard. I don't understand the origin of homosexuality...

On the other hand, you can't blame someone being born with disfuntional hormones since the world has been imperfect for generations.

I have no problems with religion and I think it's great but people like this who are opposed to homosexuality and say people are supposed to be a certain way really piss me off. There is no proof that a god exists guys so you don't need to preach the bible to everyone.

 

[Teran]

But it's not ok to commit a attracitve or relationship-like act towards the same sex. Men and women are supposed to grow a liking to the opposite sex. It's been that way for along time, and even the non-religious beings have followed such a standard. I don't understand the origin of homosexuality...

On the other hand, you can't blame someone being born with disfuntional hormones since the world has been imperfect for generations.

Yeah umm, homosexuality has always existed. It's been documented in humanity since way back in ancient history. Although not documented in animals way back afaik, homosexual behaviour has been found in a vast number of animals in recent studies dedicated to the topic.

As for homosexuality not being normal, well it isn't, but arguably nether are people with Down's Syndrome or Asperger's, are we suggesting they're immoral too?

I mean it's the same thing really, a genetic change that causes physiological and behavioral changes.

Let's stone them all Bible style, because obviously that's the best thing to do.

Last I heard, the entire Old Testament was poppycock anyway, but you decide to keep the best rules like killing ***gots and the like.

I agree with the Bible.

 

[Team Giza]

Disclaimer: I'm agnostic, and an ex-atheist. I'm not so big on that whole "certainty" thing.

Agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive. In other wards, unless you are actively believing in a god or gods then you would be considered an atheist even if you are an agnostic as well. So unless you actually are actively believing in a god right now, which I would conclude is not the case from the rest of your post, then you would still be considered an atheist.

If I had to call myself something in regards to religion, I suppose I would fall somewhere between Agnosticism and Atheism. I don't believe in a god, but I can't write off the possibility of one (or more).

This just means you are an agnostic atheist. This the terms aren't mutually exclusive one can be both which is something that many don't understand.

Atheism doesn't mean you claim there are no gods or even that you are leaning towards that position over the possibility of gods. It simply states that you don't believe in any gods. Agnostics isn't a term to describe this position because an theists can also be agnostics. The majority of atheists I have met would be considered agnostic atheists, but the term atheist would still apply to them since its a blanket term.

 

[Chis]

Oh really? I can't let you!

Being someone who has subscribed to and endless amounts YouTube channels which show very many flaws and/or contradictions in the Bible (like this one).

Tread lightly when you make equivocations of the truth like this, as that is certain to raise eyebrows. And no, I won't start a fight here (

Spoiler

that's more directed towards Teran

). I will say this--if you feel the need to say more on this, meet me in the PG or AIM or what not & we could possibly discuss this further.

But seriously man, don't just flat out lie like that.

Srsly is that link the best you could show? I can take things out of context to without any reference to the entire chapter too :D

 

[Team Giza]

Srsly is that link the best you could show? I can take things out of context to without any reference to the entire chapter too :D

Some of ProfMTH's videos are decent. Lately his stuff has been pretty shallow. Though some of the things he has shown recently are still direct contradictions in the bible it is errors that are on the part of the authors of certain books and not an overall concept in Christianity.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

Srsly is that link the best you could show? I can take things out of context to without any reference to the entire chapter too :D

Well, he has referenced entire chapters to prove a point @ times. Have you tried watching his videos?

This is as far as I go with this discussion (because I don't want Teran to close this, as I sometimes can get a little testy when talking about religion [who doesn't really ]). If you want more, meet me up in the Proving Grounds.

Some of ProfMTH's videos are decent. Lately his stuff has been pretty shallow. Though some of the things he has shown recently are still direct contradictions in the bible it is errors that are on the part of the authors of certain books and not an overall concept in Christianity.

I believe he mentioned in a video that he doesn't have as much time, hence the one minute videos.