What Religion are you?

[El_Machinae]

You know that's circular reasoning by now.

I'm not sure how 4) is better then what the Bible says happened....

Well, "killing innocents because of what a prophet told you to do" is a bit like what Osama bin Laden's followers do. God asking in a way such that the Israelites cannot distinguish Osama from oSamuel is kinda seedy. Of course, killing the babies Himself is a bit of a sneaky miracle. Anyway, I don't really care to discuss the ethics of God killing people. It's enough that the faithful are murdering innocents, and then having it justified by other faithful.

 

[SKILORD]

Also, the Devil "Prowls about like a roaring lion, seeking who he may devour." He can literally be in only one place at a time. Why would he bother with me?

Because you fall under the rather broad category of people he seeks to devour? And doesn't he have assistants? You ever read the Screwtape Letters? It's a C.S Lewis that primarily concerns negative influence from various demonic forces and how they coordinate their efforts. They aim for everybody.

 

[Lone Wolf]

"And the Sons of God saw the daughters of men and took them as their wives, any who they should choose" (This is paraphrased.)

"Sons of God" and "Demons" are distinct things, especially considering that Jesus was one. Also, the biblical God doesn't mention it as his rationalization for the flood - that consideration is absent from the Biblical Flood story entirely. The only rationalization given is generic evilness of people of the earth.

True, but the reason I'd say I know it was God is it is God's Word and so correct.

Then why try to explain His actions at all? Just say to any "But God did a bad thing here!" argument by stating that the sentence is oxymoronic, and move on. The fact that you need to explain Biblical God's actions from other points of view first signifies that deep down, you don't completely believe in the "Any action taken by God needs to explanation" moral theory.

Also, you stated that the reason you're sure that you're following God is that whosoever you're following never commanded you to do evil. Is there any command from your God that can convince you that he's wrong or evil, and, therefore, not a God after all?

Also, the Devil "Prowls about like a roaring lion, seeking who he may devour." He can literally be in only one place at a time. Why would he bother with me?

I thought that Devil has many servants, these little demons you can see in Chick tracts? It can also be some weird supernatural unaligned trickster force that derives pleasure from confusing people and making them believe wrong things.

 

[markantony]

You have to wonder about a God that creates humanity, then decides a certain tribe are his favourites. Then orders them to kill other tribes to defend themselves.

There are many other solutions to these problems, that do not require murder and make more sense.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Is there any command from your God that can convince you that he's wrong or evil, and, therefore, not a God after all?

He hasn't given any, but I suppose their could be...

Because you fall under the rather broad category of people he seeks to devour? And doesn't he have assistants? You ever read the Screwtape Letters? It's a C.S Lewis that primarily concerns negative influence from various demonic forces and how they coordinate their efforts. They aim for everybody.

I personally doubt even a demon would waste their time on me at present...

However, I don't know that for sure. I was talking about Satan himself. Who I can virtually guarantee has never been in the same place as me.

 

[Lone Wolf]

He hasn't given any, but I suppose their could be...

OK, now it becomes interesting. So admit to possibly having a standard of morality independent of the God you follow. But if so, you can't use the "everything the God I follow does is automatically good" argument - since you admit that there're potential commands of his that are immoral.

 

[GhostWriter16]

OK, now it becomes interesting. So admit to possibly having a standard of morality independent of the God you follow. But if so, you can't use the "everything the God I follow does is automatically good" argument - since you admit that there're potential commands of his that are immoral.

Only if they contradict himself.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Only if they contradict himself.

Maybe God giving you the logically contradicting commands is a way of testing your faith?

Also, did I misunderstand you and the quality that you consider independent of God is logic, not morality? Meaning, that there're no potentially evil commands by God, but there're potentially logically unsound commands?

 

[warpus]

And most of the other 90 experience heterosexual urges.

Which aren't sinful under certain circumstances (marriage), while the homosexual ones are sinful under all (according to you)

And again, why do you refuse to answer my question re: the origins of these "sinful urges" ?

 

[Tani Coyote]

It can be for pleasure, in MARRIAGE. Gays (According to God's definition of the term according to my beliefs) cannot marry.

However, God created sex to be between man and woman in marriage, so any other way is sin. It has nothing to do with procreaton.

Why does love require a ceremony? Marriage is just two individuals saying they will love eachother forever. Gays do this too! It just isn't legal because of social authoritarianism.

Therefore, since a marriage is just a union of love, clearly, God doesn't mind sex at all provided it is with one you love and are devoted to. That love and devotion does not have a difference between sexual orientation.

Some guy with a Bible declaring love valid does not make it any more so, especially if you consider half of the people get divorced anyway... God's a libertarian, he won't approve of any church hierarchy.

Also, Jesus DOES speak on it I just found out:

Matt 5:18 "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled."

Which, is talking about the moral law which still applies, not either the Ceremonial law or the legal methods of punishment in the Mosaic law.

Perhaps my Biblespeak isn't quite fluent, but I'm sensing that line is VERY open to interpretation... it's akin to several clauses in the Constitution. It can mean little or a lot depending on the beholder.

Specific statements are needed - where does he speak of homosexuality being wrong? I recall lots and lots of love being mentioned, but no "homosexuality is evil."

In short, I don't think a homosexual relationship is any of Big Brother's business, but its still wrong because... God says it is.

But why would he say it's wrong?

Yourself I presume...

I'm not hurt at all. In fact, I'm happy I've come to terms with who I am. The only thing that hurts me (physically and emotionally) is the people who won't accept the lifestyle, either out of tradition or an unwillingness to analyse things beyond what a Bible verse says.

Never mind, lots of things hurt yourself but aren't sins. Why is tanning not a sin? You can get sunburn and do a lot of damage. I mean, if drugs and whatnot are sins God should at least be consistent and make all forms of harming oneself a sin...

Hence why I think "harming oneself" is illogical as a sin. Sin should be defined as acts that harm others and their happiness. Rape, murder, assault, thievery, deceit, intolerance. Homosexuality, drug use, and anything consensual therefore cannot be a sin.

 

[GhostWriter16]

You left out the part that if you repent and try to not sin, then you will go to an eternal fate so good, you cannot imagine it. That is the most important part.

Salvation according to the Bible is based off of repentance yes, but it is also based off of belief in Jesus Christ, not "Trying not to Sin." No matter how hard we try its not good enough.

Have you ever heard of Predestination, an idea older than Calvin it's most vocal adherant, and with a very good pedigree within the church. Because of predestination there is no point in repentance as if you are one of the elect, your sins won't stop you from heaven, but if you are not no amount of mea culpas will stop you from hell.

Yeah I have suffered a lot of indoctrination at the hands of Christian "authorities". There is no arguement you give that I cannot refute citing authority, showing the essential schizophrenic insanity at the heart of Christian theology.

I have absolutely heard of Predestination. Don't know if I accept it, but even if its correct, its not how you say. The idea is that everyone rejects Christ, and those that accept him only do so because God made them want too. This means that if you DO accept him, you are chosen. So the method of Salvation is the same either way (Repentence and Trust in Christ) but those who accept Predestination would argue that God chooses who will accept him. But nobody who wants to believe will be denied the ability to do so.

 

[Lighthearter]

Agnostic. And driven closer to Atheism with every religious whackjob that I run across. Somehow I've never run into any Atheist/Agnostic whackjobs. I wonder what that says?

I can sense(though I haven't read the last few pages) that there's a debate about literal interpretation and homosexuality going on. I say that literal interpretation mean God is stupid, and therefore is invalid. Also, homosexuality may be odd, and I'm certainly "straight", as it were, but homosexuals are people too. No authority, not even a God, has any right to decree someone finding a person they are happy with illegal or any variation thereof.

Sorry for the long-windedness, but I feel incredibly strongly about religious issues.

-L

 

[GhostWriter16]

Agnostic. And driven closer to Atheism with every religious whackjob that I run across. Somehow I've never run into any Atheist/Agnostic whackjobs. I wonder what that says?

Christopher Hitchens? Richard Dawkins?

The reason you've found "Religious wackjobs" is simply because they care about you and want you to find the truth (Or what they feel is the truth.) While atheist proselyting is pointless, so most of them don't bother. And agnostics? If you're an agnostic wackjob, you probably aren't agnostic, at least if your "Wackjob" views come from religion.

I can sense(though I haven't read the last few pages) that there's a debate about literal interpretation and homosexuality going on. I say that literal interpretation mean God is stupid, and therefore is invalid. Also, homosexuality may be odd, and I'm certainly "straight", as it were, but homosexuals are people too. No authority, not even a God, has any right to decree someone finding a person they are happy with illegal or any variation thereof.

Nobody is arguing that homosexuals aren't people or that we should not love and care for them. We simply believe the activity to be wrong. Most of us do not condemn homosexuality any more strongly than any other lifestyle sins.

 

[SuperJay]

Christopher Hitchens? Richard Dawkins?

....are pretty intelligent men who have some interesting opinions. Newsflash: disagreeing with someone doesn't make them a "wackjob."

The reason you've found "Religious wackjobs" is simply because they care about you and want you to find the truth (Or what they feel is the truth.)

That's one way to put it. I'd love to believe it were true in most cases, but IME, most of the religious wackjobs are offended that you don't buy into their belief system and see your lack of belief as a threat to their carefully-constructed system of faith.

I know plenty of very devout people whose faith is extremely important to their lives; I used to be married to one and I know her family well. They are incredibly kind, generous, loving people. And you know what? In the ten years that I was a part of their lives, they never once mentioned that my faith differed from theirs, tried to proselytize to me, or made me feel the least bit uncomfortable about the differences in our beliefs. They are classy, gracious people who accept differences with tolerance, love, and goodwill. You know, like Jesus Christ is reputed to have done.

 

[GhostWriter16]

....are pretty intelligent men who have some interesting opinions. Newsflash: disagreeing with someone doesn't make them a "wackjob."

I disagree. Basically considering someone who believes in religion an idiot makes you a "Wackjob."

But I agree obviously that disagreeing with someone doesn't make you a wackjob.

That's one way to put it. I'd love to believe it were true in most cases, but IME, most of the religious wackjobs are offended that you don't buy into their belief system and see your lack of belief as a threat to their carefully-constructed system of faith.

I know plenty of very devout people whose faith is extremely important to their lives; I used to be married to one and I know her family well. They are incredibly kind, generous, loving people. And you know what? In the ten years that I was a part of their lives, they never once mentioned that my faith differed from theirs, tried to proselytize to me, or made me feel the least bit uncomfortable about the differences in our beliefs. They are classy, gracious people who accept differences with tolerance, love, and goodwill. You know, like Jesus Christ is reputed to have done.

Matthew 28:19-20 says we should try to peacefully convince people that Christianity is true. However, you are correct that we should be peaceful and kind.

 

[SuperJay]

I disagree. Basically considering someone who believes in religion an idiot makes you a "Wackjob."

Do you truly believe that both Hitchens and Dawkins think that everyone who believes in religion is an idiot? Really?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Do you truly believe that both Hitchens and Dawkins think that everyone who believes in religion is an idiot? Really?

Maybe not, but their rhetoric certainly sounds like it. For instance, Dawkins once said "I am only agnostic about God the same way I am agnostic about fairies in the Garden." That's basically saying belief in God is as intelligent as believing in fairies. I'd consider that quite a wacky statement.

Hitchens believed religion, at its core, is harmful, no matter what said religious beliefs are. I also consider this wacky.

 

[sophie]

Maybe not, but their rhetoric certainly sounds like it. For instance, Dawkins once said "I am only agnostic about God the same way I am agnostic about fairies in the Garden." That's basically saying belief in God is as intelligent as believing in fairies. I'd consider that quite a wacky statement.

How is that a wacky statement?

Hitchens believed religion, at its core, is harmful, no matter what said religious beliefs are. I also consider this wacky.

How is that a wacky statement?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Because the VAST majority of people are not that obtuse?

 

[sophie]

Because the VAST majority of people are not that obtuse?

That doesn't answer my question. How is belief in one [mythical creature] different from belief in another [mythical creature]?