Homosexuality...

[JustARide]

No I mean books you consider to be nonfiction works written over 2000 years ago.

Name another you find holds up.

You implied earlier that being 2000 years old doesn't mean a book is outdated. I'm just curious if there are other books that old you find accurate and up-to-date.

 

[Neildo]

1) The Bible is not a religion. Much less an "outdated" one.

When I say Bible, I mean the religions that follow it. As for it not being outdated, that's laughable. So you still want to stone people and the like? Go ahead and read some of the numerous and absurd laws and beliefs. And no, I'm not saying ALL of them are outdated or absurd, just the ones that plainly are. And that's how new religions come to be, they get rid of the old and come up with the new.

2) How are the beliefs crazy (comparatively)?

See above.

3) Are you saying that people converted to Christianity because their former beliefs were "outdated"?

Not necessarily completely outdated but has updated and added onto their previous beliefs. Sort of like how there are numerous sects of Christianity. They all have the same basis but differ here and there.

4) Christianity does not claim to update anything as far as I know. Where did you get this?

Christianity is updated Judaism. The biggest update being "love" that Jesus has taught which Judaism lacked. Take out the New Testament from the Bible and you're left with Judaism. Every religion takes the previous religion and updates it to make their current way of life better. Does not the love that Jesus teach make life better? The same has happened with darned near every single religion of the past.

- N

 

[Neildo]

Who told you that Christians believe the Bible "word for word"?

While zealots do take EVERYTHING word for word, I said what I said to point to why most Christians dislike homosexuality. When you ask them, they say because the Bible says it's bad and that's basically their only reason as they don't have a free of thought reason they can come up with on their own. If the Bible were to never exist, I wonder if those people's opinions would be different towards homosexuality.

- N

 

[§outh§tar]

While zealots do take EVERYTHING word for word, I said what I said to point to why most Christians dislike homosexuality. When you ask them, they say because the Bible says it's bad and that's basically their only reason as they don't have a free of thought reason they can come up with on their own. If the Bible were to never exist, I wonder if those people's opinions would be different towards homosexuality.

- N

YES! To those who don't acknowledge the Bible, it might as well not exist, right? Well these people have different opinions, probably flawed. Why take a chance with a "free thought" when you can have what is right? Do you learn from another or do you learn from yourself? If you don't learn from yourself (similar to the concept of "reinventing" the wheel), then do not glorify free thought in such a manner.

It seems you are saying a person's "free thought" is a good enough judge of whether something is "acceptable" or not. Of course, I don't see how a person can possibly dislike homosexuality. It is not like saying you dislike pain, happiness, sadness, misfortune or whatever. I don't see how you can say Christians dislike homosexuality, it is not even an object. Such a dislike is not even Biblical to my knowledge.

The Bible is not very trenchant on the topic, but from what little there is, one can correctly determine that homosexuality is an end-result. Of course, like I said the Bible is not very trenchant but from what there is on the topic, this is what one can conclude.

 

[§outh§tar]

When I say Bible, I mean the religions that follow it. As for it not being outdated, that's laughable. So you still want to stone people and the like? Go ahead and read some of the numerous and absurd laws and beliefs. And no, I'm not saying ALL of them are outdated or absurd, just the ones that plainly are. And that's how new religions come to be, they get rid of the old and come up with the new.

Are you saying stoning is outdated? That is laughable. Perhaps we should "upgrade" to life imprisonment and the electric chair, or even lethal injection?

It seems to be more brutal to you, but the end result is the same and all these methods are just for the end result. Death.

Not necessarily completely outdated but has updated and added onto their previous beliefs. Sort of like how there are numerous sects of Christianity. They all have the same basis but differ here and there.


Christianity is updated Judaism. The biggest update being "love" that Jesus has taught which Judaism lacked. Take out the New Testament from the Bible and you're left with Judaism. Every religion takes the previous religion and updates it to make their current way of life better. Does not the love that Jesus teach make life better? The same has happened with darned near every single religion of the past.

- N

There are several verses within the Old Testament that refute that. The Old Testament was just as much about love as the New. Christianity is also biblically Judaism. That is what the Bible teaches. I am baffled by the supposed difference between Judaism and Christianity, when the Bible speaks of no such thing. The Bible CLEARLY says that Christians by definition are Jews.

**Do a search on 'love' in the Old Testament to find out just how much emphasis is placed on it. Just because God is a God of love does not mean He is not a God of justice.

Deut. 5:8 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me, And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.

He rewards accordingly, love to those who love Him and discipline to "them that hate" Him.

 

[§outh§tar]

No I mean books you consider to be nonfiction works written over 2000 years ago.

Name another you find holds up.

You implied earlier that being 2000 years old doesn't mean a book is outdated. I'm just curious if there are other books that old you find accurate and up-to-date.

I haven't found another one like the Word of God.

Perhaps when the Trojan War is proven then I'll add Homer's epics to my list..

 

[JustARide]

I don't see how you can say Christians dislike homosexuality, it is not even an object. Such a dislike is not even Biblical to my knowledge.

<b>Leviticus 20:13</b>
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.​

<b>Romans 1:26 </b>
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

<b>1:27</b>
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.​

Christians disliking homosexuality? Of course not!

It beats me where people come up with such ideas.

 

[JustARide]

I haven't found another one like the Word of God.

Perhaps when the Trojan War is proven then I'll add Homer's epics to my list..

Homer doesn't count. I'm asking you, since you said a book being 2000 years old does not mean it is out-of-date, what other <i>nonfiction</i> books you can cite that still hold up today. Not just nice literature or good storytelling. Books you believe to be true and up-to-date.

 

[§outh§tar]

Homer doesn't count. I'm asking you, since you said a book being 2000 years old does not mean it is out-of-date, what other <i>nonfiction</i> books you can cite that still hold up today. Not just nice literature or good storytelling. Books you believe to be true and up-to-date.

Kindly read the first sentence of my post again.

 

[Neildo]

YES! To those who don't acknowledge the Bible, it might as well not exist, right? Well these people have different opinions, probably flawed. Why take a chance with a "free thought" when you can have what is right? Do you learn from another or do you learn from yourself? If you don't learn from yourself (similar to the concept of "reinventing" the wheel), then do not glorify free thought in such a manner.

Even if one doesn't follow the Bible, it is still good for someone to read so that one learns another point of view, even if it may be incorrect. That is what free-thinking is. Rather than following one other person or thing such as the Bible and doing nothing but what the Bible says, a free-thinker reads from various sources and gets many points of views and experiences and comes to a conclusion on their own. The conclusion is then more logical and less biased than a sheeps. I would have thought you'd know what free-thinking means by now especially in this forum, heh.

Are you saying stoning is outdated? That is laughable.

It was a mere example of many. It seems you'd rather pick apart something word for word rather than the message as a whole. That's no surprise though.

Not necessarily completely outdated but has updated and added onto their previous beliefs. Sort of like how there are numerous sects of Christianity. They all have the same basis but differ here and there.


Christianity is updated Judaism. The biggest update being "love" that Jesus has taught which Judaism lacked. Take out the New Testament from the Bible and you're left with Judaism. Every religion takes the previous religion and updates it to make their current way of life better. Does not the love that Jesus teach make life better? The same has happened with darned near every single religion of the past. - me

There are several verses within the Old Testament that refute that. The Old Testament was just as much about love as the New. Christianity is also biblically Judaism. That is what the Bible teaches. I am baffled by the supposed difference between Judaism and Christianity, when the Bible speaks of no such thing. The Bible CLEARLY says that Christians by definition are Jews. - SS

Damn dude, do you even read what people write? Did I not say that Christianity is an updated Judaism and that Christianity is to Judaism as numerous Christian sects are to Christianity? It's basically the same religion except for minor updates here and there. The only difference between the two are the major teaching of love by Jesus. Take out Jesus and his loving messages from the Christian side of the Bible and what are you left with? Judaism. Is that not the same religion except with minor improvements?

And of course there's not going to be an announcement on the front cover saying NOTICE: THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION IS JUST AN UPDATED JUDAISM. All you need to do is read, it's simple to come to that conclusion. Buddhaism doesn't have a label either saying this is new and improved Hinduism nor does Judaism say this is basically new and improved Zoroastrianism.

Deut. 5:8 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me, And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.

He rewards accordingly, love to those who love Him and discipline to "them that hate" Him.

The love I speak about isn't towards God. Jesus' teachings that defines Christianity compared to Judaism is the love towards one another (ie: people), not God. Obviously there's going to be love towards God and vice versa, that's one of the major points of religion in the first place, heh.

- N

 

[okinrus]

Does a freethinker really ever reach a conclusion? If a freethinker ever reached a solid conclusion then he or she would no longer be a freethinker.

The love I speak about isn't towards God. Jesus' teachings that defines Christianity compared to Judaism is the love towards one another (ie: people), not God. Obviously there's going to be love towards God and vice versa, that's one of the major points of religion in the first place, heh.

The parable of the sheeps and the goats should be sufficient to reject this because loving one's neighbor is loving God, making it possible to love God with all our heart's. If it was otherwise, loving one's neighbor would take away from our love of God.

 

[JustARide]

Kindly read the first sentence of my post again.

In that case, would you say that -- other than the magical Word of God -- you haven't found one other 2000-year-old nonfiction book that <i>isn't</i> a repository of ignorance and outdated ideas?

If so, I'd say your original statement was somewhat misleading -- since you, in fact, do not believe 2000-year-old books can remain up-to-date -- <i>except</i> in the case of the Bible, which you consider an exception to the rule.

 

[JustARide]

Does a freethinker really ever reach a conclusion? If a freethinker ever reached a solid conclusion then he or she would no longer be a freethinker.

A freethinker must remain open to the possibility that s/he is wrong. It doesn't mean one has to refrain from ever coming to a conclusion; it means one must remain humble about that conclusion. You'll find a mirror for this in the scientific process itself -- scientists reach theoretical conclusions, but reserve the right to change or evolve those ideas if new evidence is presented.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

When I say Bible, I mean the religions that follow it. As for it not being outdated, that's laughable. So you still want to stone people and the like? Go ahead and read some of the numerous and absurd laws and beliefs. And no, I'm not saying ALL of them are outdated or absurd, just the ones that plainly are. And that's how new religions come to be, they get rid of the old and come up with the new.

Not necessarily completely outdated but has updated and added onto their previous beliefs. Sort of like how there are numerous sects of Christianity. They all have the same basis but differ here and there.

Christianity is updated Judaism. The biggest update being "love" that Jesus has taught which Judaism lacked. Take out the New Testament from the Bible and you're left with Judaism. Every religion takes the previous religion and updates it to make their current way of life better. Does not the love that Jesus teach make life better? The same has happened with darned near every single religion of the past. - N

*************
M*W: I disagree that Christianity is updated Judaism. It's closer to paganism with its cadre of previous dying demigod saviors. The problem with religion -- each one tries to sell its own version of god.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Does a freethinker really ever reach a conclusion? If a freethinker ever reached a solid conclusion then he or she would no longer be a freethinker.

*************
M*W: Yes, we do, but then we're called "teachers."

The parable of the sheeps and the goats should be sufficient to reject this because loving one's neighbor is loving God, making it possible to love God with all our heart's. If it was otherwise, loving one's neighbor would take away from our love of God.

*************
M*W: Well, my boy, I do believe you are becoming enlightened.

 

[okinrus]

A freethinker must remain open to the possibility that s/he is wrong. It doesn't mean one has to refrain from ever coming to a conclusion; it means one must remain humble about that conclusion.

Since the thought process used to achieve any conclusion are entirely within a single person's mind, any conclusion by a freethinker is suspect. We only have a certain number of atoms within our brains while the universe has magnitudes more information than is within our brain. The information scale is dramatic. Using only our mental facilities we are unable to determine whether God exists or doesn't.

To claim to have any information one way or another is to evince a greater order: that the primative elements that generated the universe could indeed reside within the mind of a single human being. Is this greater order then God? The one who says "there is no God" with any degree of certainty is giving proof of God.

Faced with this dilemma, a freethinker should not say its impossible, letting go of hope, but use other means of search, complementing his mental abilities.

 

[JustARide]

Since the thought process used to achieve any conclusion are entirely within a single person's mind, any conclusion by a freethinker is suspect. We only have a certain number of atoms within our brains while the universe has magnitudes more information than is within our brain. The information scale is dramatic. Using only our mental facilities we are unable to determine whether God exists or doesn't.

To claim to have any information one way or another is to evince a greater order: that the primative elements that generated the universe could indeed reside within the mind of a single human being. Is this greater order then God? The one who says "there is no God" with any degree of certainty is giving proof of God.

Faced with this dilemma, a freethinker should not say its impossible, letting go of hope, but use other means of search, complementing his mental abilities.

I don't know about other freethinkers, but I would never say, "There is no God." As an agnostic, I remain constantly open to this possibility. That, however, does mean I have to believe anything someone else says about God -- precisely for the very same reason. That person/source cannot know for sure either...

 

[§outh§tar]

In that case, would you say that -- other than the magical Word of God -- you haven't found one other 2000-year-old nonfiction book that <i>isn't</i> a repository of ignorance and outdated ideas?

If so, I'd say your original statement was somewhat misleading -- since you, in fact, do not believe 2000-year-old books can remain up-to-date -- <i>except</i> in the case of the Bible, which you consider an exception to the rule.

I did not rule out any other book specifically. I only stated that there is no other book like the Bible.

 

[JustARide]

I did not rule out any other book specifically. I only stated that there is no other book like the Bible.

Right. And you can't name one other book <i>that</i> old that you put <i>any</i> faith in -- which tends to support the position that 2000-year-old books are, generally, not all that reliable. In other words, you're making an exception for the Bible.

By the way, good job ignoring my little Bible quotes on homosexuality.

Do you honestly think the Bible is not hostile to homosexuals or the practice of homosexuality?

 

[§outh§tar]

Right. And you can't name one other book <i>that</i> old that you put <i>any</i> faith in -- which tends to support the position that 2000-year-old books are, generally, not all that reliable. In other words, you're making an exception for the Bible.

By the way, good job ignoring my little Bible quotes on homosexuality.

Do you honestly think the Bible is not hostile to homosexuals or the practice of homosexuality?

I'm sorry I did nto see your "little" Bible quotes on homosexuality. Please post them again.

I assure you, your posts are at the top of my priority list when I get on the forum and such neglect will never happen again.

The Bible is hostile to sin. "The Word was God". God hates sin. See a pattern?