Total posts: [15,599] 1 ... 174 175 176 177 178 180 181 182 183 184 ... 624
LGBT Rights and Religion:
Queen of FoxesEuo: Why are you confused? You asked what I expected, and I told you.
Euo will do!But, why would you expect that of a document manifestly written by committee, over major time periods, with the incorporation both oral and other writing traditions... How could it have a single narrative that makes full logical sense? Particularly when it's known that bits are missing, due to references to books that aren't there anymore (and the censors didn't manage to catch everything). <shakes head> Just because some of the voices went on about it being God's Words (in a time when there were a darn sight fewer words to remember, not all of which were on paper). Others kept repeating that message... which often was one prophet trying to prove he was a prophet, thanks. So, naturally, he'd bang on about his words being God's words.
edited 24th Oct '12 11:16:14 AM by Euodiachloris
Queen of FoxesAll I am saying is that if it were all the work of the all knowing creator of the universe, you'd think that it would be more consistent. But it is not consistent. I don't think any god wrote it though. I personally don't think it's anymore divinely inspired than the Illiad or the Epic of Gilgamesh or Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.
edited 24th Oct '12 11:35:12 AM by Morgikit
I want Kat's glasses!I'm starting to think the Bible needs a new Continuity Reboot endorsed by all major sects. Especially if that already happened once (some of you guys seem to say that's what the First Council of Nicaea did). If it could be done without first writing a Crisis of Infinite Jesus, it would be all for the better.
Pronounced YAK-you-lussendorsed by all major sects Yeah, not happening.
Freedom of speech includes the freedom for other people to call you out on your bullshit.
I want Kat's glasses!Well, if it could just have catholicism into it, that would be enough for where I live.
I'm an Irene!@Morgikit: Of course God didn't write it. Human beings who believe they understand God did. That's the legitimate reason why many passages completely contradict others. Not just because it's a "New Testament", but because of simple humor error. Likewise, the only things that God arguably wrote was specifically the Ten Commandments. But that's because, the son of God, displayed them. He's the closest we had to a person who could truthful interpret God. Albeit, he was still human and made a human error by attacking a temple.(justified or not, he showed rage against his teachings) I'd like to think that alone proves that we are not perfect, not even when following what God says or writing what God means. We're humans, we have different interpretations. And that's even in one main book.
Princess Ymir's knightess@Carc Well, you might have guessed so yourself, but I'm not going to live a chaste life. xD I guess when God asks me about that, I'll just say: "Um... oopsie?"
I want Kat's glasses!If you guys were given authority to rewrite the passage on sexual immorality, what would you put in it? my list, in no particular order I *think* I have forgotten one of my points, I might add it back later.
Is that cake frosting?
Well, you might have guessed so yourself, but I'm not going to live a chaste life. xD I guess when God asks me about that, I'll just say: "Um... oopsie?"You do what you choose to do. Given my personal views, that's a complete non-issue to me; but even if I thought otherwise, I don't think that I (or anyone else) would have any right to judge you for that — as I said, chances are that many of us (me included, definitely) commit routinely far graver transgressions of the Christian ideal. At the very most, we could advise to try to avoid that, and only if asked (so, no passive-aggressive harassing of people with "I am not judging you, but what you are doing is displeasing to God"-style unsolicited conversation).
edited 24th Oct '12 12:01:13 PM by Carciofus
But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.
Princess Ymir's knightessI don't seem to remember, but isn't sex without intending to reproducate a sin too?
Is that cake frosting?If we go by official Catholic doctrine, yes, yes it is. Most Catholic laypeople don't seem to agree, however. I don't remember the Orthodox position; and Protestant views are all over the place, if I am not mistaken.
edited 24th Oct '12 12:05:27 PM by Carciofus
But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.
I want Kat's glasses!It is right now, but my question is "do you want it to be?" My answer is: Note that it's also dangerous for gay couples, unless they lawyer their way into being considered "sterile couples".
edited 24th Oct '12 12:06:40 PM by Medinoc
Queen of FoxesI guess when God asks me about that, I'll just say: "Um... oopsie?" I plan to accuse him of getting off on watching me do it. Eternal torment would be so worth the look on his face (unless Jack Chick is right and he doesn't have a face).
ZzzzzzzzzzIntent to reproduce is not necessary in Catholic doctrine. What is required is that the possibility of reproduction is not prevented. Hence the official proscription of artificial birth control, but the allowance of the rhythm method.
'He strutted across the bedroom, his hard manhood pointing the way' sounds like he owns a badly named seeing-eye dog. 'Sit, Hard Manhood!
Princess Ymir's knightessIf God sent you to eternal torment just because of a nasty joke, then I hardly think he'd be worthy of any praise anyway. :P @Carc and Maddy Well, that might explain their thoughts on homosexuality to an extent. I mean, there is no chance to reproducate when it comes to homosexual sex.
edited 24th Oct '12 12:09:25 PM by kay4today
NCC - 1701
I'm telling you that you've been cherry-picking like every other person who reads the Bible and uses it in any fashion. That cannot be denied since it's a pure truth.Well then, since this is "pure truth", perhaps you'd care to provide some examples where I've applied literal logic to one thing in the Bible but not the other.
If God wanted to be man's judge, jury, and executioner by himself, why would he even tell his followers to execute people?I honestly have NO idea.
That's essentially what the Book of Kings is about: God† going "Right, if you really want a single guy in charge and all that... I'll give it you. But, you'll regret it." And, a bit later... "See? The Kingdom divided in two and you both got taken over by others. Told you it was dumb. Wishing you'd stuck with the Judges, now, aren't you?"Word!
You do what you choose to do. Given my personal views, that's a complete non-issue to me; but even if I thought otherwise, I don't think that I (or anyone else) would have any right to judge you for that — as I said, chances are that many of us (me included, definitely) commit routinely far graver transgressions of the Christian ideal. At the very most, we could advise to try to avoid that, and only if asked (so, no passive-aggressive harassing of people with "I am not judging you, but what you are doing is displeasing to God"-style unsolicited conversation).Carc, seriously, you might have a calling as a priest. The Catholic Church could use a few Archbishops like you.
edited 24th Oct '12 12:12:59 PM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honor
I want Kat's glasses!That also makes "incest between consenting adults" a catch-22: Either it's bad because it may make deformed children (what I called "incestuous conception"), or it's bad because it's doubleplusungood nonreproductive crimesex.
edited 24th Oct '12 12:11:40 PM by Medinoc
Queen of FoxesI'm pretty much doomed anyway since I'm not sure whether or not he exists, so screw it.
But the possibility of reproduction is not prevented in the case of homosexuals. Things just don't work right any more than if a man is shooting blanks or a woman is sterile.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
I want Kat's glasses!Sounds like the reverse of Pascal's Wager. Which may be a good thing, if it works like in Discworld.
edited 24th Oct '12 12:12:43 PM by Medinoc
NOT THE BEES
Why do people keep saying that the Leviticus mentions of homosexuality are part of the hygiene laws? They're not. The first one is part of the laws on sexual ethicsExcept almost all of the sexual ethics laws are also hygenic or important to general healthy propagation during constant wartime when they couldn't afford to cut corners on that. Unless you want to say there's a special moral reason we're supposed to execute people who have sex during the woman's period.
Cherry-picking requires two things to actually not work together.Well it doesn't really, but the other way around holds.
If it could be done without first writing a Crisis of Infinite Jesus, it would be all for the better.I beg to differ. I'd totally read Crisis of Infinite Jesus.
I don't remember the Orthodox position; and Protestant views are all over the place, if I am not mistaken.IIRC Orthodox is all over the map too as of the 70's. Go figure.
edited 24th Oct '12 12:13:29 PM by Pykrete
I'm an Irene!Maxima, you condemn homosexuality, but you refuse to believe that it should be condemned by death, which is two specific passages about eachother. You're cherrypicking the lesser of two evils. There you go. Keep in mind I did not say you're contradicting yourself(although you are contradicting the Bible by not following a particular passage, but we ALL do it). That's entirely different and not part of what I mean.
I want Kat's glasses!Wait, execute people because they don't reproduce enough? That sounds just as counterproductive as "beatings will continue until morale improves".
edited 24th Oct '12 12:14:22 PM by Medinoc
Princess Ymir's knightessReading the bible makes me think that God might have been one of the earliest Magnificent Bastards of all time...
TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from firstname.lastname@example.org.