S
Shai Gar
sriv said:
*Slaps sriv*
It's okay cokenut *huggles her*, The police will help you, I've called the SVU, they'll take a swabbing.
God is a sexist, homophobic, proslavery, sadistic, murderer
- Thread starter Satya
- Start date
*Slaps sriv*
It's okay cokenut *huggles her*, The police will help you, I've called the SVU, they'll take a swabbing.
S
Shai Gar
Yeah, I think most ESFJ Rape Victims might take offence to the joke and not laugh.CokeNut said:
S
Shai Gar
What do you mean by this? It seems that your presupposition is that the purpose of religion is to unify the people using God as the mediator. I would argue, on the other hand that the purpose of religion is to unify the people with God using religion as the mediator.
Fellowship with other people will then result only after the heart is conformed to God, not before. In other words, where you say that religion is using God as a tool to unify people for the sole purpose of unity, I am saying religion is merely a tool used to unify people with God.
Your statement about disunity confused me a little. Can clarify what you are saying? It seems to be either a) you believe, whether or not religion is correct, that when it declares itself to be the way it will cause disunity no matter what b) it causes disunity because it has declared itself to be the right way because it is, in fact, the wrong way, or c) it causes disunity because there is no true path, or d) it causes disunity because it is the right way but people have chosen to reject it.
So, I take it that, for you, God is not a physical tangible being, he is, instead, an ideology? Not real, just ideal?
So you see others as perceiving God to be a symbol of an authoritarian parent, which you perceive as being a bad thing, I take it? Though, if it is less than good, which is your ideal/God, I can see how you would reject that perception of God.
Our discussion has a great deal to do with who/what God is. Your “God” is an ideology, mine is a physical being with power who has the right to make the rules. My question for you is, if your God is merely an ideal, that ideal being goodness, how do you know what goodness is? What is your standard for defining goodness? What defines ethics and morality for you? Are ethics and morality relative or absolute?
I think you are saying that your particular ideal of God gives you a sense of purpose and you want others to experience that same sense of purpose. Is that about right?
Wow!! I just realized that Satya, Motorjax, and myself have the most posts!!! LOL
Either we have no life, we are excessively bored, both, or no one else is interested, or all the above . . . Lurkers closing in, though, for most in a period of time, I swear . . . which is awesome. Shai, your slackin' dude!!
Either we have no life, we are excessively bored, both, or no one else is interested, or all the above . . . Lurkers closing in, though, for most in a period of time, I swear . . . which is awesome. Shai, your slackin' dude!!
S
Shai Gar
this IS your forum not mine But I'm finding it excessively hard to stay on topic and not hit on all of you, so I'm staying out as much as I can.
S
Shai Gar
Kwistalline said:
I ask you to consider the thousands of religions there are in the world, many of which declare themselves the one "true" religion. The Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Islam, Christianity) are unique in that they have Pascal's wager and declare that failure to believe will result in hell. What I am saying is there is not one true path to God, but many, and that religion inherently divides people because of this.
God is very real. He is as real as freedom, justice, integrity, love, perseverance, humility, etc. I can see him everyday in everything I do and encounter. An ideal suggests that God is something we seek, but we already have God if we know where to look. So I know many physical forms of God, as I had explained earlier. God is very physical, as well as emotional and spiritual.
As I have said before, God is not an ideal since he can be found everywhere and in many forms. The idea of an authoritarian parent God was created long ago to control people and it has persisted out of fear of damnation.
I would turn it around and say your God is the ideology and mine is real. I can see and speak to God everyday, whereas you have to pray to an invisible being that you just take on faith is there. As far as my standard, I already explained it more than once. God is all the things in life that make life worth living.
Nope. God is purpose. There is no greater purpose than bringing God into this world. When I die, if I can say that I made the world a better place to live for the people I leave behind, then I can die knowing I brought God into the world.
Now rather than try to reduce or minimize my perception of God, why not explain the perceived hypocrisy of yours, as this thread was intended.
Can you blame me? We both believe our Gods are the best and out of love for others wish for the world to know what joy our respective beliefs bring us. Someone who wasnt' a Christian made this rather reasonable statement about faith: when you believe something and you think it is the best thing in the world, but you are unwilling to share it with others, you not only prove how unloving you are, you also diminish the value of that object. So it would be only natural for the both of us to wish to promote what we believe.Anyway, I was hoping to clarify some of my earlier remarks concerning slavery. I re-read what I had written concerning divorce after not reading it for, oh, what, has it been a week or something? Anyhow, I needed that much time to recognize that I hadn't made myself clear. I apologize for the confusion, hoping that this further explaination will help (though, considering our differing beliefs on who/what God is, I'm thinking our respective paths to logic are too different for understanding).
I was using divorce as an example of things that are not specifically set apart as being sinful, that God allows, but that I believe go against his character. God states that he hated divorce, yet he allowed it in the law. There were regulations on divorce to prevent a man from using a woman and tossing her aside. The same goes for slavery. There were regulations there to "legislate" how slaves ought to be treated. At least he cared enough to make sure slaves weren't treated on the level of animals!! And you have to say this for Isreal: they had no poor. Slavery was a means of preventing poverty and homelessness.
The other thing to be noted is how Christians were told to treat slaves. No, again, no commands (are we still children that we must have right and wrong defined for us instead of using our own discernment? I think not). Just the one example in Philemon where Paul implores Philemon, the master, to treat his runaway servant, Onesimus, as a brother in Christ, making them equal. Paul also mentions something about "I cannot command you . . ." which many interpret as Paul's way of infering he would rather instruct Philemon to free his slave.
"Paul . . . To Philemon . . . although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do, yet I appeal to you on the basis of love. I then, as Paul . . . appeal to you for my son Onesimus, who became my son while I was in chains.I am sending him–who is my very heart–back to you. I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel. But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do will be spontaneous and not forced. Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back for good–no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a man and as a brother in the Lord. So if you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would welcome me (Philemon)"
The new testament example seeks to break down the social construction of slavery using the love of Christ as a motivating factor. Love of christ and love of Christian brethren. And no, I have nothing else to say on the matter. You may disagree as you will, but you wanted to know how anyone could believe in a God like this, and this is my defense. I'm not here to convince you, I'm only here to inform you. Which, unless I misunderstood the point of this thread, was part of your intention.
I am truly sorry for offending you.Satya said:
I was trying to point out something that in my opinion was skipped over in the conversation... but I did not communicate well, and ended up looking like i was attacking you, which was definitely not my intent. I did not realize that the group i focused on in my post is a group to which you belong.
I get tired doing long posts (because it's even harder trying not to say something that will be misunderstood), so i was trying to make it as short and succinct as possible, and skipped over a main point, which was to emphasize the health reasons for the biblical treatment of homosexuality.
Much the same as Kwistalline noted that in the Bible, homosexuality was lumped in with such things as lying and stealing, my purpose was to point out that the law against homosexuality was among many biblical laws put in place to protect the Isrealites from harm. You were right in reminding me that homosexuals and heterosexuals alike can get HIV quite easily by being active. I did not mean to downplay that fact. I naively assumed that you were coming from roughly the same perspective as i (meaning: the ideal of a lifelong monogamous heterosexual marriage) and therefore did not speak diplomatically, but just spoke whatever came to mind*, which at the moment was the issue of health. In my perspective, no other kind of relationship has as good chances of being healthy as a monogamous heterosexual marriage.
I did not do research on this opinion; I assumed, and some of my "facts" were wrong. So, for that I sincerely apologize.
*I wasn't trying to be snarky, i just haven't been in an online religion discussion in an incredibly long time, and forgot how heated things can get when the wrong thing is said... which had originally been my reason for avoiding these topics.
Inkling said:
I came from a very abusive home with heterosexual parents, so I know firsthand how "unhealthy" it can be. I've also known some very happy and functional families with same sex parents. So my perspective is very different because I don't think sexual orientation plays nearly as great a role in the "health" of a family as the integrity and love of the people who are involved in that family.
No problem. There is tremendous amount of medical misinformation out there spread by religious groups who wish to perpetrate the idea that homosexuality is unhealthy. The other day I argued with a man who was certain that the average homosexual lived 10-30 years less than the average heterosexual and that homosexuals are 7 times more likely to molest children. The irony is when I asked him to show me his sources, he brought up religious sponsored websites where I easily pointed out how they completely distorted the statistics so they would show what they wanted them to show.
The reality is the FBI has kept records and determined that child molesters are opportunistic and don't distinguish between genders and 91% are likely to identify themselves as heterosexual. The way the religious fanatics get around this is by declaring any male who molests a male child is gay and any female who molests a female child is a lesbian. How stupid is that? And then they argue that since homosexuals make up such a "small percentage" of the population, but around a third of child molestation cases are same sex assaults, so homosexuals must be so much more dangerous.
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/one.php
The myth about the average lifespan of homosexuals comes from the religious fanatic, Paul Cameron, who got his stats by recording gay deaths from the obituaries. Can you believe that? Actual statistician's calculated that for Cameron's figures to be true, the average homosexual who doesn't contract AIDS or any other STD would have to die in his early 40's. You don't have to be a nurse or doctor to know how absurd that is.
http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/ ... lifspn.htm
So with religious groups and individuals out there constantly manufacturing lies and misrepresentations on the internet, one has to be prudent and vigilant when it comes in dismissing them. Clearly you were not manufacturing lies, but because of the nature of the discussion, that was my immediate perception.
Satya, do we want to finish this discussion here, or on another thread? I think we've all been busy, this being the first month of summer and all, but I'd like to continue this discussion.
S