It is currently Tue Sep 30, 2014 5:10 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: religious right to discriminate.
PostPosted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 4:51 am 
Corporal
Corporal
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 12:42 pm
Posts: 43
Gender: male
Who is the govt to take away our human rights to hate other humans?!

You're being silly. Hate must be legal. It's freedom of speech, hate is good.

_________________
Permanently Retired
Image


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: religious right to discriminate.
PostPosted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 12:52 pm 
Lieutenant Major
Lieutenant Major
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:03 am
Posts: 1831
Location: England
Gender: male
mrducky wrote:
Zhester wrote:
"Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." - 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

" Judge not lest you be judged - jesus himself somewhere in Matthew "
leave it to god, until then, you have no right to judge according to yeshua himself.


Have you read the rest of that passage Ducky?

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." - From the same chapter as your quote, just a line down.

If you cannot understand what it is saying, it means that when you ask for forgiveness for your own sins, then you CAN judge others but not while you're sinful.

"Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment." - John 7:24
"My son, preserve sound judgment and discernment, do not let them out of your sight." - Proverbs 3:21

There is an obvious pattern about judging in the Bible... you can judge, but only fairly otherwise you are in the wrong, and since homosexuality is forbidden in the Bible in the Old and New Testament, they can judge them.


Oh and killing another person is against the 10 Commadments which is the only set of laws given to humans by God himself in the Bible. The other books were written by humans and therefore very susceptible to change (i.e. the Pharisees made 613 laws altogether for Jews to abide by, yes we're talking about Catholics, but this was in the Old Testament when there was no such thing as a Christian and Catholics believe in both Testaments) so I can only assume the stonings were due to tradition more than religion.

really, last i heard the bible was the inspired word of god. those laws were "translated" by moses then lost for all eternity, then some corrupted imperfect man comes along and writes it down. 10 commandments more likely to be tradition then religion because it isnt against *CENSORED* nor incest.

The Bible is, but liberalists think that because it is written by humans, mistakes are made.

I think pretty much all of the rules in the Bible's Old Testament are tradition, but not the 10 Commandments. Not like it makes any difference since it is all in the Bible.


P.S.: Killing is much more extreme compared to discriminating over jobs and most modern Christians will never condone it even if the country allowed them to do so.

but its biblical law, god wills it. unless you are picking and choosing and giving weak rationalisations so you can continue to be a bigot under jesus' banner while ignoring the fact that you should kill your child if he/she disrespects you because APPARENTLY THAT IS WRONG TO UPHOLD THE LAW OF GOD.
if your morals are better then the judeo christian god, fine, if you use the judeo christian god as the basis of other morals, dont feel surprised when called a hypocrite.


Once again, the 10 Commandments forbid killing so I can assume the suggestion of stoning a disobedient child is a mistake or a tradition in a time full of belief about demons (rather than mental afflictions) and witches. That's why no one does it anymore, even in Israel. (yes, they are Jewish in Israel, but the verses that tell you to stone your disobedient child are in the Old Testament)

I am the fish that got away...

(wut? i can use crappy idioms too)

_________________
Image
Zal.
Only Zul of The Fridge


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: religious right to discriminate.
PostPosted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:56 pm 
Captain
Captain
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 8:06 pm
Posts: 797
Gender: male
Zhester wrote:
mrducky wrote:
Zhester wrote:
"Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." - 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

" Judge not lest you be judged - jesus himself somewhere in Matthew "
leave it to god, until then, you have no right to judge according to yeshua himself.


Have you read the rest of that passage Ducky?

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." - From the same chapter as your quote, just a line down.

If you cannot understand what it is saying, it means that when you ask for forgiveness for your own sins, then you CAN judge others but not while you're sinful.

"Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment." - John 7:24
"My son, preserve sound judgment and discernment, do not let them out of your sight." - Proverbs 3:21

There is an obvious pattern about judging in the Bible... you can judge, but only fairly otherwise you are in the wrong, and since homosexuality is forbidden in the Bible in the Old and New Testament, they can judge them.


can you read? it clearly says to take the plank out of your eyes first, are you sin free? technically no. technically your jesus/god/whatever is sin free and thus, is the only one able to judge. because you are corrupt and sin filled and humans are bad etc...

the current roman catholic stance is following off the stance of jesus, hate the sin, love the sinner. such "judging" notions are in direct conflict with that stance. even if you are to judge, that doesnt give one the right to discriminate?


Oh and killing another person is against the 10 Commadments which is the only set of laws given to humans by God himself in the Bible. The other books were written by humans and therefore very susceptible to change (i.e. the Pharisees made 613 laws altogether for Jews to abide by, yes we're talking about Catholics, but this was in the Old Testament when there was no such thing as a Christian and Catholics believe in both Testaments) so I can only assume the stonings were due to tradition more than religion.

do you know why christianity is a judeo-christian religion?
JESUS WAS A FREAKING JEW.

he fulfilled MESSIANIC PROPHECIES (supposedly) god is perfect yes? then he wouldnt have to revert some old rules.

you cant do away with the old testament because you dislike it. your entire religion is based upon it. it was how jesus could claim to be son of god. besides it isnt killing, its execution, law bound, eye for an eye, killing. unless you are JW then you support killing in a war because... its a war.


really, last i heard the bible was the inspired word of god. those laws were "translated" by moses then lost for all eternity, then some corrupted imperfect man comes along and writes it down. 10 commandments more likely to be tradition then religion because it isnt against *CENSORED* nor incest.

The Bible is, but liberalists think that because it is written by humans, mistakes are made.

I think pretty much all of the rules in the Bible's Old Testament are tradition, but not the 10 Commandments. Not like it makes any difference since it is all in the Bible.

P.S.: Killing is much more extreme compared to discriminating over jobs and most modern Christians will never condone it even if the country allowed them to do so.


can you show me the original 10 commandments?...
you do know that the 10 commandments were shown by moses to the jews, there were no christians at the time. go judaism if you feel that is the word of god.
besides, i forgot which passage but it was mark or matt. something about god guaranteeing the bible as gods word will remain uncorrupted. well.... which is it? lying god or non existing god?


but its biblical law, god wills it. unless you are picking and choosing and giving weak rationalisations so you can continue to be a bigot under jesus' banner while ignoring the fact that you should kill your child if he/she disrespects you because APPARENTLY THAT IS WRONG TO UPHOLD THE LAW OF GOD.
if your morals are better then the judeo christian god, fine, if you use the judeo christian god as the basis of other morals, dont feel surprised when called a hypocrite.


Once again, the 10 Commandments forbid killing so I can assume the suggestion of stoning a disobedient child is a mistake or a tradition in a time full of belief about demons (rather than mental afflictions) and witches. That's why no one does it anymore, even in Israel. (yes, they are Jewish in Israel, but the verses that tell you to stone your disobedient child are in the Old Testament)
and yet... rape + incest are perfectly fine... 10 commandments say nothing about homosexuality btw.

the reason why people dont do it anymore is because it is obviously a silly law. now people are picking and choosing what is "gods word" and what is "mere human error", quite frankly lieing to themselves in order to uphold common sense.



_________________
Image

-~~Retired Spammer~~-

~Agnostic atheist pastafarian~

Discussion+debates and World Events.


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: religious right to discriminate.
PostPosted: Sat Oct 03, 2009 7:26 am 
Lieutenant Major
Lieutenant Major
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:03 am
Posts: 1831
Location: England
Gender: male
I'm gonna stop the quote since it's getting ridiculously huge (and you're putting your replies in the wrong places).

I'll make one thing clear to you. I'm not a Christian/Catholic/Jew/Orthodox/whatever (just forced to learn about it in school). I'm a Muslim, and the reason I'm arguing that they should be allowed to discriminate is because if I was forced to break my religion's law, I wouldn't be happy and neither would any other Muslim be. You wouldn't like to be forced to break your religion's rules, would you?

The passing is talking about hypocrisy actually. So unless the Catholics are engaged in sodomy all the time, they can judge homosexuals. Keyword in that password; 'You hypocrite'.

I'm not doing the Old Testament away, otherwise I wouldn't believe that the 10 Commandments are real, but it is the oldest part of the Bible, there is no doubt a lot of it has been changed and the best way to interpret it is judging which were traditional rules and which were ones God actually assigned to the human race. I always thought the best way to do so was to compare which of the rules the Old and New Testament agreed on (i.e. homosexuality) because both Testaments are important and it makes sense to do that, no?

I have said before, the Old and New Testament are both important to Christians, and just because the 10 Commandments were shown to the Jews, it doesn't mean that Christians are not supposed to follow it. That passage where God guarantees the accuracy of the Bible was most definitely written by other humans... Why would God, perfect as he is, contradict himself so many times in one book? Plus, I'm sure God inspired the writers of the Bible, but what about the translators? If you've played any Asian MMORPG translated for the American market, you can see how easily errors are made in even the simplest of sentences. Who's to say such errors were made here?

The 10 Commandments may say nothing about homosexuality, but both Testaments do, which does make me think that this is not a traditional rule rather one genuinely inspired by God. By the way, you say incest as if it is the most disgusting thing in the world... It's not something that favours me, but in my family, some of my cousins have married other cousins. They are different human beings, and just because they have the same grandfather, it doesn't mean it's extremely wrong.

_________________
Image
Zal.
Only Zul of The Fridge


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: religious right to discriminate.
PostPosted: Sun Oct 04, 2009 2:30 am 
Captain
Captain
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 8:06 pm
Posts: 797
Gender: male
Zhester wrote:
I'm gonna stop the quote since it's getting ridiculously huge (and you're putting your replies in the wrong places).

I'll make one thing clear to you. I'm not a Christian/Catholic/Jew/Orthodox/whatever (just forced to learn about it in school). I'm a Muslim, and the reason I'm arguing that they should be allowed to discriminate is because if I was forced to break my religion's law, I wouldn't be happy and neither would any other Muslim be. You wouldn't like to be forced to break your religion's rules, would you?

my religion... my religion... hmmm being secular (atheist) my laws would be the common law. so let me see... i need to break the law in order to uphold the law... WOW :D

besides, sharia law at its peak isnt exactly that much better then levictus or jewish "traditions/laws"


The passing is talking about hypocrisy actually. So unless the Catholics are engaged in sodomy all the time, they can judge homosexuals. Keyword in that password; 'You hypocrite'.

I'm not doing the Old Testament away, otherwise I wouldn't believe that the 10 Commandments are real, but it is the oldest part of the Bible, there is no doubt a lot of it has been changed and the best way to interpret it is judging which were traditional rules and which were ones God actually assigned to the human race. I always thought the best way to do so was to compare which of the rules the Old and New Testament agreed on (i.e. homosexuality) because both Testaments are important and it makes sense to do that, no?

nope, because it is supposedly god inspired.
you have no right to assume one part is correct and another isnt. whats to say that the original 10 laws werent opinion? and if age of the law is what is important, greek mythology? pagan law? aboriginal religions of the rainbow snake?
there is no tradition of FIND A HOMOSEXUAL. STONE SAID HOMOSEXUAL TO DEATH. it is law. gods appointed execution. the style and the sentence may be gruesome but meh... thats your problem if you hold that god commanded.


I have said before, the Old and New Testament are both important to Christians, and just because the 10 Commandments were shown to the Jews, it doesn't mean that Christians are not supposed to follow it. That passage where God guarantees the accuracy of the Bible was most definitely written by other humans... Why would God, perfect as he is, contradict himself so many times in one book? Plus, I'm sure God inspired the writers of the Bible, but what about the translators? If you've played any Asian MMORPG translated for the American market, you can see how easily errors are made in even the simplest of sentences. Who's to say such errors were made here?

who is to say that the original 10 commandments have kept their meaning?

The 10 Commandments may say nothing about homosexuality, but both Testaments do, which does make me think that this is not a traditional rule rather one genuinely inspired by God. By the way, you say incest as if it is the most disgusting thing in the world... It's not something that favours me, but in my family, some of my cousins have married other cousins. They are different human beings, and just because they have the same grandfather, it doesn't mean it's extremely wrong.

cousins=perfectly legal, even today
i say meh, if they wish to.
daughters+fathers, brothers+sisters disturbs me.
look to adam and eve, noahs family, lot and his 2 daughters. etc... there is a reverberating message of god wanting humans to fornicate with siblings and attempt to eff up the genetic line even more.
as i have said, just because 2 dusty books have somewhat similiar sentences doesnt mean it is a god inspired message. its either none or all. which has god? would a god knowingly let a bunch of nubs taint and corrupt? either none or all. up to you. you dont have much reason behind picking and choosing what sounds palatable. (bible supports an eye for an eye stance, murderers/self defense/anywhere where someone dies. the other person should be executed. traditionally this is done by stoning although floggings are acceptable too...)


_________________
Image

-~~Retired Spammer~~-

~Agnostic atheist pastafarian~

Discussion+debates and World Events.


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: religious right to discriminate.
PostPosted: Sun Oct 04, 2009 8:20 pm 
Sergeant
Sergeant
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 1:36 pm
Posts: 127
Gender: male
mrducky wrote:
the legislation means they can discriminate against homosexuals and single mothers for jobs like janitor or things that dont really have much influence other then, 'LET US BE BIGOTS!'

i can understand they might not want a maths teacher who openly worships satan... but other then that, its just homophobia.

and no, legislation protects them against the lawsuit as they CAN discriminate and be protected by law.

whats with the spacing?



To Catholics homosexuality=satanism. Catholicism is sexist. Are you really

shocked by all this. You should become a bit more cynical. That way you

won't be disappointed when the world lets you down. I expect Catholic

dogma to do things that to me seem illogical and just plain messed up.



I double space to increase the likely hood of people reading. Double spaced

a paragraph looks shorter and the double spacing makes reading less of a

chore. Something I learned from my teachers.


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: religious right to discriminate.
PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 12:39 am 
Captain
Captain
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 8:06 pm
Posts: 797
Gender: male
Sylis wrote:
mrducky wrote:
the legislation means they can discriminate against homosexuals and single mothers for jobs like janitor or things that dont really have much influence other then, 'LET US BE BIGOTS!'

i can understand they might not want a maths teacher who openly worships satan... but other then that, its just homophobia.

and no, legislation protects them against the lawsuit as they CAN discriminate and be protected by law.

whats with the spacing?

To Catholics homosexuality=satanism. Catholicism is sexist. Are you really

shocked by all this. You should become a bit more cynical. That way you
won't be disappointed when the world lets you down. I expect Catholic
dogma to do things that to me seem illogical and just plain messed up.

I double space to increase the likely hood of people reading. Double spaced
a paragraph looks shorter and the double spacing makes reading less of a
chore. Something I learned from my teachers.

pwned :D DIE DOUBLE SPACING!!! DIE!!!
most catholics in australia would disagree with you there, and their current stance is "hate the sin, love the sinner" and they dislike women because corinthians something something states they cant talk in a church and should stay quiet and keep opinion to themselves. im more shocked that the government is helping the catholic church incite bigotry.


_________________
Image

-~~Retired Spammer~~-

~Agnostic atheist pastafarian~

Discussion+debates and World Events.


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: religious right to discriminate.
PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 2:56 pm 
Lieutenant Major
Lieutenant Major
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:03 am
Posts: 1831
Location: England
Gender: male
mrducky wrote:
Zhester wrote:
I'm gonna stop the quote since it's getting ridiculously huge (and you're putting your replies in the wrong places).

I'll make one thing clear to you. I'm not a Christian/Catholic/Jew/Orthodox/whatever (just forced to learn about it in school). I'm a Muslim, and the reason I'm arguing that they should be allowed to discriminate is because if I was forced to break my religion's law, I wouldn't be happy and neither would any other Muslim be. You wouldn't like to be forced to break your religion's rules, would you?

my religion... my religion... hmmm being secular (atheist) my laws would be the common law. so let me see... i need to break the law in order to uphold the law... WOW :D

besides, sharia law at its peak isnt exactly that much better then levictus or jewish "traditions/laws"


So if you lived in a Muslim country, you'd believe in God since that is the common law? That doesn't sound very secular.

I don't live under the Sharia law since I am in England, but I know it isn't meant to be pleasant.


The passing is talking about hypocrisy actually. So unless the Catholics are engaged in sodomy all the time, they can judge homosexuals. Keyword in that password; 'You hypocrite'.

I'm not doing the Old Testament away, otherwise I wouldn't believe that the 10 Commandments are real, but it is the oldest part of the Bible, there is no doubt a lot of it has been changed and the best way to interpret it is judging which were traditional rules and which were ones God actually assigned to the human race. I always thought the best way to do so was to compare which of the rules the Old and New Testament agreed on (i.e. homosexuality) because both Testaments are important and it makes sense to do that, no?

nope, because it is supposedly god inspired.
you have no right to assume one part is correct and another isnt. whats to say that the original 10 laws werent opinion? and if age of the law is what is important, greek mythology? pagan law? aboriginal religions of the rainbow snake?
there is no tradition of FIND A HOMOSEXUAL. STONE SAID HOMOSEXUAL TO DEATH. it is law. gods appointed execution. the style and the sentence may be gruesome but meh... thats your problem if you hold that god commanded.


Again, depends on what you believe in. If you think the Bible is just mythology with pre-science laws which are reasoned without the knowledge we have in this day and age. If you are a literalist however, and believe every single word in the Bible to be true (rare nowadays), then yes, you'd stone the homosexuals. You'd also drink poison from a snake and expect to survive. Both stupid things as the educated people in this world know.

I have said before, the Old and New Testament are both important to Christians, and just because the 10 Commandments were shown to the Jews, it doesn't mean that Christians are not supposed to follow it. That passage where God guarantees the accuracy of the Bible was most definitely written by other humans... Why would God, perfect as he is, contradict himself so many times in one book? Plus, I'm sure God inspired the writers of the Bible, but what about the translators? If you've played any Asian MMORPG translated for the American market, you can see how easily errors are made in even the simplest of sentences. Who's to say such errors were made here?

who is to say that the original 10 commandments have kept their meaning?

Well, the Qu'ran actually says it has been changed by humans, but the list in the Qu'ran is almost the same. Three Holy texts holding similar lists can't be too far from the truth but it still depends on what you believe in.

The 10 Commandments may say nothing about homosexuality, but both Testaments do, which does make me think that this is not a traditional rule rather one genuinely inspired by God. By the way, you say incest as if it is the most disgusting thing in the world... It's not something that favours me, but in my family, some of my cousins have married other cousins. They are different human beings, and just because they have the same grandfather, it doesn't mean it's extremely wrong.

cousins=perfectly legal, even today
i say meh, if they wish to.
daughters+fathers, brothers+sisters disturbs me.
look to adam and eve, noahs family, lot and his 2 daughters. etc... there is a reverberating message of god wanting humans to fornicate with siblings and attempt to eff up the genetic line even more.
as i have said, just because 2 dusty books have somewhat similiar sentences doesnt mean it is a god inspired message. its either none or all. which has god? would a god knowingly let a bunch of nubs taint and corrupt? either none or all. up to you. you dont have much reason behind picking and choosing what sounds palatable. (bible supports an eye for an eye stance, murderers/self defense/anywhere where someone dies. the other person should be executed. traditionally this is done by stoning although floggings are acceptable too...)


Adam and Eve weren't siblings and Noah's family had no choice otherwise the human race would die there and then or are you not familiar with the story?
Would God allow there to be atheists? Yes he would, so why wouldn't there be nubs who taint and corrupt the original texts of the Bible? Not to mention, it's very hard to translate something as long as the Bible completely without mistakes (like about the betrayel of Jesus, where the original texts actually said 'handed over').



Sorry for the long time to reply.

_________________
Image
Zal.
Only Zul of The Fridge


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: religious right to discriminate.
PostPosted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 12:19 am 
Captain
Captain
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 8:06 pm
Posts: 797
Gender: male
Zhester wrote:
mrducky wrote:
Zhester wrote:
I'm gonna stop the quote since it's getting ridiculously huge (and you're putting your replies in the wrong places).

I'll make one thing clear to you. I'm not a Christian/Catholic/Jew/Orthodox/whatever (just forced to learn about it in school). I'm a Muslim, and the reason I'm arguing that they should be allowed to discriminate is because if I was forced to break my religion's law, I wouldn't be happy and neither would any other Muslim be. You wouldn't like to be forced to break your religion's rules, would you?

my religion... my religion... hmmm being secular (atheist) my laws would be the common law. so let me see... i need to break the law in order to uphold the law... WOW :D

besides, sharia law at its peak isnt exactly that much better then levictus or jewish "traditions/laws"


So if you lived in a Muslim country, you'd believe in God since that is the common law? That doesn't sound very secular.

I don't live under the Sharia law since I am in England, but I know it isn't meant to be pleasant.


nope, if i live in a muslim state with sharia law, i would pay the extra taxes to ensure i would be protected by the state before GTFO out as soon as possible.

The passing is talking about hypocrisy actually. So unless the Catholics are engaged in sodomy all the time, they can judge homosexuals. Keyword in that password; 'You hypocrite'.

I'm not doing the Old Testament away, otherwise I wouldn't believe that the 10 Commandments are real, but it is the oldest part of the Bible, there is no doubt a lot of it has been changed and the best way to interpret it is judging which were traditional rules and which were ones God actually assigned to the human race. I always thought the best way to do so was to compare which of the rules the Old and New Testament agreed on (i.e. homosexuality) because both Testaments are important and it makes sense to do that, no?

nope, because it is supposedly god inspired.
you have no right to assume one part is correct and another isnt. whats to say that the original 10 laws werent opinion? and if age of the law is what is important, greek mythology? pagan law? aboriginal religions of the rainbow snake?
there is no tradition of FIND A HOMOSEXUAL. STONE SAID HOMOSEXUAL TO DEATH. it is law. gods appointed execution. the style and the sentence may be gruesome but meh... thats your problem if you hold that god commanded.


Again, depends on what you believe in. If you think the Bible is just mythology with pre-science laws which are reasoned without the knowledge we have in this day and age. If you are a literalist however, and believe every single word in the Bible to be true (rare nowadays), then yes, you'd stone the homosexuals. You'd also drink poison from a snake and expect to survive. Both stupid things as the educated people in this world know.

I have said before, the Old and New Testament are both important to Christians, and just because the 10 Commandments were shown to the Jews, it doesn't mean that Christians are not supposed to follow it. That passage where God guarantees the accuracy of the Bible was most definitely written by other humans... Why would God, perfect as he is, contradict himself so many times in one book? Plus, I'm sure God inspired the writers of the Bible, but what about the translators? If you've played any Asian MMORPG translated for the American market, you can see how easily errors are made in even the simplest of sentences. Who's to say such errors were made here?

who is to say that the original 10 commandments have kept their meaning?

Well, the Qu'ran actually says it has been changed by humans, but the list in the Qu'ran is almost the same. Three Holy texts holding similar lists can't be too far from the truth but it still depends on what you believe in.

that a cave dwelling man met an angel who flew him through heaven on a one winged horse from jereusalem?, after killing some things and waging war, he then entered relations with more then 10 women including a 6/7 year old girl? the 3 holy texts describe different gods from different time periods.
the first god primarily was there to annoy moses, boss him around, was vindictive and smiteyful. smite smite.
2nd one came as jesus along with other prophets. more cheerier then smite smite.
3rd is the one that muhammad talked with.
they have some things in common but generally delve into things unique to the people.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/q ... /long.html
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual ... in_animals
<3 skeptics annotated
quran states that it is unnatural, IMO, from that evidence, it happens plenty in nature.
so as i said, the only basis that homosexuality is bad is because the book says homosexuality is bad. there is no reasoning, no logic just, the writers were homophobic. now if you follow the book, you should begin hunting witches (wiccans/pagans that are female)


The 10 Commandments may say nothing about homosexuality, but both Testaments do, which does make me think that this is not a traditional rule rather one genuinely inspired by God. By the way, you say incest as if it is the most disgusting thing in the world... It's not something that favours me, but in my family, some of my cousins have married other cousins. They are different human beings, and just because they have the same grandfather, it doesn't mean it's extremely wrong.

cousins=perfectly legal, even today
i say meh, if they wish to.
daughters+fathers, brothers+sisters disturbs me.
look to adam and eve, noahs family, lot and his 2 daughters. etc... there is a reverberating message of god wanting humans to fornicate with siblings and attempt to eff up the genetic line even more.
as i have said, just because 2 dusty books have somewhat similiar sentences doesnt mean it is a god inspired message. its either none or all. which has god? would a god knowingly let a bunch of nubs taint and corrupt? either none or all. up to you. you dont have much reason behind picking and choosing what sounds palatable. (bible supports an eye for an eye stance, murderers/self defense/anywhere where someone dies. the other person should be executed. traditionally this is done by stoning although floggings are acceptable too...)


Adam and Eve weren't siblings and Noah's family had no choice otherwise the human race would die there and then or are you not familiar with the story?
Would God allow there to be atheists? Yes he would, so why wouldn't there be nubs who taint and corrupt the original texts of the Bible? Not to mention, it's very hard to translate something as long as the Bible completely without mistakes (like about the betrayel of Jesus, where the original texts actually said 'handed over').


while adam and eve might not have been siblings, their children were.
if god had an idea of what incest does to genes, he would have ensured Noah have a bigger family, 50 pairs is all that is needed for enough genetic diversity. a mere 100 people. rather then brothers, sisters and cousins of noah. if god could be bothered magically teleporting koalas and penguins and tyrannosaurus rex and sumertran tigers to the boat, im sure he could have made the story plausible by having enough genetic variations so the story made sense.
but it seems more like a bunch of men who wrote it unknowing of the repercussions.
i remember God supporting Job (is it? or was it Lot, 3 letter names confuse me) family, blessing it. did i mention he got drunk and impregnated both his daughters?



Sorry for the long time to reply.

_________________
Image

-~~Retired Spammer~~-

~Agnostic atheist pastafarian~

Discussion+debates and World Events.


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: religious right to discriminate.
PostPosted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:46 am 
Lieutenant Major
Lieutenant Major
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:03 am
Posts: 1831
Location: England
Gender: male
mrducky wrote:
Zhester wrote:
mrducky wrote:
I'm gonna stop the quote since it's getting ridiculously huge (and you're putting your replies in the wrong places).

I'll make one thing clear to you. I'm not a Christian/Catholic/Jew/Orthodox/whatever (just forced to learn about it in school). I'm a Muslim, and the reason I'm arguing that they should be allowed to discriminate is because if I was forced to break my religion's law, I wouldn't be happy and neither would any other Muslim be. You wouldn't like to be forced to break your religion's rules, would you?

my religion... my religion... hmmm being secular (atheist) my laws would be the common law. so let me see... i need to break the law in order to uphold the law... WOW :D

besides, sharia law at its peak isnt exactly that much better then levictus or jewish "traditions/laws"


So if you lived in a Muslim country, you'd believe in God since that is the common law? That doesn't sound very secular.

I don't live under the Sharia law since I am in England, but I know it isn't meant to be pleasant.


nope, if i live in a muslim state with sharia law, i would pay the extra taxes to ensure i would be protected by the state before GTFO out as soon as possible.

Would that work in Iran?

The passing is talking about hypocrisy actually. So unless the Catholics are engaged in sodomy all the time, they can judge homosexuals. Keyword in that password; 'You hypocrite'.

I'm not doing the Old Testament away, otherwise I wouldn't believe that the 10 Commandments are real, but it is the oldest part of the Bible, there is no doubt a lot of it has been changed and the best way to interpret it is judging which were traditional rules and which were ones God actually assigned to the human race. I always thought the best way to do so was to compare which of the rules the Old and New Testament agreed on (i.e. homosexuality) because both Testaments are important and it makes sense to do that, no?

nope, because it is supposedly god inspired.
you have no right to assume one part is correct and another isnt. whats to say that the original 10 laws werent opinion? and if age of the law is what is important, greek mythology? pagan law? aboriginal religions of the rainbow snake?
there is no tradition of FIND A HOMOSEXUAL. STONE SAID HOMOSEXUAL TO DEATH. it is law. gods appointed execution. the style and the sentence may be gruesome but meh... thats your problem if you hold that god commanded.


Again, depends on what you believe in. If you think the Bible is just mythology with pre-science laws which are reasoned without the knowledge we have in this day and age. If you are a literalist however, and believe every single word in the Bible to be true (rare nowadays), then yes, you'd stone the homosexuals. You'd also drink poison from a snake and expect to survive. Both stupid things as the educated people in this world know.

I have said before, the Old and New Testament are both important to Christians, and just because the 10 Commandments were shown to the Jews, it doesn't mean that Christians are not supposed to follow it. That passage where God guarantees the accuracy of the Bible was most definitely written by other humans... Why would God, perfect as he is, contradict himself so many times in one book? Plus, I'm sure God inspired the writers of the Bible, but what about the translators? If you've played any Asian MMORPG translated for the American market, you can see how easily errors are made in even the simplest of sentences. Who's to say such errors were made here?

who is to say that the original 10 commandments have kept their meaning?

Well, the Qu'ran actually says it has been changed by humans, but the list in the Qu'ran is almost the same. Three Holy texts holding similar lists can't be too far from the truth but it still depends on what you believe in.

that a cave dwelling man met an angel who flew him through heaven on a one winged horse from jereusalem?, after killing some things and waging war, he then entered relations with more then 10 women including a 6/7 year old girl? the 3 holy texts describe different gods from different time periods.
the first god primarily was there to annoy moses, boss him around, was vindictive and smiteyful. smite smite.
2nd one came as jesus along with other prophets. more cheerier then smite smite.
3rd is the one that muhammad talked with.
they have some things in common but generally delve into things unique to the people.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/q ... /long.html
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual ... in_animals
<3 skeptics annotated
quran states that it is unnatural, IMO, from that evidence, it happens plenty in nature.
so as i said, the only basis that homosexuality is bad is because the book says homosexuality is bad. there is no reasoning, no logic just, the writers were homophobic. now if you follow the book, you should begin hunting witches (wiccans/pagans that are female)


Muhammad never lived in a cave, he used to meditate alone for weeks every year in one, what horse, it's not religious law to marry 10 women, it's tradition, same with marrying a 9 year old girl, Muslims aren't obligated to do so and no one does that anymore anyway and because they were written at different times, they all talk about different Gods?
I assume Jews do not include the New Testament in their preachings because the Jews tried to kill Jesus, God's supposed son, and why would you preach about something that is harmful to your religion?
The Qu'ran notes Christianity and Judaism, and even says that a pious Christian or Jew who has not read or heard the story of the Qu'ran will go to heaven. If the Qu'ran was about a different God, I highly doubt it would include that sentence.

Okay, homosexuality happens in the animal kingdom, but what about humans? The Qu'ran could simply be implying it is not natural in humans.


The 10 Commandments may say nothing about homosexuality, but both Testaments do, which does make me think that this is not a traditional rule rather one genuinely inspired by God. By the way, you say incest as if it is the most disgusting thing in the world... It's not something that favours me, but in my family, some of my cousins have married other cousins. They are different human beings, and just because they have the same grandfather, it doesn't mean it's extremely wrong.

cousins=perfectly legal, even today
i say meh, if they wish to.
daughters+fathers, brothers+sisters disturbs me.
look to adam and eve, noahs family, lot and his 2 daughters. etc... there is a reverberating message of god wanting humans to fornicate with siblings and attempt to eff up the genetic line even more.
as i have said, just because 2 dusty books have somewhat similiar sentences doesnt mean it is a god inspired message. its either none or all. which has god? would a god knowingly let a bunch of nubs taint and corrupt? either none or all. up to you. you dont have much reason behind picking and choosing what sounds palatable. (bible supports an eye for an eye stance, murderers/self defense/anywhere where someone dies. the other person should be executed. traditionally this is done by stoning although floggings are acceptable too...)


Adam and Eve weren't siblings and Noah's family had no choice otherwise the human race would die there and then or are you not familiar with the story?
Would God allow there to be atheists? Yes he would, so why wouldn't there be nubs who taint and corrupt the original texts of the Bible? Not to mention, it's very hard to translate something as long as the Bible completely without mistakes (like about the betrayel of Jesus, where the original texts actually said 'handed over').


while adam and eve might not have been siblings, their children were.
if god had an idea of what incest does to genes, he would have ensured Noah have a bigger family, 50 pairs is all that is needed for enough genetic diversity. a mere 100 people. rather then brothers, sisters and cousins of noah. if god could be bothered magically teleporting koalas and penguins and tyrannosaurus rex and sumertran tigers to the boat, im sure he could have made the story plausible by having enough genetic variations so the story made sense.
but it seems more like a bunch of men who wrote it unknowing of the repercussions.
i remember God supporting Job (is it? or was it Lot, 3 letter names confuse me) family, blessing it. did i mention he got drunk and impregnated both his daughters?


Incest happens in nature, it has pros and cons. While it may mess up the genetic traits of a family, it can also fix them, not to mention it can keep a whole species alive. Not that it matters, because the Bible forbids incest; " 'Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere." - Leviticus 18:9.

There is more than just siblings incest, it's all in one chapter; Leviticus 18, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=NIV
(in R.E., got bored so started reading Leviticus and came across this... there was not much else for fun. :()

It was Lot who "impregnated" his 2 daughters, but if you knew the story, it says that his 2 daughters intoxicated their father through wine and had sex with him, the eldest the first night, the younger the second. Why did they do this? To preserve the family's bloodline. "He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up. " - Genesis 19:33. So it's hardly Lot's fault.




Time to end the quote, and I may have forgotten about this. Sorry.

_________________
Image
Zal.
Only Zul of The Fridge


Top
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours



You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
WarLingo Android Mobile Game

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Copyright Tacticsoft Ltd. 2008   
Updated By phpBBservice.nl