Religion vs Homosexuality

[PLAYER57832]

All teachings are ALWAYS able to be questioned, but error in one area does not mean all information is in err. Science is the classic example. That there have been mistakes in Evolutionary theory in no way means that everything to do with Evolution is wrong.

Nor can we disregard the entirety of the Old Testament just because we've decided we prefer Jesus's Confucius-inspired brand of Christianity.

If you think Christians do that, then you don't know much about Christianity... and probably not much of Judaism, either, because while neither ignores the Old Testament, neither follows what you seem to wish to claim to be the letter of the legal texts therein.

But unless you show more willingness to actually respond to questions, points, and do more than just attack, I am not going to debate this with you.

[tzor]

If you think Christians do that, then you don't know much about Christianity... and probably not much of Judaism, either, because while neither ignores the Old Testament, neither follows what you seem to wish to claim to be the letter of the legal texts therein.

I have to agree with Player here. Confucius was a philosopher. He wasn't big into the model of Jesus of washing follower's feet and dying on a public humiliation torture device.

[riskllama]

was confucious even a chinaman? the name doesn't ring true for me...

[mrswdk]

Jesus plagiarized the Golden Rule from Confucius. Christianity was plagiarized from China - ironic, huh?

[jimboston]

first point of fact, the bible,koran or whatever text you follow wasn't written by any actual wittness of any of the events spoken of therein.

The New Testament was written largely by witnesses. Parts of the Old Testament were as well.

Most Theologians don't believe the Gospels where actually written by Mathew, Mark, Luke or John.
Rather they were verbally handed down, and then later consolidated.

This is partially true, however, much of Paul was apparently written by Paul, etc.

Furthermore, the Bible we have today is vastly different than the various bibles early Christians used.
The Bible was edited by the Council of Nicea, under the auspices of the Roman Emperor Constantine.
Many parts were edited or completely removed.

Very true. The Gnostic texts, in particular were quite popular. That is part of why the council was set to establish the criteria for what would be considered accepted and what would not. Even then, of course most Protestant Bibles differ from Roman Catholic Bibles.

Anyway, my point was not to debate the Bible... that belongs in another thread. Its just that the claim that all the Bible is just unproven fiction is often made, but not provable.

Just to be clear. You made a statement.
I refuted it.
You agreed... but acted as if your initial statement was still correct.

[jimboston]

I just love the conspiracy theory weed you are smoking.

We are never going to agree... and that's fine.

I know what I know, and I think what I think.
You aren't going to save me.

... and I don't need to convert you into a heathen non-believer either.

Faith is good. It has value. I don't think I need to make it my mission to try to "correct" everyone who has faith in a higher power. I hope you will respect me, and not try to convert me either.

The only time I talk about Religion is when it invades my space.
Examples...

People using religion as a weapon to oppress other people.
-> That's not cool and frankly, Jesus wouldn't approve.

People using religion to suppress science and the advancement thereof.
-> i.e. People who claim the Earth is only 4000 years old, and Dinosaurs existed at the same time as people.

People who make blanket statements about religion.
-> i.e. Like Player's assertion that "Most" of the Bible was written by witnesses.
It's a grossly inaccurate for many reasons. If you want to debate it, start a new thread.

Please note... it's possible to believe that the Bible was written by people who were not actual witnesses... and still believe that it's a fairly accurate text. Note, I never made any mention about the Bible's accuracy or inaccuracy. You can believe (if you want) that it was written hundreds of years after the events... but that the writers were inspired by Divine Intervention, and therefore the text is still accurate.

I'm not saying it it accurate. i'm not saying it isn't.
I am saying that it wasn't "Mostly" written by witnesses.

[jimboston]

Jesus plagiarized the Golden Rule from Confucius. Christianity was plagiarized from China - ironic, huh?

1) Borrowing one rule does not mean the whole religion was "plagiarized".

2) One could make an argument that ever religion has borrowed or plagiarized previous religions.

3) Even if Jesus did plagiarize Confucius... what about this is ironic?
Possibly ironic in an Alanis Morissette kinda way... which isn't very ironic at all.

[riskllama]

Possibly ironic in an Alanis Morissette kinda way... which isn't very ironic at all.

nice burn, jim.

[mrswdk]

Jesus plagiarized the Golden Rule from Confucius. Christianity was plagiarized from China - ironic, huh?

1) Borrowing one rule does not mean the whole religion was "plagiarized".

2) One could make an argument that ever religion has borrowed or plagiarized previous religions.

3) Even if Jesus did plagiarize Confucius... what about this is ironic?
Possibly ironic in an Alanis Morissette kinda way... which isn't very ironic at all.

Just making a joke, bro.

FYI, the irony being that the traditional religion of the entire Western world is just a cheap imitation of Chinese philosophy

[riskllama]

Just making a joke, bro.

FYI, the irony being that the traditional religion of the entire Western world is just a cheap imitation of Chinese philosophy

weak...

[mrswdk]

stfu you poor man's camel

[riskllama]

less weak.

[Phatscotty]

Here's the deal... Religion has a purpose. That purpose is to lay down some basic guidelines for a society to be possible (in olden times) and for civilization to progress (in olden times). For religion, the #1 goal is to be fruitful and reproduce with the end result being more members of said religion. Virtually ALL religions discourage homosexuality because homosexuals do not usually reproduce. It's not that religions hate homosexuals, it's that religions encourage their religious followers to be fruitful and reproduce.

[waauw]

Here's the deal... Religion has a purpose. That purpose is to lay down some basic guidelines for a society to be possible (in olden times) and for civilization to progress (in olden times). For religion, the #1 goal is to be fruitful and reproduce with the end result being more members of said religion. Virtually ALL religions discourage homosexuality because homosexuals do not usually reproduce. It's not that religions hate homosexuals, it's that religions encourage their religious followers to be fruitful and reproduce.

So, if I understand this correctly: religion HAD a purpose.

[Phatscotty]

Here's the deal... Religion has a purpose. That purpose is to lay down some basic guidelines for a society to be possible (in olden times) and for civilization to progress (in olden times). For religion, the #1 goal is to be fruitful and reproduce with the end result being more members of said religion. Virtually ALL religions discourage homosexuality because homosexuals do not usually reproduce. It's not that religions hate homosexuals, it's that religions encourage their religious followers to be fruitful and reproduce.

So, if I understand this correctly: religion HAD a purpose.

meh....not exactly, but not exactly not either. Of course this is only my opinion and your opinion here. I'd meet you like 15% of the way there, in that religion does not have as much purpose today to as many people today as it did in olden times. However, if you are seriously going to state that religion has zero purpose today, I'll have to make a decision based on your response if I would be simply wasting my time here with you or if we were both actually interested in having a broader discussion on the specific topic matter.

[mrswdk]

I'll have to make a decision based on your response if I would be simply wasting my time here with you or if we were both actually interested in having a broader discussion on the specific topic matter.

Refusing to debate people because they're 'not interested in having a genuine discussion of the issues' should be an official OT meme.

[Phatscotty]

I'll have to make a decision based on your response if I would be simply wasting my time here with you or if we were both actually interested in having a broader discussion on the specific topic matter.

Refusing to debate people because they're 'not interested in having a genuine discussion of the issues' should be an official OT meme.

I refuse nothing. The ball is in his court to respond. You did notice I asked for a response, right?

Not something one who refuses to debate does, eh??

[Dukasaur]

Jesus plagiarized the Golden Rule from Confucius. Christianity was plagiarized from China - ironic, huh?

1) Borrowing one rule does not mean the whole religion was "plagiarized".

2) One could make an argument that ever religion has borrowed or plagiarized previous religions.

3) Even if Jesus did plagiarize Confucius... what about this is ironic?
Possibly ironic in an Alanis Morissette kinda way... which isn't very ironic at all.

Just making a joke, bro.

FYI, the irony being that the traditional religion of the entire Western world is just a cheap imitation of Chinese philosophy

Not even remotely close to true.

Of course there are overlaps. Most philosophers independently suggest things that sound like the Golden Rule. I'd say they both stole it from Socrates, except that Socrates himself probably heard it somewhere else. Other ideas, too, are not particularly unique to either Confucius or Jesus.

However, at their core they are polar opposites.

Confucius held obedience to authority as the core value. Obedience to parents foremost, obedience to ancestors as an extension of that, and obedience to the government as a natural echo of it. He held with traditions and the importance of ritual. Confucius was a member of the Royal family, and nothing in his teachings challenges the rights of the ruling class to exploit the commoners.

Jesus was a working-class rebel, an outsider looking in. He did pay lip service to obedience to elders and to ritual, but action speak louder than words. All his actions were a challenge to authority. Questioning the priests, arrogantly denying the authority of the Sanhedrin to judge him, throwing the money-changers out of the temple, all of these were clear acts of rebellion.

Even some of the words that slipped past Constantine's censors were very sedetious:
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets [Matthew 22:37-40 KJV]

[PLAYER57832]

first point of fact, the bible,koran or whatever text you follow wasn't written by any actual wittness of any of the events spoken of therein.

The New Testament was written largely by witnesses. Parts of the Old Testament were as well.

Most Theologians don't believe the Gospels where actually written by Mathew, Mark, Luke or John.
Rather they were verbally handed down, and then later consolidated.

This is partially true, however, much of Paul was apparently written by Paul, etc.

Furthermore, the Bible we have today is vastly different than the various bibles early Christians used.
The Bible was edited by the Council of Nicea, under the auspices of the Roman Emperor Constantine.
Many parts were edited or completely removed.

Very true. The Gnostic texts, in particular were quite popular. That is part of why the council was set to establish the criteria for what would be considered accepted and what would not. Even then, of course most Protestant Bibles differ from Roman Catholic Bibles.

Anyway, my point was not to debate the Bible... that belongs in another thread. Its just that the claim that all the Bible is just unproven fiction is often made, but not provable.

Just to be clear. You made a statement.
I refuted it.
You agreed... but acted as if your initial statement was still correct.

No. You did not really refute my statement. I said some of the texts were first hand accounts. Your responded that some were not. Both can be true. In this case, I would say they are.
but that's just semantics. No real argument here.

[jimboston]

FYI, the irony being that the traditional religion of the entire Western world is just a cheap imitation of Chinese philosophy

Again, you're wrong... on multiple counts.

[jimboston]

Here's the deal... Religion has a purpose. That purpose is to lay down some basic guidelines for a society to be possible (in olden times) and for civilization to progress (in olden times). For religion, the #1 goal is to be fruitful and reproduce with the end result being more members of said religion. Virtually ALL religions discourage homosexuality because homosexuals do not usually reproduce. It's not that religions hate homosexuals, it's that religions encourage their religious followers to be fruitful and reproduce.

That might be one reason why homosexuality is discouraged by Religion.

There are likely other reasons as well...

Religions like to have something to rally AGAINST. Religions are stronger when they have an "us versus them" mentality.
Homosexuality has been a nice scape goat for various (not all I'm guessing, but many) religions throughout history.

[jimboston]

Refusing to debate people because they're 'not interested in having a genuine discussion of the issues' should be an official OT meme.

It's usually the mentality one must take when trying to talk to YOU.

[jimboston]

Here's the deal... Religion has a purpose. That purpose is to lay down some basic guidelines for a society to be possible (in olden times) and for civilization to progress (in olden times). For religion, the #1 goal is to be fruitful and reproduce with the end result being more members of said religion. Virtually ALL religions discourage homosexuality because homosexuals do not usually reproduce. It's not that religions hate homosexuals, it's that religions encourage their religious followers to be fruitful and reproduce.

So, if I understand this correctly: religion HAD a purpose.

meh....not exactly, but not exactly not either. Of course this is only my opinion and your opinion here. I'd meet you like 15% of the way there, in that religion does not have as much purpose today to as many people today as it did in olden times. However, if you are seriously going to state that religion has zero purpose today, I'll have to make a decision based on your response if I would be simply wasting my time here with you or if we were both actually interested in having a broader discussion on the specific topic matter.

Religion still has a purpose.

Many people need it.

I don't know if it's needed by broader society or not... but many individuals need it.

You can always debate the definition of religion too.
Is Secular Humanism a "religion"?

We as a society do need something (at the very least a belief system like secular humanism) to help us keep our baser instincts in check. No?

[waauw]

Here's the deal... Religion has a purpose. That purpose is to lay down some basic guidelines for a society to be possible (in olden times) and for civilization to progress (in olden times). For religion, the #1 goal is to be fruitful and reproduce with the end result being more members of said religion. Virtually ALL religions discourage homosexuality because homosexuals do not usually reproduce. It's not that religions hate homosexuals, it's that religions encourage their religious followers to be fruitful and reproduce.

So, if I understand this correctly: religion HAD a purpose.

meh....not exactly, but not exactly not either. Of course this is only my opinion and your opinion here. I'd meet you like 15% of the way there, in that religion does not have as much purpose today to as many people today as it did in olden times. However, if you are seriously going to state that religion has zero purpose today, I'll have to make a decision based on your response if I would be simply wasting my time here with you or if we were both actually interested in having a broader discussion on the specific topic matter.

I didn't express any opinion there, that's just how I interpreted your words. I do agree religion can help some, not all, people.

We as a society do need something (at the very least a belief system like secular humanism) to help us keep our baser instincts in check. No?

Yes, it's called the law.

[mrswdk]

Yeah, there are betters way of persuading someone to behave in a civilized way than threatening that if they're naughty the sky wizard won't bring them any presents.