| lifetimefanofqueen 16.11.2010 12:20 |
in the famous bible it claims "love your neighbour" obviously meaning accept people for who they are and treat others as youd want to be treated, but then it says thats gays are evil! im sick of seeing people with big banners saying "god hates gays!" and "death to all fags" and more, so we either give the bible a second title as "HYPOCRITE" which is what this is love everyone, (turns around) but hate those guys, and them for their other religion ralgion is said to bring peace, it brings far from it, it brings haterid, and war, and pain when people become obsessed with it, and do stupid things like that. and dont get me started on the pope saying "dont use condoms! get Aids! we dont give a damn if u die!" so, back to the true story in hand, what do we all think of this confusing/hyporcritical situation? it just dosent make sence! |
| thomasquinn 32989 16.11.2010 13:37 |
"Love Thy Neighboar as Thyself" is a phrase taken from the Gospel according to Matthew, a book of the New Testament. The denunciation of gays is taken from Leviticus, a book of the Pentateuch, the first part of the Old Testament. The two were written between 500 and 1200 years apart from one another. Also, before Jesus supposedly used the expression, "Love Thy Neighboar As Thyself" was already known in Hebrew (Leviticus 19:18). However, whereas Matthew takes it to mean loving your fellow-humans, the original Hebrew word for neighboar, rei'acha (I can't use Hebrew characters here because the forum won't display them), is used to describe fellow-Israelites (not Canaanites or Judaeans). So it doesn't really mean anything other than to favour your countrymen over others. |
| catqueen 16.11.2010 16:19 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: "Love Thy Neighboar as Thyself" is a phrase taken from the Gospel according to Matthew, a book of the New Testament. The denunciation of gays is taken from Leviticus, a book of the Pentateuch, the first part of the Old Testament. The two were written between 500 and 1200 years apart from one another. Also, before Jesus supposedly used the expression, "Love Thy Neighboar As Thyself" was already known in Hebrew (Leviticus 19:18). However, whereas Matthew takes it to mean loving your fellow-humans, the original Hebrew word for neighboar, rei'acha (I can't use Hebrew characters here because the forum won't display them), is used to describe fellow-Israelites (not Canaanites or Judaeans). So it doesn't really mean anything other than to favour your countrymen over others. really? i never knew that :/ i always took that to mean love ppl around u :/ and if u take it in context of whole New Testament, u can interpret it as that (altho that is working from an english translation, apparantly it had different connotations in hebrew). But if u look at story of good samaritan, it discusses who is the mans neighbour... samaritans were not liked by jews at that time, and Jesus in that story basically said that neighbour is anyone who is good to u? like he said which of these men (levi, priest or samaritan) was the mans neighbour, leaving it to the listener to understand that we are all to care for each other. please, just to be nice, tell me that that hebrew word can be translated more openly too? please? |
| catqueen 16.11.2010 16:30 |
and lifetime fan... i am a christian, and fairly conservative in a lot of ways... yet i have gay and bi friends and i think it is wrong to call down judgement and hatred on people. we are all created in God's image, and all of us are reflections of him, and i believe that we should love each other... in a scissor sister concert once, Ana Matronic said that they were on tour and went to the Vatican. There she talked to Jesus, and asked him (among other things) does he love gay ppl? and he said yes! And she was like 'HEY! Jesus loves the gays!' and i thought... how sad... ppl think that the idea of someone saying that Jesus loves gay ppl is funny. Imo, it should be natural for ppl to be saying that Jesus loves whoever... the whole message of the New Testament is peace and love and the relationship between God and humanity that was broken being fixed through Jesus living, dying and rising. Please dont take the actions of a few extremists to mean that a whole religion/worldview is wrong. There are many many christians who believe that incitiing hatred is sinful, and that saying that u think ppl should die is sinful. And also, please dont judge the Bible by the actions of a some ppl... read and judge it on its own merit, but judging based on extremists behaviour is not a fair test. |
| lifetimefanofqueen 17.11.2010 05:25 |
catqueen wrote: and lifetime fan... i am a christian, and fairly conservative in a lot of ways... yet i have gay and bi friends and i think it is wrong to call down judgement and hatred on people. we are all created in God's image, and all of us are reflections of him, and i believe that we should love each other... in a scissor sister concert once, Ana Matronic said that they were on tour and went to the Vatican. There she talked to Jesus, and asked him (among other things) does he love gay ppl? and he said yes! And she was like 'HEY! Jesus loves the gays!' and i thought... how sad... ppl think that the idea of someone saying that Jesus loves gay ppl is funny. Imo, it should be natural for ppl to be saying that Jesus loves whoever... the whole message of the New Testament is peace and love and the relationship between God and humanity that was broken being fixed through Jesus living, dying and rising. Please dont take the actions of a few extremists to mean that a whole religion/worldview is wrong. There are many many christians who believe that incitiing hatred is sinful, and that saying that u think ppl should die is sinful. And also, please dont judge the Bible by the actions of a some ppl... read and judge it on its own merit, but judging based on extremists behaviour is not a fair test. =============================================================== ok, and damn i wish the word of peace could get across the people who are and arent religious, why xant we all just get along, no matter clolour, taste in sexuality, taste in music, hair colour, etc......... im biesexual and when i told my best friend at school she acted like i was a freak and ran away from me, as do many other "friends" but some i speak to online and on teh phone are bie and some arent but they actualy accept others! i wish everyone at my school would just grow up and act kike humans, not judgemental f*ckers! i told my friends im not bie, and they now accept me as their friend again if we all lived in peace people wouldnt feel so down and there wouldnt be any wars! why cant we just accept others?!?!?!?! some say its human nature, i say its just cruel |
| thomasquinn 32989 17.11.2010 07:11 |
catqueen wrote: ThomasQuinn wrote: "Love Thy Neighboar as Thyself" is a phrase taken from the Gospel according to Matthew, a book of the New Testament. The denunciation of gays is taken from Leviticus, a book of the Pentateuch, the first part of the Old Testament. The two were written between 500 and 1200 years apart from one another. Also, before Jesus supposedly used the expression, "Love Thy Neighboar As Thyself" was already known in Hebrew (Leviticus 19:18). However, whereas Matthew takes it to mean loving your fellow-humans, the original Hebrew word for neighboar, rei'acha (I can't use Hebrew characters here because the forum won't display them), is used to describe fellow-Israelites (not Canaanites or Judaeans). So it doesn't really mean anything other than to favour your countrymen over others. really? i never knew that :/ i always took that to mean love ppl around u :/ and if u take it in context of whole New Testament, u can interpret it as that (altho that is working from an english translation, apparantly it had different connotations in hebrew). But if u look at story of good samaritan, it discusses who is the mans neighbour... samaritans were not liked by jews at that time, and Jesus in that story basically said that neighbour is anyone who is good to u? like he said which of these men (levi, priest or samaritan) was the mans neighbour, leaving it to the listener to understand that we are all to care for each other. please, just to be nice, tell me that that hebrew word can be translated more openly too? please? ==== Oh yes, you're quite right. The Gospel of Matthew deliberately gives a newer, broader meaning to the word "neighboar" to include all fellow-humans, and in Christianity, the New Testamental interpretation of judaïc concepts is usually preferred over the original, Old Testamental meaning. I emphasized the fact that the original use of the phrase in Leviticus was much harsher because TS wasn't aware that the condemnation of gays and Matthew's version of "Love thy neighboar as thyself" were written hundreds of years apart. Incidentally, it is worth noting that Jewish theologians have written commentaries arguing for a broader, more Matthew-like interpretation of rei'acha (resh-jod-he-ayin-chet-he is the spelling, I think, but I'd have to check) since the 9th centuray AD at the latest, so the ethnic-nationalist interpretation is truly a relic of the oldest Jewish history. Many portions of the pentateuch are indeed supposed to be over 2500 years old, and some, like the bulk of the account of creation given in Genesis chapter 2, are indeed presumed to be more than 3000 years old. I personally doubt that homosexuality was persecuted as heavily as Leviticus suggests, in the same way that I doubt every person wearing garments made of more than one kind of fabric was put to death, as Leviticus again orders. |
| KillerQueen840 17.11.2010 07:17 |
The Bible is what you make of it. It's up to you to be wise enough to take certain things, and leave other things behind. It was written so long ago, the world has drastically changed, and consequently its applications have changed as well. (That is, if you choose to apply any of it) There's always going to be people who take things to religious extremes no matter what. Look at terrorist groups...I think they are a great example. Thankfully, the majority of the people in the world are not extremists who hate gays, or terrorists that are going to blow up buildings. No matter what you do or where you go there will always be a few crazy people, so it's really stupid to condemn one book as being responsible for intolerance and hatred of other people. |
| thomasquinn 32989 17.11.2010 07:44 |
I think the most important thing to realize is the fact that you cannot take what's written in the Bible literally. Most versions of the Bible you will find are translations of translations, often very poor translations at that. The entire Old Testament you can dismiss unless you speak Hebrew, because it is 100% impossible to translate classical Hebrew into any other language (every letter has a threefold meaning, as a letter, a number and a name, and every word absorbs the meanings of all constituent letters aside from its own meaning as a word). Moreover, it is extremely difficult to find out what certain words and concepts actually meant at the time the texts were written: for instance, when John the Evangelist writes "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God", he uses the Greek word "logos", translated as "word". While this is in itself a correct translation, it is also an incomplete one: "logos" also means "thought", "language", "reason", "logic" and "natural law", all at the same time. To understand this, it is worthwhile to note that the Greeks had many such words: for instance, the word used in the Greek translation of Genesis for the infamous apple, mèlôn (mu-eta-labda-omikron-nu), means any fruit that grows on trees, but also sheep and (rosy) cheeks. |
| emrabt 17.11.2010 08:08 |
There is an 'extremely well respected' Muslim peace speaker named Dr Zakir Naik, who talks about the same stuff ThomasQuinn is talking about, 'unscientific', mistranslated and downright stupid and baffling things in various holy books excluding the Quran, and his speeches are really informative. |
| ParisNair 17.11.2010 13:30 |
In my own experience, there was a time when I used to think homosexuality is wiered, and gay people must be sick in their minds. If I came across a homohsexual person at that time, I would react the way lifetimefanofqueen's friends behaved. But, over a period of time, as I got more exposure and learned more about homosexuality (I did not exactly go loooking for information about topic, but there is definetley a lot being said about homosexuality/gays in all media), I realised it is an alternate lifestyle, an alternate thinking (as in "why not?"), an alternate preference, an alternate state of mind. And in no way are these folks stupid, freaks,perverts or sick just becos they are gay. I still don't understand homosexual way of thinking ("how could a guy get turned on by another guy, especially with so many chicks around?" LOL!), but I don't judge someone by their sexual preference - basically I don't care. Religion/religious books have done more harm to humanity than good. I think all relgious text should be banned! If our understanding of the most understandable statements are incorrcet (due to loss in trasnaltion or whatever reason), then its a waste of time trying to live by the book anyway. If religious books can be interpreted in any way one intends to, then how can it be word of God Almighty? And which interpretation is correct? :-| |
| ParisNair 17.11.2010 14:11 |
As for Dr Zakir Naik - he is quite a character :-) Very well known in this part of the world, but not "extremely well respected" even by many Muslims. His speeches and sayings mainly try to show that all other religions are faulty and Islam is the only perfect and true religion. Only folks who follow him are the Islam Supremacists (and there are indeed a lot of them all over the world). |
| emrabt 17.11.2010 14:50 |
As for Dr Zakir Naik - he is quite a character :-) Very well known in this part of the world, but not "extremely well respected" even by many Muslims. His speeches and sayings mainly try to show that all other religions are faulty and Islam is the only perfect and true religion. Only folks who follow him are the Islam Supremacists (and there are indeed a lot of them all over the world). ==================================================================== "Extremely well respected" was sarcasm, i didn't want to criticise him too much in case he WAS well respected. He's pretty mental, I was flicking through the TV channels late one night, there's something captive about seeing him spout off line after line of bible text, saying its wrong, then corrected it using the "correct" translation from the Qu'ran. i recommend everyone watch him in action, he's always on UK channel "Peace" TV. It's really informative and weird, but it might just be my warped sense of Entertainment. The whole peace TV channel is about teaching tolerance of other religions, as long as those religions agree the quran is the true word of god. There is also the normal brain washing children’s programming you find on all religious channels. |
| Amazon 17.11.2010 16:17 |
ParisNair wrote: "In my own experience, there was a time when I used to think homosexuality is wiered, and gay people must be sick in their minds. If I came across a homohsexual person at that time, I would react the way lifetimefanofqueen's friends behaved. But, over a period of time, as I got more exposure and learned more about homosexuality (I did not exactly go loooking for information about topic, but there is definetley a lot being said about homosexuality/gays in all media), I realised it is an alternate lifestyle, an alternate thinking (as in "why not?"), an alternate preference, an alternate state of mind. And in no way are these folks stupid, freaks,perverts or sick just becos they are gay. I still don't understand homosexual way of thinking ("how could a guy get turned on by another guy, especially with so many chicks around?" LOL!), but I don't judge someone by their sexual preference - basically I don't care." Although I don't think your wanting to ban religious texts is particularly tolerant (not in the slightest), I am impressed that you were able to change your views on homosexuality as you learned more about it. Too many people refuse to take any steps to overcome their ignorance. For some people, there is no hope at all, but for others, education is really the key. Oh, and as a bi female who knows quite a few gay men, let me assure you that they don't understand how you could get turned on by a chick, what with all the other guys around! :p :D |
| paulosham 17.11.2010 16:43 |
The famous bible is great. The lesser known bible is not so good, full of spelling mistakes and bad grammar. |
| catqueen 18.11.2010 13:06 |
Interestinig thread! I dont think i would say that religious texts are responsible for killing either, altho they are used to justify killing. And as ... um... ParisNair maybe? (lost track of who said what!) said, if texts are completely open to interpretation, how can they be the word of an almighty God. I see ur point... on the other hand, everything everyone does is interpreted by others. And while i see what ur saying, that either its right or it isnt, and if it is then it shouldnt be a matter of interpretation, i believe that that is the power that is in it. God gave us minds and emotion and skills and we use those for everythnig -- whether interpreting information, worship, listening to music or anything. And i think if we take the general overall emphasis of the Bible, it should make us more accepting of other ppls viewpoints, because we'd understand that God made us all different, and that it is more important to love and work together then to 'be right'. and abt gay ppl -- in my teens i would have felt a bit wierd abt a friend saying they were bi, much as i hate to admit it. (and despite the fact that my mom had a lot of gay friends when i was small). However, since then, i have realised that people are people... a good friend (who i havent seen for a while) told me the other day that she is bi and i was like oh cool. it doesnt 'bother' me at all, and now, i cant imagine why it ever would have. Lifetime fan , one day (hopefully) ur friends will grow up. :) |
| ParisNair 18.11.2010 13:12 |
emrabt wrote: i didn't want to criticise him too much in case he WAS well respected. He's pretty mental, I was flicking through the TV channels late one night, there's something captive about seeing him spout off line after line of bible text, saying its wrong, then corrected it using the "correct" translation from the Qu'ran. i recommend everyone watch him in action, he's always on UK channel "Peace" TV. It's really informative and weird, but it might just be my warped sense of Entertainment. The whole peace TV channel is about teaching tolerance of other religions, as long as those religions agree the quran is the true word of god. There is also the normal brain washing children’s programming you find on all religious channels.Brother, the reason why ou see Dr Naik on Peace TV all the time is because Dr Naik owns Peace TV :D Amazon wrote: Although I don't think your wanting to ban religious texts is particularly tolerant (not in the slightest), I am impressed that you were able to change your views on homosexuality as you learned more about it. Too many people refuse to take any steps to overcome their ignorance. For some people, there is no hope at all, but for others, education is really the key.By the "ban the book" comment I was actually meaning to say that we are better off without religion, that's all. I am quite a tolerant guy, trust me. And I do consider myself as a practising Hindu too. But I think its more important to be compassionate than to believe in a faith system. And our Freddie (and his pals Elton and Boy George) had no small part to play in my change in outlook towards homosexuality. Amazon further wrote: Oh, and as a bi female who knows quite a few gay men, let me assure you that they don't understand how you could get turned on by a chick, what with all the other guys around! :p :DHAHAHA! I can imagine!!! By the way, Amazon, I dunno if u remember, but sometime ago we exchanged a coupl PMs about Axl, and you were going to send me a response to a query of mine, but it never came. Prbably you sent it but it did not reach me (has happened before). |
| Holly2003 18.11.2010 15:16 |
Is religion the cause of war? Let's see ... Iraq 1 & 2 -- no Falklands -- no Panama - no Grenada - no Vietnam War -- no Korean War -- no WW2 -- no WW1 -- no Spanish-American War -- no Franco-Prussian War -- no American Civil War -- no America-Mexico 1848 -- no American Revolution -- no War of 1812 -- no It might be fairer to say that in the last 150 years or so, Westerners have gone to war for any number of reasons except religion. Even the Northern Ireland conflict was more about nationality than religion. So there. |
| emrabt 19.11.2010 07:33 |
Brother, the reason why ou see Dr Naik on Peace TV all the time is because Dr Naik owns Peace TV :D ==== === === ================================ That explains why the channel is so weird, Dr Naik is far more powerful, rich and egotistical than I ever would have imagined. Apart from being extremely biased towards Muslim beliefs a lot of what he says is good stuff, especially as some people ask some very strange questions, like “is wearing a tie a sign of Christianity?”, or "cars were invented by christians, am i allowed to drive one.?". |
| lalaalalaa 19.11.2010 16:34 |
Let's break this down a bit. 1. The Bible is not hypocritical, the people who are supporting those banners are just trying to spark controversy (whether they believe it or not) 2. The Bible clearly states that homosexuality is an abomination. In basic terms, it's a sin (just like lying and stealing). Believing in that is personal preference, but if a Christian is going to be gay then they are a hypocrite to the Word of God. 3. We do not judge others, but the Lord does. Judgement is his right and his right only. We are only supposed to love and try to show our fellow humans the truth of God. I am a Christian and my favorite band is Queen. Is this wrong? No. I am just a person, and I have no right to cast judgement on people. As long as I do not abandon my beliefs by swearing, drinking, etc., I am sure that I would still be a "good Christian". I hope this helps. |
| Amazon 20.11.2010 08:00 |
ParisNair wrote: "By the "ban the book" comment I was actually meaning to say that we are better off without religion, that's all. I am quite a tolerant guy, trust me. And I do consider myself as a practising Hindu too. But I think its more important to be compassionate than to believe in a faith system." Well, I think I should leave this alone as I really value religion and I don't we would be better off without it. "And our Freddie (and his pals Elton and Boy George) had no small part to play in my change in outlook towards homosexuality." I love Boy George. Or at least I used to. For some reason, I just don't like the middle-aged balding queen that he's become. The Boy George of the 80's was legendary; not only did I have a huge crush on him, but objectively I thought he was gorgeous. :D Freddie was also okay. :D "By the way, Amazon, I dunno if u remember, but sometime ago we exchanged a coupl PMs about Axl, and you were going to send me a response to a query of mine, but it never came. Prbably you sent it but it did not reach me (has happened before)." Check your inbox. :D I have had trouble myself in the past, however recently it's been working, so I resent a copy just now. |
| YourValentine 21.11.2010 03:44 |
catqueen wrote: . And i think if we take the general overall emphasis of the Bible, it should make us more accepting of other ppls viewpoints, because we'd understand that God made us all different, and that it is more important to love and work together then to 'be right'. Unfortunately, this does not always happen. It is obvious that societies where religion is strong usually does not grant the same rights to all human beings and that is true for Christianity as well as Islam. Christians very often claim that homosexuality is a sin, that gays are offending God etc. Even though many Christian individuals do not share these opinions the legislature is influenced by these majority Christian views. The general belief that gays are inferior and that it is up to the majority heteros to "tolerate" them (or not) is deeply rooted in Christan belief. Before Christianity homosexuality was not persecuted or regarded a crime in most societies. It was Christian law that introduced the persecution of gays and it was the (non-religious) Napoleonic law that abolished the discrimination for a while after 1500 years of persecution until the religiously dominated governments (for example Prussia) regained power. Only if civil rights win over religious prejudice gay people are not be discriminated any longer. |
| john bodega 21.11.2010 04:31 |
Religious texts are, by and large, toilet paper, but don't let anyone tell you that religion is responsible for the world's problems. It isn't. Plain and fucking simple, religion is only one of many human constructs that becomes misappropriated by people who need a pretext to further their agenda. If it isn't religion being bandied about as a reason to do mean things to one another, it's something else. |
| YourValentine 21.11.2010 06:12 |
Religion gives many people the excuse to discriminate against others. It's not the reason, it's just the handle. Many good ethics come from religion, too. A society should take the good things and get rid of the prejudice. |
| john bodega 21.11.2010 09:24 |
Religion really isn't the cause of it. Factional behaviour is. An enterprising individual can use that mentality to their advantage; it's dead easy. If it weren't religion being used, it would be some other "us vs. them" mechanism. If we get down to the semantics of it, religion is related to a lot of ills in our history; but only because it is there. If we'd never come up with ceremonial burial, the belief in an afterlife, the concept of a supreme being and posthumous judgement at his/her behest, then it would be (and frequently happens to be) something else to blame for our lapses into barbarity. |
| YourValentine 21.11.2010 10:57 |
"If" is all very well :-) I agree with you that religion is not the cause but just the handle but that does not help all the people who are discriminated in a religious discourse. They suffer from religiously defined and justified prejudice and not from hypothetical other excuses which might exist if religion did not provide for the excuses. |
| john bodega 21.11.2010 11:13 |
True enough! As is often the case, religion or spirituality is what is used to get people sucked in, but the actual organisations (and the behaviour that they perpetrate) could just as easily be a grumpy postal service in lieu of a church. I often wonder how the world might have gone without God gumming everything up - I suspect it wouldn't have been all that different. (Atheists the world over would love to believe otherwise). |
| GratefulFan 21.11.2010 13:19 |
Similarly, I am pretty sure we'd have 'Islamic' terrorism without Islam. That is a perfect example of political and power motives wrapped up in tenets of religion. If it wasn't that it would be fealty to nation like it is for the rest of us purportedly on the white horses. |
| YourValentine 22.11.2010 01:39 |
We would have terrorism but would we have stoning for adultery? Probably not because we only have this in countries where the Islam dominates legislation. The Nazis put gays into concentration camps but luckily the world did not say "if it were not the Nazis someone else would put them into the concentration camps". On the same note we should fight against Christian or other religious influence when it leads to discrimination, injustice and hatred. |
| john bodega 22.11.2010 05:59 |
" The Nazis put gays into concentration camps but luckily the world did not say "if it were not the Nazis someone else would put them into the concentration camps"" Look no further than what Japanese Americans had to contend with because of World War II. The tradition of public stonings as a punishment for a crime may have its roots in religion, but for a large section of the population, there must be a degree of it merely being an acceptable event because that's what they've always been told. I still don't see the correlation between the Westboro Baptist Church's actions and a real connection with God. Religion may be the avenue that Phelps and his ilk are using to connect with a broad audience, but his philosophy has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with good old fashioned bigotry. He'd never admit it, but he's not telling gays that they're going to Hell because he thinks they're going to Hell. He's just saying it to get attention and to make people feel bad for living a lifestyle he doesn't agree with. One can make the argument that it's solely because of religion that he is acting that way, but that's utter baloney. For every nut like him, there must surely be a dozen who can at least manage tolerance of things they do not agree with. For my money, I've met plenty of religious people who didn't run websites called "GOD HATES FAGS". |
| catqueen 22.11.2010 07:53 |
YourValentine wrote: We would have terrorism but would we have stoning for adultery? Probably not because we only have this in countries where the Islam dominates legislation. The Nazis put gays into concentration camps but luckily the world did not say "if it were not the Nazis someone else would put them into the concentration camps". On the same note we should fight against Christian or other religious influence when it leads to discrimination, injustice and hatred. Yes, we need to fight injustice -- but... i cant explain exactly but this argument doesnt feel right to me. Perhaps today, most stonings for adultry etc happen in Islamic countries... but there are also Islamic countries where ppl ARENT stoned. And what do u do with other wholesale wrongs against society? If stoning is used as an argument against religion, then what about genocide? (you mentioned nazis -- yet u didnt use tht to say that political parties are wrong and should be fought against) What do u do about corruption in the police force? Or war? Or execution in general? (in a country where adultry is a capital offence, society frowns fairly strongly on it. Why is that societies idea of what is a capital offence less valid then any other countries view, just because western society does not agree?) All religions have been abused, al religions have at times used practices that are horrible... it is, in my opinion, a sign of human corruption, not a sign that religion is intrinsically wrong. If religion is bad BECAUSE of evils committed, then ANY organisation that commits evil is equally bad -- so therefore, we need to not have governments, armies, police forces, schools or prisons. But we all recognise that if a policeman accepts a bribe it is corrupt -- perhaps even system-wide corruption requiring massive changes, but we would not say that the world would be better without law enforcement, we recognise that this is deviating from the purpose of law enforcement. And i do agree that if Christianity or other religions lead to discrimination, injustice or hatred, that injustice, discrimination and hatred should be exposed for what it is and fought against. |
| YourValentine 23.11.2010 04:46 |
This topic is disgressing.... We started with the anti-homosexual parts in the bible and how Christian influence is a hindrance to achieve full equal rights for gay people. I believe a society should not let a church rule over the civil rights of their citizens. You can have a different opinion, of course. I am not against religion in any way - religion brought us the concept of forgiveness, the concept of compassion, the concept of charity. These concepts are valued by people who are not necessarily believers. However, Christianity also does not value the right of self determination of the individual - Christians believe that humans should believe without knowing and should obey God and the church with no questions. This concept is very hard to accept for non-believers and no society should have the right to enforce any such religious or church laws on the citizens or let any such "divine laws" or alleged "natural laws" trickle into their legislation. For example it is ridiculous that in a democratic, modern country like the USA the evolution theory cannot be taught in many schools - just unbelievable. I introduced the example with the Nazis because GratefulFan said that there would be "terrorism without Islam" and I think that nobody in their right mind thinks that it's okay for Nazis to kill gay people so why it is okay when a religion kills gay people? (Islam). Only because a wrong is comitted by a religion it is not any less wrong imo. You say that an offense (adultery) is not per se invalid only because Western countries do not approve and you suggest that there is a social consensus about adultery being a capital offense. My answer is: in Nazi Germany the overwhelming majority approved of the Nuernberg race laws, the overwhelming majority did not mind that people were executed for listening to BBC radio. Please do not tell me that the brainwashed mob in a fascist country (or an Islamic theocracy) has the same educated opinion like people in a democracy where the rights of a minority is protected AGAINST a mob majority vote. I will always stand up against barbaric laws and against a state taking the life of a citizen (death penalty). Of course there is corruption in all societies and it must be rooted out, no country is perfect. There must be a basic understanding that all people have the right to live to their own judgement without being persecuted by a majority, a church or a religion. |
| Amazon 23.11.2010 12:16 |
It should be noted that the Nazies did not create concentration camps. They are best known for it, but they did not bring it into the world. Similarly, while the current focus is on Islamic (or as I prefer to say, Islamic-connected) terrorism, terrorism is not new. GratefulFan is correct; there would definitely be terrorism without Islam, since it was only in the past couple of decades, that terrorism and Islam became connected. Terrorism has been around for centuries, and has used for any number of ideological purposes, from creating anarchy to self-determination and independence. Even the current terrorists have motivations which is more political than religously based. For that matter murderous homophobia is not unique to any religion or group. It's not accurate to say that Islam, or any other religon, kills gay people. It doesn't. Not simply because you'll find that murderous homophobia has been utilised in multiple Christian countries as well (such as in Africa), not simply because very few moderates would interpret their religions as condoning the murders of gays, but because most murderous homophobes hijack religion to justify their vile bigotry. I agree with Zebonka on this. Also, YV, there are quite a few Muslim-majority countries (Indonesia for instance) which don't have stoning for adultery. "Only because a wrong is comitted by a religion it is not any less wrong imo" I agree completely. However it is important to note that religious people are not monolithic. The Israeli settlers and the nuts who killed Rabin don't represent me; Bin Laden and co don't represent my Muslim friends; Phelps doesn't represent any of the Christians who are appalled at what he is doing. On that note, GF isn't excusing Islamic-connected terrorism. She is simply pointing out (GF, I remain pleasantly shocked that you're female :D) that before we blame Islam for terrorism, we should acknowledge that it would exist without terrorism. I don't see where you got that she or anyone else was excusing it simply because we acknowledge that terrorism didn't begin with Islamic-connected terrorism. |
| Yara 23.11.2010 12:36 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: "Love Thy Neighboar as Thyself" is a phrase taken from the Gospel according to Matthew, a book of the New Testament. The denunciation of gays is taken from Leviticus, a book of the Pentateuch, the first part of the Old Testament. The two were written between 500 and 1200 years apart from one another. Also, before Jesus supposedly used the expression, "Love Thy Neighboar As Thyself" was already known in Hebrew (Leviticus 19:18). However, whereas Matthew takes it to mean loving your fellow-humans, the original Hebrew word for neighboar, rei'acha (I can't use Hebrew characters here because the forum won't display them), is used to describe fellow-Israelites (not Canaanites or Judaeans). So it doesn't really mean anything other than to favour your countrymen over others. ------------------------------------ You're assigning the Pentateuch too early a date. Lemche and Van Peters are probably right in that most of Genesis, Exodus and Leviticus were likely written *and* put together during the hellenistic period. As for the topic, most of Ancient Israel's history is sheer fabrication, as Keith Withelam has brilliantly argued. The historical value of the Hebrew Bible is close to zero. No democracy should promote hatred against anyone, especially on the basis of a racist, ethnocentric and ruthless folklore as the Hebrew Bible. We should know better by now. We really do. By we I mean all of us: Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists... The only thing we know for sure is that, despite our differences, we're all - Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, atheist or religious gays - humans beings. That much science has been able to prove. And our morals should follow these findings and make it axiomatic that, for the simple fact that we belong to the same species, we should all have the same basic and fundamental rights and the chance to live a decent life with dignity and respect. Luther was no saint. But when I see all these religious fanatics I can only think of his brilliant aphorism: "Let God be God", if you really believe in him/it/she. |
| catqueen 23.11.2010 12:45 |
YourValentine wrote: This topic is disgressing.... We started with the anti-homosexual parts in the bible and how Christian influence is a hindrance to achieve full equal rights for gay people. I believe a society should not let a church rule over the civil rights of their citizens. You can have a different opinion, of course. I am not against religion in any way - religion brought us the concept of forgiveness, the concept of compassion, the concept of charity. These concepts are valued by people who are not necessarily believers. However, Christianity also does not value the right of self determination of the individual - Christians believe that humans should believe without knowing and should obey God and the church with no questions. This concept is very hard to accept for non-believers and no society should have the right to enforce any such religious or church laws on the citizens or let any such "divine laws" or alleged "natural laws" trickle into their legislation. For example it is ridiculous that in a democratic, modern country like the USA the evolution theory cannot be taught in many schools - just unbelievable. I introduced the example with the Nazis because GratefulFan said that there would be "terrorism without Islam" and I think that nobody in their right mind thinks that it's okay for Nazis to kill gay people so why it is okay when a religion kills gay people? (Islam). Only because a wrong is comitted by a religion it is not any less wrong imo. You say that an offense (adultery) is not per se invalid only because Western countries do not approve and you suggest that there is a social consensus about adultery being a capital offense. My answer is: in Nazi Germany the overwhelming majority approved of the Nuernberg race laws, the overwhelming majority did not mind that people were executed for listening to BBC radio. Please do not tell me that the brainwashed mob in a fascist country (or an Islamic theocracy) has the same educated opinion like people in a democracy where the rights of a minority is protected AGAINST a mob majority vote. I will always stand up against barbaric laws and against a state taking the life of a citizen (death penalty). Of course there is corruption in all societies and it must be rooted out, no country is perfect. There must be a basic understanding that all people have the right to live to their own judgement without being persecuted by a majority, a church or a religion. I agree with everything in this post.... bar the statement about christians thinking that everyone should believe and obey with no questions. I am a christian and i dont believe that. I think God gave us minds and choice to use. And i believe that churches/religion and state decisions should be separate. And i didnt mean to imply that its ok for ppl to be stoned because the majority say so-- i believe that capital punishment is wrong. The majority is often wrong. What i meant was... hm hard to say exactly... but eg, in the usa, black criminals are more likely to get the death sentence then white criminals. That is wrong. Women are less likely to get a heavy jail sentence then men (esp for rape or child abuse). That is wrong. But we tend to hear more about islamic stonings then we do about injustice in the criminal system in the west. Absolutely all ppl should have the right to live without fear of persecution. But i do think my statement that just because the west disapproves does not make something wrong. I personally believe the death penalty should be abolished completely. And i also think it is wrong -- rly wrong -- for a woman to be stoned for adultry. I also think its wrong for a person to be executed for trafficing drugs, as happens in many countries too. But society does determine to an extent (obviously some countries it isnt that way -- dictatorships, etc) what will be accepted. But i think i pushed my point too far maybe, cos i do believe that all humans have fundamental rights, and killing is taking that away. But i also do think we would still have injust executions whether or not they took place in islamic countries. |
| thomasquinn 32989 23.11.2010 13:04 |
Yara wrote: ThomasQuinn wrote: "Love Thy Neighboar as Thyself" is a phrase taken from the Gospel according to Matthew, a book of the New Testament. The denunciation of gays is taken from Leviticus, a book of the Pentateuch, the first part of the Old Testament. The two were written between 500 and 1200 years apart from one another. Also, before Jesus supposedly used the expression, "Love Thy Neighboar As Thyself" was already known in Hebrew (Leviticus 19:18). However, whereas Matthew takes it to mean loving your fellow-humans, the original Hebrew word for neighboar, rei'acha (I can't use Hebrew characters here because the forum won't display them), is used to describe fellow-Israelites (not Canaanites or Judaeans). So it doesn't really mean anything other than to favour your countrymen over others. ------------------------------------ You're assigning the Pentateuch too early a date. Lemche and Van Peters are probably right in that most of Genesis, Exodus and Leviticus were likely written *and* put together during the hellenistic period. ======== Ah, but you're running ahead of yourself: they were cast *in their 'canonical' form* in the Hellenistic period. However, many *fragments* appear to be much earlier, as with the two conflicting creation stories I mention (Genesis 1 and Genesis 2), the older of which is assumed to contain parts predating the Babylonian captivity. Similarly, certain elements of Genesis, particularly Genesis 49:8 to 49:12. Additionally, Psalm 104 is almost certainly derived from the Great Hymn to the Aten, suggesting an origin sometime not too long after 1300 BC. |
| sharoncooper 24.11.2010 10:26 |
Yeah, my husband thinks homosexuals are sick people. And that Gopd hates them. We have that debate alot.He always tells me that Freddie is burning in hell.I just laugh at him.Thinks all gays should be put on an island.Tells me am i gay, because Freddie is my idol. |
| john bodega 24.11.2010 14:58 |
"Yeah, my husband thinks homosexuals are sick people" He's not referring to AIDS there, is he? |
| lifetimefanofqueen 24.11.2010 16:04 |
sharoncooper wrote: Yeah, my husband thinks homosexuals are sick people. And that Gopd hates them. We have that debate alot.He always tells me that Freddie is burning in hell.I just laugh at him.Thinks all gays should be put on an island.Tells me am i gay, because Freddie is my idol. ================================ nothin wrong if you are, im bie, its just taste, like some with music, some with art, some with movie genres... the ist goes on, but some people need to grow up and accept the fact people have different tastes to them and let them get on with their lives |
| emrabt 25.11.2010 07:54 |
nothin wrong if you are, im bie, its just tast. ====================================== You're probably not bi, just 13 and attracted to everything. |
| lifetimefanofqueen 25.11.2010 10:56 |
emrabt wrote: nothin wrong if you are, im bie, its just tast. ====================================== You're probably not bi, just 13 and attracted to everything. ================================= i got a girlfriend, explain that :P |
| thomasquinn 32989 25.11.2010 12:16 |
lifetimefanofqueen wrote: emrabt wrote: nothin wrong if you are, im bie, its just tast. ====================================== You're probably not bi, just 13 and attracted to everything. ================================= i got a girlfriend, explain that :P ======= You're just 13 and attracted to everything. |
| Amazon 25.11.2010 22:05 |
emrabt wrote: "You're probably not bi, just 13 and attracted to everything." ThomasQuinn wrote: "You're just 13 and attracted to everything." That's not necessarily true. Many people discover their sexualities at very young ages. Additionally for many their sexual preferences (not just what gender they are attracted to, but whom they are attracted to physially) are also set when they are young. It happened with me. That said, sexuality is extremely fluid, and labels are quite meaningless, so the only person who really knows what they are attracted to, and can determine the label (if they want a label) is lifetimefanofqueen. |
| thomasquinn 32989 26.11.2010 03:36 |
Amazon wrote: emrabt wrote: "You're probably not bi, just 13 and attracted to everything." ThomasQuinn wrote: "You're just 13 and attracted to everything." That's not necessarily true. Many people discover their sexualities at very young ages. Additionally for many their sexual preferences (not just what gender they are attracted to, but whom they are attracted to physially) are also set when they are young. It happened with me. That said, sexuality is extremely fluid, and labels are quite meaningless, so the only person who really knows what they are attracted to, and can determine the label (if they want a label) is lifetimefanofqueen. ====== That tends to occur before puberty, not during it, actually. |
| Amazon 26.11.2010 06:55 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: "That tends to occur before puberty, not during it, actually." It depends on the person. It may be true for most people, but is it still a generalisation and isn't true for all. Anyway, I didn't mention puberty. That's an area which is the very definition of 'too much information', not to mention that we don't know when lifetimefanofqueen began to discover her secxuality. My point was that many people discover their sexuality and determine their sexual preferences when they are quite young; for most, it may be before puberty, for others it may be afterwards. |
| emrabt 26.11.2010 08:11 |
Anyway, I didn't mention puberty. That's an area which is the very definition of 'too much information', not to mention that we don't know when lifetimefanofqueen began to discover her secxuality. My point was that many people discover their sexuality and determine their sexual preferences when they are quite young; for most, it may be before puberty, for others it may be afterwards. =================================================== Which is why i said probably.... |
| ParisNair 26.11.2010 14:31 |
These last few comments reminded me of a movie I saw some months ago. I've seen all kinds of movies, but never felt as repulsed as I did while watching this one. Its called "Mysterious Skin". Its just disgusting. Anyone else seen it? |
| lifetimefanofqueen 26.11.2010 16:57 |
is this it? link |
| ParisNair 27.11.2010 00:09 |
Yeah, that's the one. But this clip has some lighter moments from the movie. The overall plot of the movie really shook me up. Sample this - an 8 or 10 year old boy realizes he is gay. Is that possible? OK maybe it is. But what happens next is mind blowing...the kid joins baseball, where his coach is a peadophile and takes fancy to him. Then he exploits the kid. And you know what? The kid is fully aware what is happening, but because of his sexual tendencies, he does not feel exploited, he infact fully participates in the act. I never thought such a thing was possible!! |
| lifetimefanofqueen 27.11.2010 07:29 |
same, thats just creepy 0_0 |
| emrabt 27.11.2010 12:06 |
[quote] I never thought such a thing was possible!! [/quote] It happens, there will always be sick twisted people who manipulate and twist peoples emotions and feeling for there own pleasure. A lot of abused kids really don’t see the problem and think they “enjoy it”, simply because they aren’t old enough to morally see the difference between and “controlling / abusing / sex” and a “love” thing, to them it just feels good which is why they are so venerable. An adult who gets any pleasure out of someone who is unable to fully understand things is a really sick person. I don’t think any of this relates to anything said in the thread though, lifetimequeenfan is young enough to just be hormonal and "sex crazy", which I was pointing out. Anyway, we have derailed the thread. |