Are you religious?

[Advent]

Alot of people tend to accuse God for their ills or the ill's of their fellow man. Don't assume that because someone is religious thst God approves of his/her actions.

In regards to your comment to me, I'm not going to get into a whole thing here. Just something to think about. Did you celebrate christmas? Do you celebrate easter, birthdays, mother/father day? All these common day and yearly celebrations have there roots in religious festivals or occult practices, all of which God doesnt approve. Do some reasearch on them perhaps.

So to say ones an anthiest or what ever, even religious, those days, yet still participates in these annual or daily events is very hypocritical. Even if you ignore the religious aspects of these celebrations, you're still acknowledging them by celebrating them on the day. You can dance around it or siton the fence.

Most holidays are based upon pagan traditions that the Church absorbed into their doctrine to more easily sway new converts to join.

[Volbet]

Homosexuality isn't "an act". It is who a person is. They are homosexual. It isn't an act that they commit on a whim simply because they wish to do so. Nor more so than you being attracted to the opposite sex. It is biologically hardwired. To say something is a sin is to pass judgement. Whether on the act or on the person themselves in this case. Last I checked the Bible said only God can judge people. And if you believe that God created everyone and loves everyone then being Homosexual must be just fine.

And as far as sins and the Old Testament go, the New Covenant threw out the old laws. As Jesus said "those who live under the law are living under a curse" to paraphrase Galatians 3:10.

The New Testament does touch on homosexuality but it also has a myriad of other things that are considered "abominations/sins" that are not harped on or enforced either. So why is it that the religious use their scripture as a crutch for their bigotry? Why keep enforcing this one sin and not the others in the NT that are overlooked? Last I checked a sin was a sin.

Then again, Jesus also said "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them" Matthew 5:17. 

And the New Testemant also touches upon homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27 "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error"

I don't think I will be able to go deeper into this, since I'm more well versed in the Qur'an than the Bible

[Advent]

 

Then again, Jesus also said "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them" Matthew 5:17. 

And the New Testemant also touches upon homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27 "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error"

I don't think I will be able to go deeper into this, since I'm more well versed in the Quran then the Bible

 

I'm aware of Matthew 5:17 and that the NT touches on homosexuality. A lot of contradictions in the Bible. There are 67 sins in the NT that I know of and most are not even touched upon by believers in society. But the minute you mention that you love someone of the same sex? Everyone loses their minds!

I'm also well versed in the Qur'an and the Torah as well.

[Vitalius]

So if a mother gives birth to a child it is her right to kill it? I think that would be a pretty evil thing to do.

 

A Poly/Monotheistic Religion that is not nature based does require the word of their God(s) to operate. Otherwise it is a Shamanistic-type religion where they have Dieties and the Shaman interprets their will. Without God(s) telling you what is right/wrong (via your religious text, or via your Shaman) what to do/not to do etc then you don't have a religion.

 

I've studied Theology for the better part of a decade. I do not believe in any religion because of this fact. Having read and studied the various texts to death has lead me to my conclusions.

 

Early man/civilization isn't the kind of primitive beast that most people think they are. Ancient civilizations had a wealth of knowledge. Also hardly anyone believed the world was flat. That is a myth perpetuated by bad history classes in schools. The Maya were experts at Celestial navigation and calendar keeping. Many ancient civilizations built structures that we would have a hard time building today with out "advanced" machinery. Using technology and scripture as evidence of truth is a cop-out.

A mother isn't God. She did not make the air the child breathes, though she may breath it for the child for a time. At best it's a loan if you want to think of it in terms of contracts or something similar.

It simply isn't the same thing. 

A religion isn't purely about a God dictating what is right and wrong. It is about humanity being in a relationship (i.e. getting to know) said God. Which often looks like that on the surface, but I would argue it is only that for the people who actually have no interest in such a relationship and only the "promises" given therein.

Interesting. I haven't studied as extensively (for obvious reasons, I'm 20.), but I have learned enough about most major religions to understand why I believe they do not follow the God I do. But that is solely based in my personal experience. Something I can't share with others. Not on scripture, nor on what I've been told by others.

 

Early man/civilization isn't the kind of primitive beast that most people think they are. Ancient civilizations had a wealth of knowledge. Also hardly anyone believed the world was flat. That is a myth perpetuated by bad history classes in schools. The Maya were experts at Celestial navigation and calendar keeping. Many ancient civilizations built structures that we would have a hard time building today with out "advanced" machinery. Using technology and scripture as evidence of truth is a cop-out.

That's sort of the thing. I could understand what you say is true if what is required to know what they knew wasn't so advanced that, if they did in fact have such technology, or things similar to it, it would require some of it to be left over in ruins or otherwise. 

When I say celestial bodies, I mean the kind that look like a single star with anything less powerful than the Hubble telescope. But when looked at with that, looks like multiple stars congregated closely. Specifically, I'm talking about Arcturus. 

I mean, we could continue down that road as well, but there was something I learned in college that I will always remember.

Someone asked me what my "root of faith" was, assuming it to be the Bible or what I'd been told growing up. In asking me that question, he made me realize it wasn't the Bible, or being told anything that was the source of my faith. It was what I've already mentioned. My experiences and the evidence therein. 

Which made me realize that the evidence (for me) of the truth in the Bible was both founded on that, and supplemented by it. In that, as I've said, I've seen many of the teachings of the Bible come to life in me. Such that I would almost feel like it was written with me in mind. Obviously it wasn't. But at the same time it was in a philosophical (not literal) sense. 

The obvious answer to that is that I'm imagining such a thing as my consciousness is selectively ignoring the things that don't fit it's paradigm, but such a paradigm didn't exist until after the fact. So I would be inclined to believe the former. And even if that weren't the case, I would still be inclined to believe such as that is how my mind is naturally wired. To apply what knowledge I have to my current situation. And in doing so, I see all that I do.

I claim truth from that. Not on the things the ancient civilizations apparently knew which I do believe they couldn't without our technology, because it doesn't make logical or factual sense that they would in my eyes. I could go into why, but you obviously believe opposite to me. Which is fine, I suppose. Maybe I'll learn whatever you know that convinces you of this. But I don't know if I would react the same. 

Anyway, you get the idea. I understand they were not primitive, but the idea that they could accomplish our feats with so much less is... stretching my suspension of disbelief, to say the least. At least if we are to assume that whatever they would use to accomplish such feats isn't going to last a long long time (long enough for us to see it).

[Crabtr]

 

Just to be clear, Saying homosexuality is a sin isn't judging homosexuals. To say an action is wrong isn't judging the people who commit said action. Hating those people for committing said action or considering them less than you (or anything similar) is judging them. 

The only way I can understand this is it's like me saying "I think religion is illogical and fallacious" but I don't treat those who are religious with any less respect than I treat those you aren't. Is this the same logic? I don't necessarily say that religion is wrong though and I don't support abolishing it so I'm not sure.

 

Alot of people tend to accuse God for their ills or the ill's of their fellow man.

I don't blame God at all, I blame religion. If I blamed God I'd be accepting his/her/their existence which I don't, or at least not under current conditions.

 

In regards to your comment to me, I'm not going to get into a whole thing here. Just something to think about.

I have given it thought and I've concluded that to think such would be intellectually dishonest. Fair enough though.

 

Did you celebrate christmas? Do you celebrate easter, birthdays, mother/father day? All these common day and yearly celebrations have there roots in religious festivals or occult practices, all of which God doesnt approve. Do some reasearch on them perhaps.

So to say ones an anthiest or what ever, even religious, those days, yet still participates in these annual or daily events is very hypocritical. Even if you ignore the religious aspects of these celebrations, you're still acknowledging them by celebrating them on the day. You can dance around it or siton the fence.

I've done quite a lot of research on them actually. As Advent said the roots of many of those holidays are in Paganism and adopted by Christianity so by your logic are you approving the Pagan Gods (It's ok though, Norse mythology is great  :wub:)? I celebrate them because they're a large part of the culture of the country I live in, they're fun, presents/gifts are fun, and it gives me a chance to spend time with family and friends. I recognize their religious roots but their roots are rather irrelevant to how they're now spent now though. I suppose you make a good point though, maybe me saying I'm anti-theist and yet I celebrate these holidays is a bit hypocritical of me. I've never given that aspect of it much thought.

[Vitalius]

Homosexuality isn't "an act". It is who a person is. They are homosexual. It isn't an act that they commit on a whim simply because they wish to do so. Nor more so than you being attracted to the opposite sex. It is biologically hardwired. To say something is a sin is to pass judgement. Whether on the act or on the person themselves in this case. Last I checked the Bible said only God can judge people. And if you believe that God created everyone and loves everyone then being Homosexual must be just fine.

And as far as sins and the Old Testament go, the New Covenant threw out the old laws. As Jesus said "those who live under the law are living under a curse" to paraphrase Galatians 3:10.

The New Testament does touch on homosexuality but it also has a myriad of other things that are considered "abominations/sins" that are not harped on or enforced either. So why is it that the religious use their scripture as a crutch for their bigotry? Why keep enforcing this one sin and not the others in the NT that are overlooked? Last I checked a sin was a sin. Why the obvious discrimination?

I disagree entirely.

What is homosexuality? To have sex with your own gender. That is what the entire idea is based on and where it originates from.

Homosexuality, as much as society teaches otherwise, isn't about who you are attracted to, but who you have sex with. Two different things. 

It is based on the precept of an action, and thereby must be a choice. 

 

I'm aware of Matthew 5:17 and that the NT touches on homosexuality. A lot of contradictions in the Bible. There are 67 sins in the NT that I know of and most are not even touched upon by believers in society. But the minute you mention that you love someone of the same sex? Everyone loses their minds!

Lol, at least you get it (along with the Pagan things).

This is why I know it is not perfect and directly 100% from God (obviously). I mean, Goliath is apparently killed twice, by two different people. Best example of contradiction there. That's simple fact checking, although admittedly, their point wasn't to be 100% accurate, but to teach people hope and faith. 

[Vitalius]

The only way I can understand this is it's like me saying "I think religion is illogical and fallacious" but I don't treat those who are religious with any less respect than I treat those you aren't. Is this the same logic? I don't necessarily say that religion is wrong though and I don't support abolishing it so I'm not sure.

Yep. That's effectively the same thing.

[Nineshadow]

Not too many spiritual people here.

[Advent]

Not too many spiritual people here.

(ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ*:･ﾟ✧ *Magics all over Nineshadow*

[Advent]

I disagree entirely.

What is homosexuality? To have sex with your own gender. That is what the entire idea is based on and where it originates from.

Homosexuality, as much as society teaches otherwise, isn't about who you are attracted to, but who you have sex with. Two different things. 

It is based on the precept of an action, and thereby must be a choice. 

But it isn't a choice is my point. Do you chose to love those a different sex? No. What you are attracted to is innate. You might be consciously aware and able to make distinctions between which members of the opposite sex you like, but you innately like the opposite sex. Sexuality is no different than your hair color. You can deny it (dye it) but you are what you are.

You might not like someones sexuality, but they cannot help it. No more than you can help the color of your eyes or your skin. It isn't a learned behavior. Most Homosexuals will tell you that they became aware at a young age. Around the same time Heterosexuals find out they like the opposite sex.

Religion demonizes Homosexuality because back in the day people needed to continue the blood lines and to have a large family for working the land/doing this, that and other things etc.

Passing judgement on someone because of who they choose to love when it hurts absolutely no one because a 2,000 year old book says it is wrong is ludicrous.

[Vitalius]

But it isn't a choice is my point. Do you chose to love those a different sex? No. What you are attracted do is innate. You might be consciously aware and able to make distinctions between which members of the opposite sex you like, but you innately like the opposite sex. Sexuality is no different then your hair color. You can deny it (dye it) but you are what you are.

Well, before I say this, note that, to me, there is a distinction between sexual attraction and love.

I disagree. You can change. 

.. Don't believe me? I would go into it, but this involves sex, which implies a lot of stuff that... isn't appropriate for the forum. I won't go into specifics, obviously, but take that as a slight warning (very mild one).

But there's alot of ... let's say "civilian experimentation" in regards to this stuff. People can make themselves sexually attracted to pretty much anything. Men, Women, inanimate objects, colors, concepts, among all the other taboo things, etc.

Love is more complicated, but doesn't necessarily imply sex. The idea that it does, imo, is... absurd. I mean, I love a lot of things and people. I am still a virgin. And that love does indeed include the "I want to know you more than anything else and spend the rest of my life with you." kind of love.

[Advent]

Well, before I say this, note that, to me, there is a distinction between sexual attraction and love.

I disagree. You can change. 

.. Don't believe me? I would go into it, but this involves sex, which implies a lot of stuff that... isn't appropriate for the forum. I won't go into specifics, obviously, but take that as a slight warning (very mild one).

But there's alot of ... let's say "civilian experimentation" in regards to this stuff. People can make themselves sexually attracted to pretty much anything. Men, Women, inanimate objects, colors, concepts, among all the other taboo things, etc.

Love is more complicated, but doesn't necessarily imply sex. The idea that it does, imo, is... absurd. I mean, I love a lot of things and people. I am still a virgin. And that love does indeed include the "I want to know you more than anything else and spend the rest of my life with you." kind of love.

Love is a chemical reaction to induce mating behavior, nothing more. The love of something outside of sex isn't the same chemical process. People use the word "love" to describe it, but that is the wrong term. It just so happens that Homosexuals have a genetic difference that makes them want to have sex and love others of the same sex. Also I would note that a huge number of animal species engage in homosexuality. So it isn't strictly a human thing. Penguins have been known to have gay partners for life and 0 interest in breeding.

Regarding "civilian experimentation" or "pray the gay away" reform schools, it's bullocks. No, I don't believe you that you can change your sexuality that you are born with. You can add on to it maybe (see Fetishes), but you cannot change it. You aren't taught that you like men/women if you are a man/woman when you are 5-7 years old and you are born to hetero parents. They didn't teach you to be gay nor did society.

Sexuality isn't like being left or right handed where you can learn to change your dominant hand. Mother Theresa can't rap you on the left hand with a ruler and force you to use your right hand in the same way you are sexually. It simply doesn't work that way and the religious bigotry against someone's life choice is absurd.

[TechFan@ic]

Attraction and love are entirely different things, I love my dad to death but I'm not attracted to him.
I'm also physically attracted to a hundred different women that I've seen on the street but I don't know nor love any of them.

You may not choose who you are attracted to but you definitely choose who you have sex with.
 

[Advent]

Attraction and love are entirely different things, I love my dad to death but I'm not attracted to him.

I'm also physically attracted to a hundred different women that I've seen on the street but I don't know nor love any of them.

You may not choose who you are attracted to but you definitely choose who you have sex with.

 

Exactly so. Being Gay isn't a choice. Thus you should not be demonized for wanting to spend your life with someone because it doesn't fit the morality of a religious doctrine. Nor should they be able to pass their judgement on you. You don't see Gays judging non-Gays for not being gay that would be ridiculous.

[TechFan@ic]

I personally think that a general discussion about religion is not really suitable.
There are many religions, most of which are vastly different.

It also really depends on what you define as a religion, a set of moral code that you live your life by ? a belief system around a deity ? really what is religion ?
Some religions are godless and some don't dictate a "code of conduct" I think you can call almost anything a religion these days.

[LOST TALE]

Nothing describes me there. do you have scientific? wikipedi on agnoticism. that works.

''Agnosticism sometimes indicates doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities''.

I consider every possibility, the second there is a counter-possibility with no counterproof to it, it is a possibility. I prefer afterlife existence, I don't want death to be the end, hopefully.

[1funnygame]

agnostic isnt atheist? gtfo of here trying to push you stupid beliefs onto other people in any way possible i guess. 

cant you just keep your opinions to yourself and leave the stupid backchat out of it and let people choose?

[Advent]

idiot agnostic isnt atheist what are you retarded in the head or something? gtfo of here trying to push you stupid beliefs onto other people any way possible i guess. 

cant you just keep your opinions to yourself and leave the stupid backchat out of it and let people choose?

No need for that. (；一_一)

[1funnygame]

No need for that.

yes i'm really angry so there is a need for that

[LOST TALE]

idiot agnostic isnt atheist what are you retarded in the head or something? gtfo of here trying to push you stupid beliefs onto other people any way possible i guess. 

cant you just keep your opinions to yourself and leave the stupid backchat out of it and let people choose?

Yeah dude

@Sammael that agnotism exemple is misleading, fix it. Go on wikipedia.

I can troll any belief with hilariously powerfull counter-exemples. But I dont because the individuals become aggressive and rush the first irrelevant thing that comes from there mind.

[1funnygame]

agnosticism is the view that humanity lacks the requisite knowledge or sufficient rational grounds to justify either belief: that there exists some deity, or that no deities exist

straight from wikipedia why cant you use your brain on a topic people take so seriously?

[Vitalius]

Love is a chemical reaction to induce mating behavior, nothing more. It just so happens that Homosexuals have a genetic difference that makes them want to have sex and love others of the same sex. Also I would note that a huge number of animal species engage in homosexuality. So it isn't strictly a human thing. Penguins have been known to have gay partners for life and 0 interest in breeding.

Regarding "civilian experimentation" or "pray the gay away" reform schools, it's bullocks. No, I don't believe you that you can change your sexuality that you are born with. You can add on to it maybe (see Fetishes), but you cannot change it. You aren't taught that you like men/women if you are a man/woman when you are 5-7 years old and you are born to hetero parents. They didn't teach you to be gay nor did society.

Sexuality isn't like being left or right handed where you can learn to change your dominant hand. Mother Theresa can't rap you on the left hand with a ruler and force you to use your right hand in the same way you are sexually. It simply doesn't work that way and the religious bigotry against someone's life choice is absurd.

Well, I can tell you right now, I can only disagree with you from here. Entirely. 

And it isn't praying the gay away. It actually requires something that such schools would be against.

Well, then I have an idea. Let's do the same thing with psychopaths. They have a natural difference between them and the rest of the human race that naturally makes them more aggressive, among many other traits that usually leads to them killing someone. But why change them? They were born that way after all. No one taught them to be aggressive like that. It's just chemicals. Let them be free. Equality and such. 

It's the same exact thing in all ways except that obviously everyone is going to be against murder. Whereas not everyone will be against homosexuality.

[LOST TALE]

No need for that. (；一_一)

Yes that needs to be fixed, this thread is BS because of that. the exemple is atheist not agnostic. epic fail.

[Advent]

Yes that needs to be fixed, this thread is BS because of that. the example is atheist not agnostic. epic fail.

You can go about telling them this in a tactful manner. No need to go about it the way you and the other guy are.

[Advent]

Well, I can tell you right now, I can only disagree with you from here. Entirely. 

And it isn't praying the gay away. It actually requires something that such schools would be against.

Well, then I have an idea. Let's do the same thing with psychopaths. They have a natural difference between them and the rest of the human race that naturally makes them more aggressive, among many other traits that usually leads to them killing someone. But why change them? They were born that way after all. No one taught them to be aggressive like that. It's just chemicals. Let them be free. Equality and such. 

It's the same exact thing in all ways except that obviously everyone is going to be against murder. Whereas not everyone will be against homosexuality.

Being a Homosexual doesn't hurt anyone, but being a Psychopath does. Please stop using logical fallacies to justify your bigotry. It isn't the same thing at all.