Off-Topic: Elton John today

[paleshadow]

I think that if Jesus appeared on Earth and declared that all men and women were created equally and as God intended them to be, many people would denounce him. I believe the Bible can be a convenient way to support ones repulsions to things they don't understand, or agree with.

I'm not attacking anyone, but I would like to ask those who take the Bible so literally why they do? Why is it that the bible is the moral gauge? It was written by a person, and translated many times. Why do you believe that the author of the bible had a hotline to God and wasn't just someone who had an opinion, and felt a need to explain what couldn't be explained at the time? If I wrote a list of things I thought were right and wrong, dug a hole and buried it, and someone dug it up thousands of years from now, could my ideas about morality become a template for the morals of a whole civilization?

[tilthefirefades]

Originally Posted by paleshadow

I think that if Jesus appeared on Earth and declared that all men and women were created equally and as God intended them to be, many people would denounce him. I believe the Bible can be a convenient way to support ones repulsions to things they don't understand, or agree with.

I'm not attacking anyone, but I would like to ask those who take the Bible so literally why they do? Why is it that the bible is the moral gauge? It was written by a person, and translated many times. Why do you believe that the author of the bible had a hotline to God and wasn't just someone who had an opinion, and felt a need to explain what couldn't be explained at the time? If I wrote a list of things I thought were right and wrong, dug a hole and buried it, and someone dug it up thousands of years from now, could my ideas about morality become a template for the morals of a whole civilization?

This made me think of a quote that says something like "today's religion is tomorrows mythology" I read it one time but I can't remember who said it, or what it said exactly..

[paleshadow]

Originally Posted by tilthefirefades

This made me think of a quote that says something like "today's religion is tomorrows mythology" I read it one time but I can't remember who said it, or what it said exactly..

I like that a lot! Why do people consider Zeuss and the Greek Gods, or the stories in the Mabinogion to be nothing more than romantic fiction, but think God personally delivered the Bible? What's the difference? Can someone explain that?

[holidayroad]

Originally Posted by paleshadow

I think that if Jesus appeared on Earth and declared that all men and women were created equally and as God intended them to be, many people would denounce him. I believe the Bible can be a convenient way to support ones repulsions to things they don't understand, or agree with.

I'm not attacking anyone, but I would like to ask those who take the Bible so literally why they do? Why is it that the bible is the moral gauge? It was written by a person, and translated many times. Why do you believe that the author of the bible had a hotline to God and wasn't just someone who had an opinion, and felt a need to explain what couldn't be explained at the time? If I wrote a list of things I thought were right and wrong, dug a hole and buried it, and someone dug it up thousands of years from now, could my ideas about morality become a template for the morals of a whole civilization?

Even though I don't agree with them,I live where the majority of people take the Bible Very seriously (in the 'bible belt'). I can tell you (with their own words) why they take it so literally, because they are honestly afraid that if they don't, they will go to hell. You can not have a valid conversation with these people about the Bible, because to them, even questioning the bible and its meaning is a sin. When I have ever mentioned that man wrote the Bible and that there have been numerous versions/changes over the years, they will only say things like 'You shouldn't question the Lord'.This book is the 'word of God' to them and you cannot convince them otherwise. (I am not saying all Christians are this way, I have met many Christians who were not like this.)

[paleshadow]

Originally Posted by holidayroad

Even though I don't agree with them,I live where the majority of people take the Bible Very seriously (in the 'bible belt'). I can tell you (with their own words) why they take it so literally, because they are honestly afraid that if they don't, they will go to hell. You can not have a valid conversation with these people about the Bible, because to them, even questioning the bible and its meaning is a sin. When I have ever mentioned that man wrote the Bible and that there have been numerous versions/changes over the years, they will only say things like 'You shouldn't question the Lord'.This book is the 'word of God' to them and you cannot convince them otherwise. (I am not saying all Christians are this way, I have met many Christians who were not like this.)

Thanks for the reply. It is funny how none of the people who seem to reference the bible here answered. I have asked some people in person why they feel that way, but it is hard to find someone that follows the bible who A. will not get offended, and B. who will not try to lecture me. I asked someone I work with last night about this, and he just stood for a long time looking off into space and then finally said "I don't know". I guess it's just about blind faith, which I think is fine if it makes you happy, and a better person in general, but not when it encourages discrimination, fear, and hatred.

[jaycee]

Originally Posted by paleshadow

Thanks for the reply. It is funny how none of the people who seem to reference the bible here answered. I have asked some people in person why they feel that way, but it is hard to find someone that follows the bible who A. will not get offended, and B. who will not try to lecture me. I asked someone I work with last night about this, and he just stood for a long time looking off into space and then finally said "I don't know". I guess it's just about blind faith, which I think is fine if it makes you happy, and a better person in general, but not when it encourages discrimination, fear, and hatred.

Hmm... the only thing is several believers sincerely believe, for example, homosexuals are going to hell. So what they're in fact trying to do is help them, while the rest of society tells them not to help. (At least, I think that's probably the way many Christians feel about it...) So they don't really see it as discrimination in the same way as, for example, racism.
In any case, good beliefs are merely a shortcut to a rationally desirable outcome, like the Golden Rule ("Do unto others as they do unto you," or usually even better, "Treat others as you would like to be treated"), while bad beliefs... well, there's plenty of them, so I won't labour the point... anyway, as with any shortcut, people can tend to miss things - many anti-abortionists, proclaiming the sacredness of human life, don't spare a moment's thought on animal welfare. And often it's not because they haven't considered it, but because they think humans are much more intrinsically important - we're made in God's image, after all!
Ultimately, I don't think anyone should justify any of their actions/behaviours/ethics according to simple, irrational beliefs. If you want to practice those sorts of things in your private time, that's okay - just don't let it deeply affect other aspects of your life.

[Zombie]

Been sitting with this stuff for a couple days now so I could formulate my reply properly. Let's see how it goes...

Originally Posted by Fiver

I don't look at it that way. The act of gay sex is voluntary. The act of adultery is voluntary. You can't choose not have the thoughts or urges, but ya have the choice whether or not to act on them.

Any sex act is voluntary, both heterosexual acts AND homosexual acts - excluding rape, which is, by definition, y'know...involuntary.

If you can't choose what sexual thoughts and urges you have, that goes for both heterosexuals and homosexuals, yes? Then why is it only okay for heterosexuals to act on those thoughts and urges they were born with?

That's basically calling a large section of the population broken. "Sure, you were born thinking this way, but - and I'm not judging here, it's just the way it is, I'm real sorry - it actually turns out that it's bad wrong to be this way, so you can't have a normal, fulfilling love life with a partner of your choosing, unlike us lucky heterosexual folks that happened to be born with the "right stuff." Sorry 'bout that. But you can think about it all you want!"

Why in the world would a loving god create a large section of the population to be broken if he thought homosexual sex was such a bad thing? Why would he condemn these people to a life empty of the love, compassion and human connection with someone they are attracted to and connect to just as the heterosexuals are "allowed" to do, on pain of eternal damnation?

Or, perhaps more importantly, why on earth would you want a god like that?

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

That's pretty offensive- comparing gay sex (between two single consenting adults) with adultery (which has all kinds of violative connotations to it).

I found it offensive for entirely different reasons - adultery is easily avoided. Don't cheat on your wife/husband. If you want to get laid, you can always just go bang your spouse, and be abomination-free. That's easy.

Gay people, however, don't have that choice, according to this logic - they don't have the option of being able to have sex with someone they are actually attracted to without not passing go and heading straight to the Bad Place.

I think that's terrible.

Originally Posted by LikeAWillow

There's evidence that sadistic personality disorder has biological routes. Should a sadist be accepted for acting on their impulses?

I know your finger is hovering over the reply button right now.Take a deep breath before you jump right back up on that soapbox.

I'm not equating homosexuality with sadism. I think what I just said was complete bull****. If it's not, I'm Tom Bundy for the relations I've had with other women. It is a hole in your argument, though, and when you have the balls to ask a poster with a thought out, structured, and well-intentioned post to

,especially when your own are little more than rhetoric, you hurt our cause more than you help it. Fiver is trying to have a discussion with you. Being militant in response degrades that discussion.

I may be reading everyone's replies wrong, but I don't think that your equating a person with "sadistic personality disorder" (which isn't actually a real clinical disorder, as far as I know) acting on those sadistic impulses with homosexuals acting on their "impulses" is actually a good way to try to point out a perceived hole in the argument.

Mind you, I am not defending or agreeing with anyone in this particular area of this thread (other than I do agree that less militant is usually good all around, in any discussion) - I just don't think that analogy is intellectually honest.

Sadism, by nature, hurts people. We stop violent sociopaths and psychopaths from acting on their harmful impulses because they are harmful impulses. They hurt people - of course they shouldn't be allowed to do that. But homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone. It's like trying to compare apples to 747s.

[carrie721]

Originally Posted by Zombie

It's like trying to compare apples to 747s.

-both are delicious dipped in peanut butter
-apples can fly for a little bit if you throw them real hard.

point, set, match.

[David]

Originally Posted by trackaghost

It doesn't make sense to me either. Imagine someone who devotes their life to good, does great things, affects positive change in the world, shows people incredible kindness and through it all shows great humility, yet because they have "laid with men" and not repented for that one thing, they would be turned away from heaven? Crazy. If people are to be judged surely it should be on how they have treated others and not who they have loved? (Not that I think it's a sin anyway).

Normative Judaism highly prizes the person who does good deeds, but nonetheless considers homosexual acts a sin. The concept of sin, however, has a vastly different resonance in Judaism--sin requires repentance, true, but even unrepented sin doesn't lead to damnation. The idea of damnation, in fact, is alien to normative Judaism. Eternal punishment is a Christian tenet, not a Jewish one.

I bring this up also to raise a question: Earlier someone said that Christianity doesn't accept homosexuality because of the fear of hell, & yet Judaism, with no fear of hell, also doesn't approve of homosexuality--or, more accurately, homosexual acts.

Does anyone know how other major religions view this?