Elton John wants Religion banned r.o
- Thread starter Hawkeye
- Start date
Raerae
Well-known member
He's not saying get rid of religion. He's saying get rid of organized religion. Which I agree, personally. I think organized religion is the worst thing that has ever happened to the human race. This isn't limited to the current big three, this is just organized religion in general. Organized religion allows any person to justify their actions based on "God's will", rather than morals.
Once you organize religion, it becomes a, "me vs. you" way of thinking. Because if you go against this, "groups agreed set of what is right and what is wrong," you are automatically in the wrong. Not because of any real set of morals, laws, truths, etc. But because you are going against God. And God is not subject to any laws of man, rather man is subject to God. This creates justification for taking any actions necessary against the, "infidel's, heretics, pagans, (insert name of non-believer here)," regardlesss if that action is morally/legally wrong.
The above has nothing to do with the idea of religion (which i think for some people can do a lot of good), and has everything to do with why Religion becomes perverted once you organize it into a heirarchy, and put humans in charge of interpreting "Gods Will." As once a human is in charge, Gods will, is replaced with, "Human in charge's will."
This is why there are so many different interpretations of every religion. Dont like how one group is doing things? No problem! Just start your own religion/subset of an existing religion. You too can be in charge of manipulating people's actions with "Gods Will" as your moral justification. And if you wish, you can do morally despicable things (like suicide bombings to give a current example) and still go to heaven, because your killing people who are going against "gods will." Or to stay on topic, deny entire populations basic human rights because they dont go in line with, "gods will" or rather, "whoever is in charge today's will."
Once you organize religion, it becomes a, "me vs. you" way of thinking. Because if you go against this, "groups agreed set of what is right and what is wrong," you are automatically in the wrong. Not because of any real set of morals, laws, truths, etc. But because you are going against God. And God is not subject to any laws of man, rather man is subject to God. This creates justification for taking any actions necessary against the, "infidel's, heretics, pagans, (insert name of non-believer here)," regardlesss if that action is morally/legally wrong.
The above has nothing to do with the idea of religion (which i think for some people can do a lot of good), and has everything to do with why Religion becomes perverted once you organize it into a heirarchy, and put humans in charge of interpreting "Gods Will." As once a human is in charge, Gods will, is replaced with, "Human in charge's will."
This is why there are so many different interpretations of every religion. Dont like how one group is doing things? No problem! Just start your own religion/subset of an existing religion. You too can be in charge of manipulating people's actions with "Gods Will" as your moral justification. And if you wish, you can do morally despicable things (like suicide bombings to give a current example) and still go to heaven, because your killing people who are going against "gods will." Or to stay on topic, deny entire populations basic human rights because they dont go in line with, "gods will" or rather, "whoever is in charge today's will."
Indigowaters
Well-known member
Your mood explains it all.
vivaciousv1114
Well-known member
the reason religion seems to be focused on homosexualty at the moment is purely political. this topic has become more of a focus recently because of the new laws that are trying to be brought in the effect that ban gay marriages or that give gay couples civil rights, etc. it's a purely political move that is used to either gain votes or to shoot down a political opponent.
on another note. while i agree with elton john's sentiment, i think he's going about it all wrong. people tend to use religion as a weapon to hurt and give themselves a sense of power over others. which is a very big problem nowadays. i can see his point, but it's not possible nor necessary to get rid of religion. i just think that it's necessary to teach a policy of at the very least tolerance if not cooperation and understanding.
on another note. while i agree with elton john's sentiment, i think he's going about it all wrong. people tend to use religion as a weapon to hurt and give themselves a sense of power over others. which is a very big problem nowadays. i can see his point, but it's not possible nor necessary to get rid of religion. i just think that it's necessary to teach a policy of at the very least tolerance if not cooperation and understanding.
Indigowaters
Well-known member
The thing I wonder is how so many people that have never cracked open a Bible or any other religion's book, have such a strong opinion on their religion? For example, if I never cracked open any book, how could I give my opinion on a matter? Would one go to a book club without having read the book? Hmmm.
It seems like there's alot of focus on the people of certain religions who have done things wrong (not that that's anything new). What if we would make that generalization of everyone? That because they are of a certain group, that they are bad people who use [insert whatever you like here] as a scapegoat. Have you never met a Christian, Muslim, Catholic, etc. in your life that you just could not get along with? I think where respect is expected, it should also be given.
Eoraptor
Well-known member
I don't know whether to "ughh" or "yay" about a religious discussion. I do love them, but they're always so futile. Regarding the prospect of banning religion, I think the world would be much better off, yet I think it is immoral to do, and impossible in any case. A few random comments on the comments follow. People find religious criticism to be markedly more offensive than other kinds of criticism, so please try to remember I'm criticizing your ideas, not you. Also note that I agree with lots that many of you say, but saying "I agree" doesn't foster further discussion. And please note that my love for all of you hasn't changed.
youbeabitch- Claiming it's the people, not the religion, that are the problem, doesn't make sense. Religion (as a societal construct) by definition can only have effects through people's actions. It's like saying "it's the Nazi's who were the problem, not Nazism itself."
I think it's false to claim every (any?) religion is based on love. It's nice to think that, but I think most theologists would agree religions are based on controlling society, explaining natural phenomena, etc.. Using your example, the Bible puts transvestites in the same category with adulterers (1 Corinthians 6:9). So Mr. Ray was being a good person (in my opinion), but not a good Christian.
How could you claim God's law is more simple than our laws? That claim implies knowledge about God. If anything, the complexity of God (who has to be very complex to create the universe, no?) would suggest His laws may be more complex than any of our Earthly legal systems. If His law is so simple, then why is the Bible SO long?
Indigowaters- Discrimination isn't a bad thing in itself. We would have no problem discriminating against the math teacher who taught 2+2=6, for instance. In my opinion, Elton is discriminating with more just cause than any religion ever had. For instance, your "set of instructions" instructs you to stone to death people who work on Sundays. Yet I think you're being moral by discriminating against those passages.
Shimmer, meanwhile, exemplifies the No True Scotsman Fallacy. I wonder how one distinguishes "True" Christians from "False" Christians, since no Christian I've ever heard of follows the Bible 100%.
I would say most Christians DO place homosexuality above other sins. Using my example above, how many Christians would think the homosexual is equally immoral to the person who worked on Sunday? I'd say almost none of them. Do you disagree?
All three of you- If any religion were true, it would be more moral (in my opinion) to convert people at any cost. You may be causing suffering in the short term, but the infinite good afterlife makes up for that, no? Note that I believe religions are false, so I don't find evangelists to be moral, personally.
LadyBug10678- If living by religious standards is a wonderful thing, then what about those religious standards that instruct one to apply them to other people? The Bible is full of God instructing followers to punish those who disobey Him.
Shimmer and Ladybug10678- Why is there so much gay sex in the animal kingdom if only heterosexual sex is natural? Other animals have sex for non-reproductive reasons as well, not just humans.
Raerae- If any religion were true, I think it would be best to have it be an organized religion. More people studying the religious texts would result in a better understanding of them. Churches would help spread the truth more easily than any unorganized setup could. Much as how science works best with an organization of universities, with professors at the top of the hierarchy. But of course, I don't believe religions are true, so I agree organized religions are bad.
youbeabitch- Claiming it's the people, not the religion, that are the problem, doesn't make sense. Religion (as a societal construct) by definition can only have effects through people's actions. It's like saying "it's the Nazi's who were the problem, not Nazism itself."
I think it's false to claim every (any?) religion is based on love. It's nice to think that, but I think most theologists would agree religions are based on controlling society, explaining natural phenomena, etc.. Using your example, the Bible puts transvestites in the same category with adulterers (1 Corinthians 6:9). So Mr. Ray was being a good person (in my opinion), but not a good Christian.
How could you claim God's law is more simple than our laws? That claim implies knowledge about God. If anything, the complexity of God (who has to be very complex to create the universe, no?) would suggest His laws may be more complex than any of our Earthly legal systems. If His law is so simple, then why is the Bible SO long?
Indigowaters- Discrimination isn't a bad thing in itself. We would have no problem discriminating against the math teacher who taught 2+2=6, for instance. In my opinion, Elton is discriminating with more just cause than any religion ever had. For instance, your "set of instructions" instructs you to stone to death people who work on Sundays. Yet I think you're being moral by discriminating against those passages.
Shimmer, meanwhile, exemplifies the No True Scotsman Fallacy. I wonder how one distinguishes "True" Christians from "False" Christians, since no Christian I've ever heard of follows the Bible 100%.
I would say most Christians DO place homosexuality above other sins. Using my example above, how many Christians would think the homosexual is equally immoral to the person who worked on Sunday? I'd say almost none of them. Do you disagree?
All three of you- If any religion were true, it would be more moral (in my opinion) to convert people at any cost. You may be causing suffering in the short term, but the infinite good afterlife makes up for that, no? Note that I believe religions are false, so I don't find evangelists to be moral, personally.
LadyBug10678- If living by religious standards is a wonderful thing, then what about those religious standards that instruct one to apply them to other people? The Bible is full of God instructing followers to punish those who disobey Him.
Shimmer and Ladybug10678- Why is there so much gay sex in the animal kingdom if only heterosexual sex is natural? Other animals have sex for non-reproductive reasons as well, not just humans.
Raerae- If any religion were true, I think it would be best to have it be an organized religion. More people studying the religious texts would result in a better understanding of them. Churches would help spread the truth more easily than any unorganized setup could. Much as how science works best with an organization of universities, with professors at the top of the hierarchy. But of course, I don't believe religions are true, so I agree organized religions are bad.
Raerae
Well-known member
Quote:
I could change it to something like "happy" if that will make you actually read my post, rather than quicky get defensive because I'm addressing religion. Even more ironic, is I'm not speaking about Christianity, I'm talking about religious principles in general with regards to politics, not religion.
Perhaps I should clarify a little more. I'm not against organized religion in the religious sense. I think faiths of all sorts provide many benefits to humanity, spiritual (for those who need this), and physical with community service ando other services churches provide. However, I think the good brought by religion stops, when the preaching stops and the political campaigning starts. This however is a very sticky subject, because for those who find faith important to them, their faith guides their morality, which guides how they vote.
Again this goes back to the idea that Gods laws or truths or whatever you want to call them, are above any laws of humankind. And as a result, the problem is when people who follow one version of God (their version) attempt to impose their beliefs of what is right and what is wrong, on others eigther by eigther being in power (Iran is a modern example) and having the ability to enforce laws. Or in elective governments, by getting enough support from their religious base, to vote the morals of their faith, into laws of society.
Getting back to the topic of religion creating animosity towards Gays. The problem Elton John has with organised religion, is that while believers of that faith (whatever it may be) believe being gay is wrong, those same believer also feel they have the right to impose that view on everyone else. It's not enough to say, "I believe that being gay is wrong, and would never do it," is has to be, "Being gay is wrong, and because it says it's wrong in the bible, it's ok to dislike them. Even if the fact that someone else being gay really has no effect on anyone else."
Originally Posted by Indigowaters
Your mood explains it all. |
I could change it to something like "happy" if that will make you actually read my post, rather than quicky get defensive because I'm addressing religion. Even more ironic, is I'm not speaking about Christianity, I'm talking about religious principles in general with regards to politics, not religion.
Perhaps I should clarify a little more. I'm not against organized religion in the religious sense. I think faiths of all sorts provide many benefits to humanity, spiritual (for those who need this), and physical with community service ando other services churches provide. However, I think the good brought by religion stops, when the preaching stops and the political campaigning starts. This however is a very sticky subject, because for those who find faith important to them, their faith guides their morality, which guides how they vote.
Again this goes back to the idea that Gods laws or truths or whatever you want to call them, are above any laws of humankind. And as a result, the problem is when people who follow one version of God (their version) attempt to impose their beliefs of what is right and what is wrong, on others eigther by eigther being in power (Iran is a modern example) and having the ability to enforce laws. Or in elective governments, by getting enough support from their religious base, to vote the morals of their faith, into laws of society.
Getting back to the topic of religion creating animosity towards Gays. The problem Elton John has with organised religion, is that while believers of that faith (whatever it may be) believe being gay is wrong, those same believer also feel they have the right to impose that view on everyone else. It's not enough to say, "I believe that being gay is wrong, and would never do it," is has to be, "Being gay is wrong, and because it says it's wrong in the bible, it's ok to dislike them. Even if the fact that someone else being gay really has no effect on anyone else."
Indigowaters
Well-known member
Quote:
I didn't quickly get defensive because of your "mood", but you are what you say you are. I didn't set your "mood", you did. Now, back to the topic...
I spoke on Christianity because I am a Christian. I didn't speak on any other religion because I'm not of those religions. However, I did mention other religions and said if you hadn't read their "instructions", it's funny that you could comment on them. Now, I don't believe anyone here said that being gay is wrong, for sake of keeping things civil. And if we (those of religious faith) said it, would that make you or us wrong or right? And I don't believe that anyone here said they don't like gay people, but I am not going to back down on what I believe because of pressure or because of someone's opinion. This is what the Bible says (since everyone is alluding to it and misquoting it):
Romans 1 -
"24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."
This is the passage that everyone seems to get confused. I didn't say it, God did. So if you have a problem with what this says, take it up with Him.
| Originally Posted by Raerae
I could change it to something like "happy" if that will make you actually read my post, rather than quicky get defensive because I'm addressing religion. Even more ironic, is I'm not speaking about Christianity, I'm talking about religious principles in general with regards to politics, not religion. Perhaps I should clarify a little more. I'm not against organized religion in the religious sense. I think faiths of all sorts provide many benefits to humanity, spiritual (for those who need this), and physical with community service ando other services churches provide. However, I think the good brought by religion stops, when the preaching stops and the political campaigning starts. This however is a very sticky subject, because for those who find faith important to them, their faith guides their morality, which guides how they vote. Again this goes back to the idea that Gods laws or truths or whatever you want to call them, are above any laws of humankind. And as a result, the problem is when people who follow one version of God (their version) attempt to impose their beliefs of what is right and what is wrong, on others eigther by eigther being in power (Iran is a modern example) and having the ability to enforce laws. Or in elective governments, by getting enough support from their religious base, to vote the morals of their faith, into laws of society. Getting back to the topic of religion creating animosity towards Gays. The problem Elton John has with organised religion, is that while believers of that faith (whatever it may be) believe being gay is wrong, those same believer also feel they have the right to impose that view on everyone else. It's not enough to say, "I believe that being gay is wrong, and would never do it," is has to be, "Being gay is wrong, and because it says it's wrong in the bible, it's ok to dislike them. Even if the fact that someone else being gay really has no effect on anyone else." |
I didn't quickly get defensive because of your "mood", but you are what you say you are. I didn't set your "mood", you did. Now, back to the topic...
I spoke on Christianity because I am a Christian. I didn't speak on any other religion because I'm not of those religions. However, I did mention other religions and said if you hadn't read their "instructions", it's funny that you could comment on them. Now, I don't believe anyone here said that being gay is wrong, for sake of keeping things civil. And if we (those of religious faith) said it, would that make you or us wrong or right? And I don't believe that anyone here said they don't like gay people, but I am not going to back down on what I believe because of pressure or because of someone's opinion. This is what the Bible says (since everyone is alluding to it and misquoting it):
Romans 1 -
"24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."
This is the passage that everyone seems to get confused. I didn't say it, God did. So if you have a problem with what this says, take it up with Him.
Raerae
Well-known member
Quote:
I have such a strong opinion on religion because I can see the effects of religion on not only our society, but on the entire world. And if you think it doesn't your just turning a blind eye, because if you dont think religion is plastered all over world politics, your looking through rose colored glasses.
No one in this thread is saying that religion at is core is bad. There are plenty of good things that religions bring to the world. I think everyone can agree on that. However, those same "good values" turn into sour grapes when it's not enough to believe yourself, but everyone else must believe as well. And if you think it's just a "minority" of people doing that, you are very mistaken.
You dont have to kill someone to use religion as a scapegoat. Anytime you allow your religious moral values to effect how your Vote in a political election, your using religion as a scapegoat. Because your vote wasn't motivated by how you personally think, it was motivated by how as a believer in X religion, you were told how to think.
I'll use your own post as a perfect example of the above line of thought.
Quote:
The problem I have with organized religion, is that your, "set of instructions" doesn't stop with you. Not only do you need to share it with everyone. But it also effects political policy in our country. And as a result, your, "set of instructions (bible)" becomes part of the laws that I'm forced to follow, else face very real consiquences.
And I've cracked open a bible on more than one occasion, and spent plenty of time sitting on hard wooden pews and standing and kneeling during sunday Catholic services. I've also been to temple quite a few times when I had jewish friends. I would also like to go to a few services at a mosque, but as I dont have any muslim friends that will have to wait, as I'm not comfortable going alone.
Might I suggest Matthew chapter 7 for some good reading?
| Originally Posted by Indigowaters
The thing I wonder is how so many people that have never cracked open a Bible or any other religion's book, have such a strong opinion on their religion? For example, if I never cracked open any book, how could I give my opinion on a matter? Would one go to a book club without having read the book? Hmmm.
|
I have such a strong opinion on religion because I can see the effects of religion on not only our society, but on the entire world. And if you think it doesn't your just turning a blind eye, because if you dont think religion is plastered all over world politics, your looking through rose colored glasses.
No one in this thread is saying that religion at is core is bad. There are plenty of good things that religions bring to the world. I think everyone can agree on that. However, those same "good values" turn into sour grapes when it's not enough to believe yourself, but everyone else must believe as well. And if you think it's just a "minority" of people doing that, you are very mistaken.
You dont have to kill someone to use religion as a scapegoat. Anytime you allow your religious moral values to effect how your Vote in a political election, your using religion as a scapegoat. Because your vote wasn't motivated by how you personally think, it was motivated by how as a believer in X religion, you were told how to think.
I'll use your own post as a perfect example of the above line of thought.
Quote:
| I simply have a set of instructions (the Bible) to tell people what it says about what God says and if they don't receive it, they don't have to, but I've done my part. |
The problem I have with organized religion, is that your, "set of instructions" doesn't stop with you. Not only do you need to share it with everyone. But it also effects political policy in our country. And as a result, your, "set of instructions (bible)" becomes part of the laws that I'm forced to follow, else face very real consiquences.
And I've cracked open a bible on more than one occasion, and spent plenty of time sitting on hard wooden pews and standing and kneeling during sunday Catholic services. I've also been to temple quite a few times when I had jewish friends. I would also like to go to a few services at a mosque, but as I dont have any muslim friends that will have to wait, as I'm not comfortable going alone.
Might I suggest Matthew chapter 7 for some good reading?
Indigowaters
Well-known member
Quote:
Some of the passages you are referring to are being crossed up. The Old testament is for instructions of believers who were before Jesus. For example, stoning someone for working on Sunday (which I would have to know where that Scripture is that you are quoting) is not in the New Testament. Didn't anyone explain that Jesus came to be a sacrifice for our sins that were punishable by death? Therefore, we don't have to sacrifice chickens and goats and cows for our sins, or burn ashes and wear sackcloths for that matter. All we (as Christians) have to do is accept Jesus as our Savior, and if/when we do sin after that salvation, we have what is called grace (which is a 2nd chance) to repent or ask for forgiveness again, and be forgiven of those sins. Persecution of Christians is nothing new (as in "nothing new under the sun"). You either believe or you don't. And the Bible tells us if anyone doesn't welcome us or listen to our words, to shake the dust off of our feet and continue. I don't think this discussion is going to miraculously change anyone's opinion because what we believe is stronger than our own human opinion. I just wanted to clarify the Scriptures you were quoting.
| Originally Posted by Eoraptor
I don't know whether to "ughh" or "yay" about a religious discussion. I do love them, but they're always so futile. Regarding the prospect of banning religion, I think the world would be much better off, yet I think it is immoral to do, and impossible in any case. A few random comments on the comments follow. People find religious criticism to be markedly more offensive than other kinds of criticism, so please try to remember I'm criticizing your ideas, not you. Also note that I agree with lots that many of you say, but saying "I agree" doesn't foster further discussion. And please note that my love for all of you hasn't changed. youbeabitch- Claiming it's the people, not the religion, that are the problem, doesn't make sense. Religion (as a societal construct) by definition can only have effects through people's actions. It's like saying "it's the Nazi's who were the problem, not Nazism itself." I think it's false to claim every (any?) religion is based on love. It's nice to think that, but I think most theologists would agree religions are based on controlling society, explaining natural phenomena, etc.. Using your example, the Bible puts transvestites in the same category with adulterers (1 Corinthians 6:9). So Mr. Ray was being a good person (in my opinion), but not a good Christian. How could you claim God's law is more simple than our laws? That claim implies knowledge about God. If anything, the complexity of God (who has to be very complex to create the universe, no?) would suggest His laws may be more complex than any of our Earthly legal systems. If His law is so simple, then why is the Bible SO long?
Indigowaters- Discrimination isn't a bad thing in itself. We would have no problem discriminating against the math teacher who taught 2+2=6, for instance. In my opinion, Elton is discriminating with more just cause than any religion ever had. For instance, your "set of instructions" instructs you to stone to death people who work on Sundays. Yet I think you're being moral by discriminating against those passages. Shimmer, meanwhile, exemplifies the No True Scotsman Fallacy. I wonder how one distinguishes "True" Christians from "False" Christians, since no Christian I've ever heard of follows the Bible 100%. I would say most Christians DO place homosexuality above other sins. Using my example above, how many Christians would think the homosexual is equally immoral to the person who worked on Sunday? I'd say almost none of them. Do you disagree? All three of you- If any religion were true, it would be more moral (in my opinion) to convert people at any cost. You may be causing suffering in the short term, but the infinite good afterlife makes up for that, no? Note that I believe religions are false, so I don't find evangelists to be moral, personally. LadyBug10678- If living by religious standards is a wonderful thing, then what about those religious standards that instruct one to apply them to other people? The Bible is full of God instructing followers to punish those who disobey Him. Shimmer and Ladybug10678- Why is there so much gay sex in the animal kingdom if only heterosexual sex is natural? Other animals have sex for non-reproductive reasons as well, not just humans. Raerae- If any religion were true, I think it would be best to have it be an organized religion. More people studying the religious texts would result in a better understanding of them. Churches would help spread the truth more easily than any unorganized setup could. Much as how science works best with an organization of universities, with professors at the top of the hierarchy. But of course, I don't believe religions are true, so I agree organized religions are bad. |
Some of the passages you are referring to are being crossed up. The Old testament is for instructions of believers who were before Jesus. For example, stoning someone for working on Sunday (which I would have to know where that Scripture is that you are quoting) is not in the New Testament. Didn't anyone explain that Jesus came to be a sacrifice for our sins that were punishable by death? Therefore, we don't have to sacrifice chickens and goats and cows for our sins, or burn ashes and wear sackcloths for that matter. All we (as Christians) have to do is accept Jesus as our Savior, and if/when we do sin after that salvation, we have what is called grace (which is a 2nd chance) to repent or ask for forgiveness again, and be forgiven of those sins. Persecution of Christians is nothing new (as in "nothing new under the sun"). You either believe or you don't. And the Bible tells us if anyone doesn't welcome us or listen to our words, to shake the dust off of our feet and continue. I don't think this discussion is going to miraculously change anyone's opinion because what we believe is stronger than our own human opinion. I just wanted to clarify the Scriptures you were quoting.
Indigowaters
Well-known member
Quote:
When did I say anything about voting?
And what concern of yours is it what way I vote? You seem to be getting a little too personal. If my beliefs affect my vote (religious or not) what difference does it make? Your beliefs affect the way you view politics, look at how you've managed to weave it into a discussion that has nothing to do with politics. And I suggest the whole Bible for good reading not just a chapter picked out of convenience to my argument.
| Originally Posted by Raerae
I have such a strong opinion on religion because I can see the effects of religion on not only our society, but on the entire world. And if you think it doesn't your just turning a blind eye, because if you dont think religion is plastered all over world politics, your looking through rose colored glasses. No one in this thread is saying that religion at is core is bad. There are plenty of good things that religions bring to the world. I think everyone can agree on that. However, those same "good values" turn into sour grapes when it's not enough to believe yourself, but everyone else must believe as well. And if you think it's just a "minority" of people doing that, you are very mistaken. You dont have to kill someone to use religion as a scapegoat. Anytime you allow your religious moral values to effect how your Vote in a political election, your using religion as a scapegoat. Because your vote wasn't motivated by how you personally think, it was motivated by how as a believer in X religion, you were told how to think. I'll use your own post as a perfect example of the above line of thought. The problem I have with organized religion, is that your, "set of instructions" doesn't stop with you. Not only do you need to share it with everyone. But it also effects political policy in our country. And as a result, your, "set of instructions (bible)" becomes part of the laws that I'm forced to follow, else face very real consiquences. And I've cracked open a bible on more than one occasion, and spent plenty of time sitting on hard wooden pews and standing and kneeling during sunday Catholic services. I've also been to temple quite a few times when I had jewish friends. I would also like to go to a few services at a mosque, but as I dont have any muslim friends that will have to wait, as I'm not comfortable going alone. Might I suggest Matthew chapter 7 for some good reading? |
When did I say anything about voting?
Raerae
Well-known member
Quote:
I used voting as example of how,
Quote:
is not true. As a follower of your religion, it influnces your core moral decisions. As a result the above line cannot be true. Lets use gay marriage as an example to indirectly keep Elton involved. As a devout follower, you can't support gay marriage and be against homosexuality. By voting for gay marriage you are casting a vote against God. By voting against gay marriage you are imposing your religious views on other people.
When your a follower of a religion, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
| Originally Posted by Indigowaters
When did I say anything about voting?
|
I used voting as example of how,
Quote:
| if they don't receive it, they don't have to, but I've done my part. |
is not true. As a follower of your religion, it influnces your core moral decisions. As a result the above line cannot be true. Lets use gay marriage as an example to indirectly keep Elton involved. As a devout follower, you can't support gay marriage and be against homosexuality. By voting for gay marriage you are casting a vote against God. By voting against gay marriage you are imposing your religious views on other people.
When your a follower of a religion, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
Indigowaters
Well-known member
Quote:
*Shakes the dust off my feet*
| Originally Posted by Raerae
I used voting as example of how, is not true. As a follower of your religion, it influnces your core moral decisions. As a result the above line cannot be true. Lets use gay marriage as an example to indirectly keep Elton involved. As a devout follower, you can't support gay marriage and be against homosexuality. By voting for gay marriage you are casting a vote against God. By voting against gay marriage you are imposing your religious views on other people. When your a follower of a religion, you can't have your cake and eat it too. |
*Shakes the dust off my feet*
Eoraptor
Well-known member
Quote:
It's true the stoning story is from the Old Testament (Numbers 15:32-36). And yet working on Sunday is still a sin, is it not? It's one of the Ten Commandments. Moses (Exodus 20:8-10) even went into more detail about it than murder or theft. Do you work on Sundays? If so, it would be a "habitual willing sin" in your words, so by your own admission repenting wouldn't be tolerated.
I do wish more Christians were like you though, not punishing others for sinning. Of course, Jesus said He came to earth to pit people against each other (Matthew 10:34-37), so maybe being so passive isn't what He wants from us?
| Some of the passages you are referring to are being crossed up. The Old testament is for instructions of believers who were before Jesus. For example, stoning someone for working on Sunday (which I would have to know where that Scripture is that you are quoting) is not in the New Testament. Didn't anyone explain that Jesus came to be a sacrifice for our sins that were punishable by death? Therefore, we don't have to sacrifice chickens and goats and cows for our sins, or burn ashes and wear sackcloths for that matter. All we (as Christians) have to do is accept Jesus as our Savior, and if/when we do sin after that salvation, we have what is called grace (which is a 2nd chance) to repent or ask for forgiveness again, and be forgiven of those sins |
It's true the stoning story is from the Old Testament (Numbers 15:32-36). And yet working on Sunday is still a sin, is it not? It's one of the Ten Commandments. Moses (Exodus 20:8-10) even went into more detail about it than murder or theft. Do you work on Sundays? If so, it would be a "habitual willing sin" in your words, so by your own admission repenting wouldn't be tolerated.
I do wish more Christians were like you though, not punishing others for sinning. Of course, Jesus said He came to earth to pit people against each other (Matthew 10:34-37), so maybe being so passive isn't what He wants from us?
Indigowaters
Well-known member
Quote:
I love your sarcasm, yet despise your misunderstanding of the Bible. Where did you get your degree?
Oh, and BTW, I wasn't called to punish others for sin. No one was. Jesus was called to deliver from sin. And why don't you try quoting a passage in it's context before posting (like maybe the whole chapter so everyone can see what He was talking about)? He said that because no one should love anyone or anything above Him.
P.S. I work M-F
| Originally Posted by Eoraptor
It's true the stoning story is from the Old Testament (Numbers 15:32-36). And yet working on Sunday is still a sin, is it not? It's one of the Ten Commandments. Moses (Exodus 20:8-10) even went into more detail about it than murder or theft. Do you work on Sundays? If so, it would be a "habitual willing sin" in your words, so by your own admission repenting wouldn't be tolerated. I do wish more Christians were like you though, not punishing others for sinning. Of course, Jesus said He came to earth to pit people against each other (Matthew 10:34-37), so maybe being so passive isn't what He wants from us? |
I love your sarcasm, yet despise your misunderstanding of the Bible. Where did you get your degree?
P.S. I work M-F
Hawkeye
Well-known member
Eora (Better? hehehe) -"it's the Nazi's who were the problem, not Nazism itself." - Actually thats how I view things. Nazism itself was a philosophy, a thought process-but man the Nazi's were the ones that actually killed people. They had a choice to make-they chose it.
Just likes Islam-In the past few years we've seen a lot of Islam violence rising. But the religion itself is a very peaceful docile religion but then you have the few people who want to ruin it for everybody and kill others. It's THEIR choice.
Just like Christianity-it's a religion its a thought process but its gotton political and complicated by whoever wants to follow it and their percieved thoughts people who choose to condemn falsely, those who prosteletize, those who hate for the pure hell of it-it's their choice to believe in that.
It's never the ideology's fault because it is a merely a thought, it is man's fault once man puts it in action.
You know- your right about mind control, controlling society and religion. You were one of the few people who actually caught that part of the story. I was wondering how long it would take! Was Mr. Ray a good Christian? By religions standards-nope but by mans standard he was a good man.
Why is the Bible so long? (Tell me about it-that is a long book-just wait till you get to numbers where you start reading those begats) and then you have the Q'uran and the Torah.....
But why? Man wrote it. They were the ones who took the pen to the paper and wrote it. Was it inspired by God? who knows. I think it was, you may not think so. That's fine.
But I have a feeling God is very blunt ex: The ten commandments. Very point blank, some of the actual leviticus book very point blank, even in the new testiment with what Jesus said.
But then you have the fluff. I mean if you actually took out all the fluff you would have maybe about a 50 page book about the basic rules.
And I dont care what anybody says everyone can gain knowledge about the creator by going outside and listening. He'll tell ya what he wants to
LOL (Back to my native american beliefs LOL)
Just likes Islam-In the past few years we've seen a lot of Islam violence rising. But the religion itself is a very peaceful docile religion but then you have the few people who want to ruin it for everybody and kill others. It's THEIR choice.
Just like Christianity-it's a religion its a thought process but its gotton political and complicated by whoever wants to follow it and their percieved thoughts people who choose to condemn falsely, those who prosteletize, those who hate for the pure hell of it-it's their choice to believe in that.
It's never the ideology's fault because it is a merely a thought, it is man's fault once man puts it in action.
You know- your right about mind control, controlling society and religion. You were one of the few people who actually caught that part of the story. I was wondering how long it would take! Was Mr. Ray a good Christian? By religions standards-nope but by mans standard he was a good man.
Why is the Bible so long? (Tell me about it-that is a long book-just wait till you get to numbers where you start reading those begats) and then you have the Q'uran and the Torah.....
But why? Man wrote it. They were the ones who took the pen to the paper and wrote it. Was it inspired by God? who knows. I think it was, you may not think so. That's fine.
But I have a feeling God is very blunt ex: The ten commandments. Very point blank, some of the actual leviticus book very point blank, even in the new testiment with what Jesus said.
But then you have the fluff. I mean if you actually took out all the fluff you would have maybe about a 50 page book about the basic rules.
And I dont care what anybody says everyone can gain knowledge about the creator by going outside and listening. He'll tell ya what he wants to
LOL (Back to my native american beliefs LOL)
Eoraptor
Well-known member
Well, good job keeping the Sabbath holy.
I have to agree with Raerae if you say you or other Christians don't punish others for sin- the democracy we live in makes it virtually impossible not to. Indeed, many churches directly encourage their members to vote certain ways. You don't have to personally throw stones in order to punish someone for sinning. Voting for legislature which entitles the government to punish sin with fines, imprisonment or denial of rights makes you no less guilty.
As for Matthew 10:34-37, we face the ubiquitous problem of Biblical interpretation. "I came not to send peace, but a sword" and "a man's foes shall be they of his own household" sound to me like Jesus isn't advocating peaceful coexistance for those who disagree regarding His importance. But who am I (or you?) to know what Matthew's author intended Jesus to mean?
Btw- I assume everyone has access to a Bible (online at the least), so they can read as much context as they want as long as they know the verses I refer to.
I have to agree with Raerae if you say you or other Christians don't punish others for sin- the democracy we live in makes it virtually impossible not to. Indeed, many churches directly encourage their members to vote certain ways. You don't have to personally throw stones in order to punish someone for sinning. Voting for legislature which entitles the government to punish sin with fines, imprisonment or denial of rights makes you no less guilty.
As for Matthew 10:34-37, we face the ubiquitous problem of Biblical interpretation. "I came not to send peace, but a sword" and "a man's foes shall be they of his own household" sound to me like Jesus isn't advocating peaceful coexistance for those who disagree regarding His importance. But who am I (or you?) to know what Matthew's author intended Jesus to mean?
Btw- I assume everyone has access to a Bible (online at the least), so they can read as much context as they want as long as they know the verses I refer to.
