Religion — Page 100

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

The latter part regarding the misogyny and anti-gay stuff is the kind of religiosity I’m referring to when I say that we shouldn’t be expected to respect religion. If you think that homosexuality is a crime against god, then I don’t respect your opinion and I don’t think that anyone should respect your opinion. If you believe women shouldn’t be allowed to drive, or should be forced to wrap themselves in burkas and other oppressive garb, then I don’t respect your opinion. The list goes on and on. It doesn’t necessarily mean that I find all of those individuals that think that way to be totally unworthy of respect, but their religious views are. I don’t think that that’s unreasonable and no one else should either.

If I’m allowed to play devil’s advocate (guess chyron needs new representation), it wasn’t long ago that the consensus thought oppositely: that accepting gender norm heresies meant one’s opinion didn’t deserve respect.

The tables have turned on religion, at least in most Western countries, but how are we to grapple with “truth” in an objective way? Is it all about consensus?

How about just letting people live their lives? Why can’t there be a consensus about that?

“Gender norm heresies” don’t hurt anyone.

I don’t contest that. But what makes it objectively true?

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

The latter part regarding the misogyny and anti-gay stuff is the kind of religiosity I’m referring to when I say that we shouldn’t be expected to respect religion. If you think that homosexuality is a crime against god, then I don’t respect your opinion and I don’t think that anyone should respect your opinion. If you believe women shouldn’t be allowed to drive, or should be forced to wrap themselves in burkas and other oppressive garb, then I don’t respect your opinion. The list goes on and on. It doesn’t necessarily mean that I find all of those individuals that think that way to be totally unworthy of respect, but their religious views are. I don’t think that that’s unreasonable and no one else should either.

If I’m allowed to play devil’s advocate (guess chyron needs new representation), it wasn’t long ago that the consensus thought oppositely: that accepting gender norm heresies meant one’s opinion didn’t deserve respect.

The tables have turned on religion, at least in most Western countries, but how are we to grapple with “truth” in an objective way? Is it all about consensus?

How about just letting people live their lives?

People generally don’t do that. They enjoy poking in other peoples’ business and telling them how to think. …Members of this forum are also not exempt.

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

The latter part regarding the misogyny and anti-gay stuff is the kind of religiosity I’m referring to when I say that we shouldn’t be expected to respect religion. If you think that homosexuality is a crime against god, then I don’t respect your opinion and I don’t think that anyone should respect your opinion. If you believe women shouldn’t be allowed to drive, or should be forced to wrap themselves in burkas and other oppressive garb, then I don’t respect your opinion. The list goes on and on. It doesn’t necessarily mean that I find all of those individuals that think that way to be totally unworthy of respect, but their religious views are. I don’t think that that’s unreasonable and no one else should either.

If I’m allowed to play devil’s advocate (guess chyron needs new representation), it wasn’t long ago that the consensus thought oppositely: that accepting gender norm heresies meant one’s opinion didn’t deserve respect.

The tables have turned on religion, at least in most Western countries, but how are we to grapple with “truth” in an objective way? Is it all about consensus?

How about just letting people live their lives? Why can’t there be a consensus about that?

“Gender norm heresies” don’t hurt anyone.

I don’t contest that. But what makes it objectively true?

Why does it matter?

I don’t get what treating people nicely has to do with objective truth. Frankly I have no idea what you’re trying to say.

My point goes exactly to the importance of “truth.” When does it matter?

Treating people nicely and holding certain religious views about gender aren’t necessarily at odds with each other.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

The latter part regarding the misogyny and anti-gay stuff is the kind of religiosity I’m referring to when I say that we shouldn’t be expected to respect religion. If you think that homosexuality is a crime against god, then I don’t respect your opinion and I don’t think that anyone should respect your opinion. If you believe women shouldn’t be allowed to drive, or should be forced to wrap themselves in burkas and other oppressive garb, then I don’t respect your opinion. The list goes on and on. It doesn’t necessarily mean that I find all of those individuals that think that way to be totally unworthy of respect, but their religious views are. I don’t think that that’s unreasonable and no one else should either.

If I’m allowed to play devil’s advocate (guess chyron needs new representation), it wasn’t long ago that the consensus thought oppositely: that accepting gender norm heresies meant one’s opinion didn’t deserve respect.

The tables have turned on religion, at least in most Western countries, but how are we to grapple with “truth” in an objective way? Is it all about consensus?

How about just letting people live their lives?

People generally don’t do that. They enjoy poking in other peoples’ business and telling them how to think. …Members of this forum are also not exempt.

There’s a big difference between telling you that your opinion on X movie is silly and telling suspiciouscoffee that he shouldn’t be gay because it’s a sin against God and he’s going to hell unless he “converts.”

Yes, there’s a difference between [being civil about] X, and [being mean about] Y. And, speaking for myself, I haven’t said that about coffee. In fact, I have said the reverse—that it’s not directly about the following of rules and that Jesus himself vehemently chastized such self-righteous people.

But people even on this forum often don’t just stop at saying opposing view in general is “silly”. The TLJ Review Thread is evidence enough of that. And that’s my point. Correlation does not imply causation.

chyron8472 said:
…and that Jesus himself vehemently chastized such self-righteous people.

Can you go into this with a bit more detail? Who did he chastize? why? How?

Thanks 😃

TV’s Frink said:

Possessed said:

TV’s Frink said:

Possessed said:

Well it’s like I said the Bible was written by men thousands of years ago so you can’t really take much of what it says literally. I don’t care much for the Bible, that doesn’t mean I can’t believe in God.

Of course you can believe in God. It just doesn’t make you right. Or wrong. You’re just guessing along with everyone else with an opinion on it.

Obviously

I know but some people think it’s not only not obvious, it’s in fact wrong.

This goes right to my point. Bet chyron thinks the existence of God is obvious.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

The latter part regarding the misogyny and anti-gay stuff is the kind of religiosity I’m referring to when I say that we shouldn’t be expected to respect religion. If you think that homosexuality is a crime against god, then I don’t respect your opinion and I don’t think that anyone should respect your opinion. If you believe women shouldn’t be allowed to drive, or should be forced to wrap themselves in burkas and other oppressive garb, then I don’t respect your opinion. The list goes on and on. It doesn’t necessarily mean that I find all of those individuals that think that way to be totally unworthy of respect, but their religious views are. I don’t think that that’s unreasonable and no one else should either.

If I’m allowed to play devil’s advocate (guess chyron needs new representation), it wasn’t long ago that the consensus thought oppositely: that accepting gender norm heresies meant one’s opinion didn’t deserve respect.

The tables have turned on religion, at least in most Western countries, but how are we to grapple with “truth” in an objective way? Is it all about consensus?

How about just letting people live their lives?

People generally don’t do that. They enjoy poking in other peoples’ business and telling them how to think. …Members of this forum are also not exempt.

There’s a big difference between telling you that your opinion on X movie is silly and telling suspiciouscoffee that he shouldn’t be gay because it’s a sin against God and he’s going to hell unless he “converts.”

Yes, there’s a difference between [being civil about] X, and [being mean about] Y. And, speaking for myself, I haven’t said that about coffee. In fact, I have said the reverse—that it’s not directly about the following of rules and that Jesus himself vehemently chastized such self-righteous people.

But people even on this forum often don’t just stop at saying opposing view in general is “silly”. The TLJ Review Thread is evidence enough of that. And that’s my point. Correlation does not imply causation.

There’s no relation or comparison between how religion often treats people different than themselves, and how people act in the TLJ Review Thread. None.

Just because you do not acknowledge the comparison as evidence that people in general can be mean-spirited, that doesn’t mean there isn’t one to be made.

Mrebo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Possessed said:

TV’s Frink said:

Possessed said:

Well it’s like I said the Bible was written by men thousands of years ago so you can’t really take much of what it says literally. I don’t care much for the Bible, that doesn’t mean I can’t believe in God.

Of course you can believe in God. It just doesn’t make you right. Or wrong. You’re just guessing along with everyone else with an opinion on it.

Obviously

I know but some people think it’s not only not obvious, it’s in fact wrong.

Bet chyron thinks the existence of God is obvious.

To me.

chyron8472 said:

Mrebo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Possessed said:

TV’s Frink said:

Possessed said:

Well it’s like I said the Bible was written by men thousands of years ago so you can’t really take much of what it says literally. I don’t care much for the Bible, that doesn’t mean I can’t believe in God.

Of course you can believe in God. It just doesn’t make you right. Or wrong. You’re just guessing along with everyone else with an opinion on it.

Obviously

I know but some people think it’s not only not obvious, it’s in fact wrong.

Bet chyron thinks the existence of God is obvious.

To me.

Sure. But assuming you don’t think yourself specially endowed with God sensing power, it’s something that could be obvious to anyone. They just have to know where to look.

Rogue-theX said:

chyron8472 said:
…and that Jesus himself vehemently chastized such self-righteous people.

Can you go into this with a bit more detail? Who did he chastize? why? How?

Thanks 😃

Matthew 23 New Living Translation (NLT)
Jesus Criticizes the Religious Leaders

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “The teachers of religious law and the Pharisees are the official interpreters of the law of Moses. So practice and obey whatever they tell you, but don’t follow their example. For they don’t practice what they teach. They crush people with unbearable religious demands and never lift a finger to ease the burden.

“Everything they do is for show. On their arms they wear extra wide prayer boxes with Scripture verses inside, and they wear robes with extra long tassels. And they love to sit at the head table at banquets and in the seats of honor in the synagogues. They love to receive respectful greetings as they walk in the marketplaces, and to be called ‘Rabbi.’

“Don’t let anyone call you ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one teacher, and all of you are equal as brothers and sisters. And don’t address anyone here on earth as ‘Father,’ for only God in heaven is your Father. And don’t let anyone call you ‘Teacher,’ for you have only one teacher, the Messiah. The greatest among you must be a servant. But those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.

“What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you shut the door of the Kingdom of Heaven in people’s faces. You won’t go in yourselves, and you don’t let others enter either.

“What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you cross land and sea to make one convert, and then you turn that person into twice the child of hell you yourselves are!

“Blind guides! What sorrow awaits you! For you say that it means nothing to swear ‘by God’s Temple,’ but that it is binding to swear ‘by the gold in the Temple.’ Blind fools! Which is more important—the gold or the Temple that makes the gold sacred? And you say that to swear ‘by the altar’ is not binding, but to swear ‘by the gifts on the altar’ is binding. How blind! For which is more important—the gift on the altar or the altar that makes the gift sacred? When you swear ‘by the altar,’ you are swearing by it and by everything on it. And when you swear ‘by the Temple,’ you are swearing by it and by God, who lives in it. And when you swear ‘by heaven,’ you are swearing by the throne of God and by God, who sits on the throne.

“What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you are careful to tithe even the tiniest income from your herb gardens, but you ignore the more important aspects of the law—justice, mercy, and faith. You should tithe, yes, but do not neglect the more important things. Blind guides! You strain your water so you won’t accidentally swallow a gnat, but you swallow a camel!

“What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you are so careful to clean the outside of the cup and the dish, but inside you are filthy—full of greed and self-indulgence! You blind Pharisee! First wash the inside of the cup and the dish, and then the outside will become clean, too.

“What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs—beautiful on the outside but filled on the inside with dead people’s bones and all sorts of impurity. Outwardly you look like righteous people, but inwardly your hearts are filled with hypocrisy and lawlessness.

“What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you build tombs for the prophets your ancestors killed, and you decorate the monuments of the godly people your ancestors destroyed. Then you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would never have joined them in killing the prophets.’

“But in saying that, you testify against yourselves that you are indeed the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Go ahead and finish what your ancestors started. Snakes! Sons of vipers! How will you escape the judgment of hell?

“Therefore, I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers of religious law. But you will kill some by crucifixion, and you will flog others with whips in your synagogues, chasing them from city to city. As a result, you will be held responsible for the murder of all godly people of all time—from the murder of righteous Abel to the murder of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you killed in the Temple between the sanctuary and the altar. I tell you the truth, this judgment will fall on this very generation.

Deleted

Mrebo said:

chyron8472 said:

Mrebo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Possessed said:

TV’s Frink said:

Possessed said:

Well it’s like I said the Bible was written by men thousands of years ago so you can’t really take much of what it says literally. I don’t care much for the Bible, that doesn’t mean I can’t believe in God.

Of course you can believe in God. It just doesn’t make you right. Or wrong. You’re just guessing along with everyone else with an opinion on it.

Obviously

I know but some people think it’s not only not obvious, it’s in fact wrong.

Bet chyron thinks the existence of God is obvious.

To me.

Sure. But assuming you don’t think yourself specially endowed with God sensing power, it’s something that could be obvious to anyone. They just have to know where to look.

Yes.

The Bible says the Spirit reveals the truth of God, and that the message of the cross is foolishness to those who don’t believe because they rely solely on miracles and the wisdom of man in their attempt to find Him.

So if someone wanted God to reveal Himself to them, He will—but by His Spirit, not because we are wise.

chyron8472 said:

Mrebo said:

chyron8472 said:

Mrebo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Possessed said:

TV’s Frink said:

Possessed said:

Well it’s like I said the Bible was written by men thousands of years ago so you can’t really take much of what it says literally. I don’t care much for the Bible, that doesn’t mean I can’t believe in God.

Of course you can believe in God. It just doesn’t make you right. Or wrong. You’re just guessing along with everyone else with an opinion on it.

Obviously

I know but some people think it’s not only not obvious, it’s in fact wrong.

Bet chyron thinks the existence of God is obvious.

To me.

Sure. But assuming you don’t think yourself specially endowed with God sensing power, it’s something that could be obvious to anyone. They just have to know where to look.

Yes.

The Bible says the Spirit reveals the truth of God, and that the message of the cross is foolishness to those who don’t believe because they rely solely on miracles and the wisdom of man.

So if someone wanted God to reveal Himself to them, He will—but by His Spirit, not because we are wise.

How about people who have very similar spiritual revelations but for a different god than you believe in? Were they not as sincere in their spiritual experience? Why would god let him someone experience something that feels just as real as a believer in him?

What I’m getting at, is that spiritual experiences are entirely subjective, and since people get different answers, how can there be one true god?

darthrush said:

What I’m getting at, is that spiritual experiences are entirely subjective, and since people get different answers, how can there be one true god?

Because God’s relationship with me is not necessarily identical to His relationship with someone else; someone else might be nearer or further in that relationship to where they started; they might have different experiences and struggles in life which God is with them through; because God is greater and more complex than to be fit into a simple box with a distinctly defined shape, that when you look into it everyone sees the same thing; and because the Body of Christ has several different parts—hands, eyes, feet, et al.—and none can say it is more important than another, while at the same time they may not understand each other’s function or purpose.

Possessed said:

Polytheistic religions just seeing multiple advanced beings and calling them all gods because thats how they interpret them, and the one God most believe in May well just be one of them.

In fact, Paul went to Rome, where they had a monument to the “unknown god”, just to hedge their bets to make sure they didn’t leave any god(s) out at risk of angering them, and he told them that that god is actually God Himself.

JEDIT: Wait, I read your post wrong. You’re saying the ancient polytheistic gods might have existed and if so been like the Stargate Goa’uld?

I’ve entertained the possibility that peoples’ different deitities may be their own imperfect way of seeking to understand God. Seems plausible. Then there are those who recognize there is God but decide they’re going to worship a golden cow, which is a different animal.

To darthrush’s point, all of our experience is subjective but that doesn’t mean there isn’t in fact one true God.