Why Can't We Respect Other Peoples Beliefs? — Page 5

Warbler said:

C3PX said:

Warbler said:

I personally think the Pope needs to resign.  It won't solve the problems they have, but its a good first step.   

First step to what?

um . . . to fixing the problems the Catholic Church has?

I guess not being a Catholic, I have a hard time seeing the Catholic Church as of all that much importance. Historically, I see it as something that has caused far more harm than good. Corruption in the Catholic Church has been around forever. I guess I just don't see it as something worth beginning to fret about now. Most people see it for what it is already anyway.

Warbler said:

So your telling me that there is no one in the Catholic Church can lead it better than the Current guy?  That someone who is involve with covering up a Priest that rapped children, should remain Pope?

I don't know. Maybe there is someone who can lead it better than the current guy. I just don't care if he remains the Pope or not. Doesn't make a difference. Corruption has been, is, and will always be in the Catholic Church. It is just the nature of that sort of entity. I don't think anything can change that. And I don't think it really matters. Most people realize the facade is a facade. How could something that has caused so much earthly harm during its existence really be under the direct leadership and orders from God? Supposedly God (through the Cardinals) chose Benedict to be the Pope, why the hell is God so stupid or uncaring to appoint a man who would be fine with such a coverup? At that point, I simply just don't think it matters if he resigns or not, or if people trust him or not. In the end, what is to be trusted? And for what reason?

Warbler said:

So your telling me that there is no one in the Catholic Church can lead it better than the Current guy?  That someone who is involve with covering up a Priest that rapped children, should remain Pope?

I don't know. Maybe there is someone who can lead it better than the current guy. I just don't care if he remains the Pope or not. Doesn't make a difference. Corruption has been, is, and will always be in the Catholic Church. It is just the nature of that sort of entity. I don't think anything can change that. And I don't think it really matters. Most people realize the facade is a facade. How could something that has caused so much earthly harm during its existence really be under the direct leadership and orders from God? Supposedly God (through the Cardinals) chose Benedict to be the Pope, why the hell is God so stupid or uncaring to appoint a man who would be fine with such a coverup? At that point, I simply just don't think it matters if he resigns or not, or if people trust him or not. In the end, what is to be trusted? And for what reason?

TheBoost said:

Do they really need new and fresh (Protestant) ideas, or do they just need to STOP F--KING CHILDREN, which is a fairly old idea?

Haha, awesome post!

Warbler said:

actually gays don't go to hell.   It is those that have failed to take Christ as their savior, that go to hell.   If a Gay takes Christ as his Savior, he is saved.   I believe that is the mainstream Christian belief

No. Not really.

1 Corinthians 6:9 - 10 (NASV)

⁹Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, ¹⁰nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

The above is pretty much what most Christians have traditionally believed for a very long time, and many still do. Some of the more progressive groups believe homosexuals are saved, but you will still find the "mainstream" belief to somewhat adhere to the above verse. If this is not the "mainstream" Christian belief then things like Proposition 8 not passing are a bit of a conundrum and Christians were wrongly accused of being the primary reason it didn't pass.

Ironically, Christians make a huge deal about homosexuals based on this verse and a few passages in the Old Testament. But they seem to ignore several of the other things listed along side homosexuals, or if not outright ignore them, tend to look the other way. I am at least two of the things on that list on a fairly regular basis, unabashedly. Does that make me Biblically as bad as a homosexual. ABSOLUTELY! So, why don't we see people running around carrying signs saying, "God Hates Fornicators!", "God Hates Idolaters!" (something I'd say an extremely high percentage of American Christians are guilty of), or "God Hates the Covetous!"? Just thought I'd go off on a soapbox tangent and do a bit of preaching. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.

Warbler said:

TheBoost said:

 "Mainstream" Christianity is a difficult term, and perhaps I chose poorly to use it, but there are definitly churchs that DO hold those Gays=Hell beleif.

yeah, if you are talking about the nuts that protest funerals, but I wouldn't call them mainstream.

Nope. An very large number of pretty normal, happy, friendly, support your troops sort of groups whole heartedly believe gays=hell.

Bingowings said:

The Society Of Friends acknowledge that the Bible was written by men and take personal revelation to be more important than scriptural teaching. Now they I have a lot of respect and time for.

Wow, so they believe God talks to them through personal revelation? Sounds pretty fucking kooky to me. With something like that, you can pull all sorts of shit out of your ass and pass it off as divinely inspired.

.

Does it matter whether they believe it or not as long as they're not doing anything criminal? Let's say I was a Christian who believed gays=hell. And let's say I went beyond the "love the sinner, hate the sin" sort of thing. If I don't act on it, what's the problem?

Would it be better if they were atheists who hated gays?

Warbler said:

actually, I've been told that use of the word homosexual in the verse is suspect  look here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality 

 

Errrr, wikipedia being used as a scholarly source...

I know Koine Greek and am familiar with the ambiguity surrounding the word arsenokoites. I really don't want to get into it here, because I know how pointless and futile it would be, but that tiny little wikipedia blurp only covers a tiny, tiny bit of a much, much larger debate.

You can quote from every English translation of the Bible if you wish, but ultimately we are still dealing with the Greek word "arsenokoites", regardless of how it is translated into English. If you want to take it to mean "prostitution" "rape" "incest" or "lustful sex", then that is fine. But that still only shoots down a couple of verses on the subject of homosexuals.  

Romans 1:26-27

Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. ²⁷In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

This one would be a lot harder to split hairs or debate lexical meanings to get out of.

lets look at the KJ version of that verse:

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 Nor thieve, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.  

it doesn't mention homosexuals.  

both interpretation seem to disagree with John 3:16 :  for God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten Son, that WHOSOEVER believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.  

whosoever,  not  non-gays.     

the NIV version is very similar:  For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that WHOEVER believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

again whoever, not non-gays. 

 

Whosoever. Whoever. That is really nice. That is all we have to do is believe. Sounds pretty easy. Couldn't we just abridge the entire Bible to this single verse then? What is with all those massive church buildings litering countless street corners across our country? Why not just believe and be done with it. From the sounds of things, anyone, no matter what kind of a son of a bitch they were, so long as they believed that Jesus was the son of God (whosoever!), ought to have a one way ticket to heaven after they kick. According to that line of belief, it'll kind of sucks that guys like Adolf Hitler will be in heaven, while guys like Albert Einstein will be burning in hell. Maybe Einie and some of the other non-believeing geniuses will discover a way to cool hell down, and which point I am thinking it might be a lot more fun than heaven.

Or maybe, just maybe, there are other qualifiers that go along with it. That would explain all the excess pages that Christians have in their Bibles.

C3PX said:

Warbler said:

actually, I've been told that use of the word homosexual in the verse is suspect  look here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality 

 

Errrr, wikipedia being used as a scholarly source...

Wikipedia is a lot more reputable now than it was a few years ago, now that they require references to be cited and linked to. (I agree with your post otherwise, I'm not trying to be a naysayer or anything :P )

Nanner Split said:

C3PX said:

Warbler said:

actually, I've been told that use of the word homosexual in the verse is suspect  look here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality 

 

Errrr, wikipedia being used as a scholarly source...

Wikipedia is a lot more reputable now than it was a few years ago, now that they require references to be cited and linked to. (I agree with your post otherwise, I'm not trying to be a naysayer or anything :P )

But their are no requirements on the ligitmacy of the sources used. Still pretty sketchy. Might be a good place to start for lazy would-be researches, just so long as they follow the links back to the original source before decided they have found what they are looking for.

Anyway, I wasn't really trying to say Warb used it improperly. It is a good source for quick information. I've used wikipedia in here several times, though that always turned out to be a disaster (norms and mores discussion... *shudders*).

Warbler said:

also,  what about that thief that was crucified next to Jesus that said "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom"  and Jesus replied "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise"   

why wouldn't the same be true for a homosexual?

If Jesus told them face to face? Hell, I sure wouldn't argue with him.

Warbler said:

all I can tell you is that is the main belief of most Christian Churches.   If you accept Christ as your savior, you go to heaven.   If you don't,   you go to hell.

If there was quantifier, that we couldn't go to heaven if we sinned,  heaven would be an empty place.

I seem to remember a lot of stuff in the Bible about repentance, forgiveness, walking in the light, people being lost, even stuff about feeding the poor and hungry, and that short of stuff. I suppose that is all just dead weight? Redundant bits of information?

Bingowings said:

To be brief anyone who thinks Homosexual acts are a sin in of themselves (including God...whoever she is) is a twonk.

Certainly not the deepest intellectual argument I have ever heard on the subject, but I'll go with it.

What would be a "sin" then? By the angle you are taking, isn't "sin" by its very nature pure twonkery? If all it is God, who decidedly has feminine sex bits, telling us what we can and cannot do, the same twonk of a God who tells us not to bugger our best friend as well as not to murder our worst enemy, then why should we take her seriously on one think she calls a sin and not the other. Why should sodomy being called a sin be twonkerly? While murder being called a sin be reasonable?

Bingowings said:

^I'd buy that for a dollar.

Surely the criteria should be who is harmed by this act.

If it's a public nuisance, say two girls full on at it on the top of a double decker bus passing a seafood restaurant then it's a rather naughty act.

If it's a man chopping the legs off passing children that's really nasty.

If it's a chap launching nuclear weapons at Clare Grogan it's a crime against all humanity.

Well, the term "sin" is traditionally used to mean something against divine law. If there is no god, then I'd have to conclude that there is no such thing as "sin". If there is a god, but he/she/it is a complete "twonk" then I'd have to say what he/she/it considers to be a "sin" ought not matter to me in the slightest, unless of course, I hold some sort of fear toward this "twonkish" deity.

I don't think things like girls going at it on top of a bus could be considered a sin just because it is a public nuisance.

I guess what I am trying to say is that the very idea of "sin" without the idea of a deity, or a respected deity, is a pretty silly thing. I don't think sin, as it is traditionally defined can, or should, exist outside of religion.

"Right" vs. "wrong" is another issue entirely. Though even that I think is mostly bunk. Without some universal truth, like a creator, how can "right" and "wrong" really exist as universals? If there is no such creator, and every thing just happened by chance, then like everything else, "right" and "wrong" are relative. I think at that point, "right" and "wrong" you'd have to assume right and wrong are simply culturally defined. In some cultures it may not be wrong to hack the limbs on a child, it could be part of some ritual sanctioned by that culture, a time honored tradition seen as somehow beneficial to that given society. Without some divine law or some higher power dictating what is right or wrong, could we still read about this culture and say that their barbaric acts were "sinful" or "wrong"?