Evangelical hypocrisy...now with even more gay sex

Gonz said:
There can be no sin when one disregards religion so absolutely.

That is not to say there can be no right & wrong (though, without a moral basis, how can WRONG be defined?)
Click to expand...
Woah, missed this one. Trying to claim one can only have a moral basis if one follows a religion? :retard3:
 
Where does morality come from? If you just make shit up, it can be changed as the wind blows.
 
Gotholic said:
The moment you cast doubt that one book of the Bible was written through man's imagination then doubt can be brought upon the whole Bible.
Click to expand...

Exactly and since so much deserves doubt the whole thing deserves doubt. Executing non-virgin brides seems a bit excessive.

spike, "bigoted" is not working here. People are bigoted to a degree.

The Catholic Church and other churches are bigoted in regards to not allowing anyone one from other faiths to be a member of the clergy unless they convert. The U.S. military is bigoted since some with certain handicaps cannot join.
Click to expand...

Right, it's not fine to be practice or teach bigotry against people for there race, religion, sexual orientation, flat noses, damaged testicles, or handicaps in general though.

That includes teaching children that they are sinners, may not approach the altar of god, denying them employment that they are qualified for, etc.

I think you can see the difference between that and telling a blind man he can't fly a military jet.

Thanks for your insight.
Click to expand...

Thanks for yours, but quoting misguided catholic interpretation is not really very insightful.

The Bible defines it as a disorder. If you want to discuss how people become homosexuals or why some people think it is a disorder without the theological implications then create a thread for it.
Click to expand...

If in fact the the bible defines it as a disorder then it can't be helped and therefore should not be a sin. I suppose it's consistent though if the bible also encourages bigotry against flat noses and handicapped people.


The Old Testament is not cast aside. Certain laws that are not part of the moral requirement were nailed to the cross.
Click to expand...

Nice excuse to pick and choose but it doesn't make them any less ridiculous does it? So God had irrational laws until Jesus came along and then he decided he was wrong except they still apply to Jews?


I think one sums it up well...

"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. . . . Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them" (Rom. 1:26–28, 32).
Click to expand...

Excellent passage to use!

1. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions.

Sounds like God made them do it. Wow.

2. God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them

So do you believe homosexuals or people that approve of it should be put to death as the bible says?

3. That passage was actually a criticism of Greek behavior in temple worship. Greeks often incorporated sexual behavior in temple worship.

4. Paul wrote that who was an immoral idiot who also supported the oppression of women (1 Corinthians 14:34 - 35), and acceptance of slavery as a normal social practice in (Philemon 1:15 to 16).

5. The passage depends on another decree and in itself is not a decree. "Though they know God’s decree"...where is this New Testament decree he speaks of?

You criticize that which you do not understand.
Click to expand...

Oh please explain to me why Jews should can't shave and should be prejudiced against flat nosed people, handicapped, and people with damaged testicles. I'd love to hear it.

Natural Law states that the natural sex partner for a man is a woman and vice versa - not a beast or someone of the same sex.
Click to expand...

Oh no it doesn't. if Natural Law is "moral precepts of the eternal law that a rational creature can discern without special revelation" that means that two lesbians that love each other are doing nothing wrong, hurting nobody, and therefore are fine.

Prejudice, bigotry, or teaching that they are immoral would be irrational and against Natural Law.
 
Starya said:
Woah, missed this one. Trying to claim one can only have a moral basis if one follows a religion? :retard3:
Click to expand...

No way, it's possible to get morals and ethics from other sources than religion?

I heard chcr likes to eat babies with ketchup :D
 
No silly...sour cream.

Chic said:
If any particular is wrong then the whole thing must be wrong?
Click to expand...
This is the kicker for me....I have faith and I believe...but I KNOW that so much of the bible was concocted by men.
If I can't pick the good apples from the bad than I would have no choice but to pass on the bushel.
With the 10 commandments and the words spoken by Jesus there is more of a ring of truth and Godliness than with the laws passed down to a 2000 year old society by 2000+ year old men just trying to bring order to that society.
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
If any particular is right then the whole thing must be right?
Click to expand...
Of course not.

SouthernN'Proud said:
Lame argument dude. You can beat that. I'll still disagree with it, but I know you can do better.
Click to expand...

Not an argument at all, SnP, just looking for a clarification of Gotholic's position because I know plenty of folks who think just that. In either direction and on either side of any debate.

spike said:
No way, it's possible to get morals and ethics from other sources than religion?

I heard chcr likes to eat babies with ketchup :D
Click to expand...

Mayo and scallions is nice too.
 
Gonz said:
Where does morality come from? If you just make shit up, it can be changed as the wind blows.
Click to expand...
I consider religion to be made up shit, so then I might as well make up my own shit.

On a serious note, if you believe religion is the only source for morality, ...actually that thought leaves me at a loss for words. :rolleyes:
 
chcr said:
As most people do.
Click to expand...

Which is the problem. While I profess no belief in the God of religions, I think the premise is outstanding. It is made to improve our lives, making society far more cohesive. Having a set of morals/values/traditions.rules puts everybody on a level playing field. That some chose not to adhere to those rules is reason for law.

Starya said:
On a serious note, if you believe religion is the only source for morality, ...actually that thought leaves me at a loss for words. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Please. elaborate. Whay do you think religion was invented for?
 
Gonz said:
Which is the problem. While I profess no belief in the God of religions, I think the premise is outstanding. It is made to improve our lives, making society far more cohesive. Having a set of morals/values/traditions.rules puts everybody on a level playing field. That some chose not to adhere to those rules is reason for law.



Please. elaborate. Whay do you think religion was invented for?
Click to expand...




To explain things that were once thought unexplainable?
 
Gonz said:
Which is the problem. While I profess no belief in the God of religions, I think the premise is outstanding. It is made to improve our lives, making society far more cohesive. Having a set of morals/values/traditions.rules puts everybody on a level playing field. That some chose not to adhere to those rules is reason for law.
Click to expand...
That only works if everybody uses the same morals/values/traditions. Which they don't because these things are strictly subjective. You don't even follow all of the same ones you yourself followed twenty years ago. Look around, this is an obvious observation whether you like it or not. :shrug: It's foolish in the extreme to mindlessly expect people who were born and raised under completely different circumstances to obey your rules just because you like em, now isn't it?

Gonz said:
Please. elaborate. Whay do you think religion was invented for?
Click to expand...
I know this wasn't directed at me, but here's my take:

It started out as a way for primitive peoples to explain things they didn't understand. Then people started to figure out how useful it was in controlling people. As the threats of retribution became more obscure the ritualization became more pronounced. This went on for several thousand years until it reached a peak in the neighborhood of 1200-1500 years ago. It's been declining since and will continue to do so. Most of the religious strife of today is a reaction to the decline in religions control over the population. A few thousand years from now, maybe less (possibly a lot less but such usually things die slowly) most people will laugh at how the primitives (in this case us) all believed that some magical, benevolent (benevolent, hah!) old guy was in control of everything. Religion is for controlling people. That's why there are rules and that's why there are rewards and punishments. It has never had anything to do with improving our lives or making the world a better place (except, of course, for the leaders of whichever religion). The rules are arbitrary and frequently nonsense but you go ahead and follow them if you want to. No skin off my nose.

Hell, I haven't explained that to anyone at all in more than twenty years. Thanks, it felt good. Go on about your primitive beliefs. :D Nothing to see here.

Oh yeah, cohesive society????? What society are you looking at? Not the one we live in.
 
Demise of religious context in daily life to a large degree over the last thirty years. Rise in crime, single parenthood & general malevolence over the last thirty years.

Coincidence?
 
Gonz said:
Demise of religious context in daily life to a large degree over the last thirty years. Rise in crime, single parenthood & general malevolence over the last thirty years.

Coincidence?
Click to expand...

See Gonz, like most people, you think that every significant thing has happened in your lifetime. This turns out not to be the case. The role of religion in most of the world population's lives has been declining since the renaissance. Accelerated by the industrial revolution of course. The increase in crime over the last 100 years or so can be directly attributed to the decrease in real punishment for said crimes and the increase in population. I really doubt that there's an such a huge increase in single parenthood (more people of course, that's a given), I think that people just don't try to hide it as much (which I suspect would be just as good for you). Re the increase in "general malevolence," Jeebus H. Christmas read a fucking history book, will you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top