RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Do I remember correctly that part of the reason the Levitical code is ignored is that some of the old testament is modified by the coming of Christ and the new message? I can't remember where I heard this, and my Biblical scholarship is obviously lacking, so this is a real question... I don't mean to offend anyone.The Levitical code is ignored by modern Christians.
Certain parts of the Old Testament law were repealed or modified when Jesus arrived (or thereafter). I couldn't list exactly which parts, though.
Do I remember correctly that part of the reason the Levitical code is ignored is that some of the old testament is modified by the coming of Christ and the new message? I can't remember where I heard this, and my Biblical scholarship is obviously lacking, so this is a real question... I don't mean to offend anyone.The Levitical code is ignored by modern Christians.
This is the belief, yes. However, of the 600+ codes, there's some serious cherry picking involved. You'll note that a lot of what tends to be followed versus not followed usually falls in line of the belief of the individual espousing the edicts of what should (not) be followed.
Although, I still wonder about polyester / cotton blend clothes. In some instances, it's a damnable offense. :P
Gonna be a hawt time in the ol' book tonight!
Oh man I'm missing all the fun in here!
I'll leave this here as I think it is pertinent.
Hee hee!
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
"Homosexuals are immoral."
"Homosexuality is immoral."If you're okay with the second statement, then I'll answer your question.
The first is an attack on a group of people. The second is an attack on a practice. Hating what people do is perfectly acceptable, trying to make them seem less than human because they do it is not. So yes, I do see a huge difference in the two statements.
Now, personally, I'm okay with both statements. (I'm also okay with the statement "Pagans are immoral" if you'd like to hit closer to home.) Why? Because people's opinions on the internet (well, honestly, people's opinions in general, but let's just say on the internet for now) don't actually mean anything to me.
If that's your view, then I'm okay with you not seeing the big deal with the statement I referenced. Thanks for being consistent. :)
I can't remember who said it exactly, and I'm too lazy to check. Someone said something about not calling homosexuality immoral would go a long way towards not dehumanizing gay people. Or some such.
Doesn't the catholic church hold that ALL men are born sinners, and that sin is inherent in our being? Doesn't that just dehumanize us all?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So do you or do you not see the difference between an attack on people and an attack on a practice?
Personally, for me it would depend whether the practice acually abridges the rights of others.
But of course, the idea of "unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others" is an Enlightenment concept, not a religious one, so never mind.
Gonna be a hawt time in the ol' book tonight!
Nice. I'm going to have to see if I can order a print to frame and hang.
Don't eat the shrimp! It's a trap!!!
There's a big difference between saying, "all have sinned" and saying "some have sinned more than others".I can't remember who said it exactly, and I'm too lazy to check. Someone said something about not calling homosexuality immoral would go a long way towards not dehumanizing gay people. Or some such.
Doesn't the catholic church hold that ALL men are born sinners, and that sin is inherent in our being? Doesn't that just dehumanize us all?
...and the catholic church says both things.
The difference is that EVERYONE is dehumanized, some are just dehumanized more. But...what's an acceptable level of dehumanization?
There's someone I know that eats Kosher and is Vegan.
Like...what the heck does she eat? Air? Fair-trade matzah?
I dunno but she sure is gassy for a gal her size.
How is accepting the concept that all are born sinners equal to dehumanization? If all humans are sinners, then how is anyone dehumanized?
This would be just as dehumanizing as accepting the concept that nobody is perfect.
Did you mean to make both jokes? Or just the first one? :)
Both individually, and the combination of the two (shrimp/squid).
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
How is accepting the concept that all are born sinners equal to dehumanization? If all humans are sinners, then how is anyone dehumanized?
This would be just as dehumanizing as accepting the concept that nobody is perfect.
The problem is that if you equate the religious notion of "everyone has sinned" with the idea of "nobody's perfect", then you have one fewer methods of looking down on religion. ;)
Okay, I pretty much tripped over this thread, and against my better judgment, I am going to participate.
First: I am a Christian. I am not a perfect Christian; my life is filled with sinful urges and sinful thoughts and sinful actions. I am grateful that God loves me in spite of this.
Second: I do not hate gay people. I do not hate any group of "people," and I try hard not to hate individual people, though I sometimes fail at this. (See above in re: "not a perfect Christian.")
Third: My religion teaches that the practice of homosexuality is sinful, and while I confess to having occasional questions about that, I accept that (a) my pastor, (b) the Church officials, (c) biblical scholars who predate the current Church officials, and (d) God, in expressing His word through the Holy Bible (all of it, not just select verses) knows more about it than I do.
Fourth: Having agreed that homosexuality is a sin, I believe (and my Church believes) that it is no greater or worse than any other sin. It is no greater or worse than committing acts of violence. It is no greater or worse than lying, or using God's name in an unholy way. It is no greater or worse than having hetero relations outside of marriage. God does not differentiate "levels" of sin: sin is sin (the idea of "mortal" vs. "venial" sin is a manmade construct). Likewise, God does not differentiate levels of love: He loves every sinner as much as every other sinner, regardless of their particular laundry lists of sins.
Fifth: It is neither wrong nor sinful for me (or anyone else) to say "Homosexuality is a sin." It is not necessarily sinful for me to say "David Hyde Pearce (or anyone else you wish to name) is living a sinful life of homosexuality," though it certainly borders on rudeness, and is probably not very constructive. It is both wrong AND sinful for me to say "David Hyde Pearce is a disgusting, rotten person and he should be stoned to death and burn in you-know-where forever."
Sixth: Every group is persecuted by some other group--or rather, by unfortunately vocal representatives of that group. Yes, there are vocal, hotheaded Christians who hate gays. There are vocal, hotheaded white people who hate black people. There are even vocal, hotheaded atheists who hate Christians.
Seventh: Every group suffers some sort of prejudice that may not border on persecution, but is still hurtful when you run into it. If you think Christians are immune to that, try espousing a Christian philosophy in a graduate level political science class, or a Creationist view in a biology class. Or read the post above, where "even if it's fun" is added to the observation that attacking the practice of religion is pointless, but not to the same observation regarding homosexuality. (Apologies to that poster--I am not trying to call you out, but that is a good example of what I am talking about.) And yes, you can find examples of that sort of subtle, anti-whatever sentiment about ANY group, not just Christians.
Eighth: It is both sinful and wrong to point at one subset of people who engage in bad behavior and say "See? That proves it! They're all no good!" When a professor tells me my Christian beliefs are not relevant, or have no place in the discussion, or are flat out wrong, I do not assume all professors think that way, or will act that way. When one Christian runs his or her mouth against homosexuality (or doctors who perform abortions, or any other group) in a decidedly vitriolic way, they do not speak for all Christians. They certainly do not speak for me.
Ninth, and Finally: It hurts me, literally, to see people so hurt or injured or angered or whatever by whatever they have endured in life to hate religion. Believe it or not, I was like you once, and my life was so much emptier then than it is now--and if you had known me then, you'd be stunned that I am saying that. I hope that all of you find your way, and I will pray for you. Please take that in the spirit in which it is intended, not as an assault. I have pagan friends who "light candles" for me when I am sick--I don't believe it will cure me, but I take it as a sign of their concern, and appreciate the sentiment behind it.
Happy Holidays to those who celebrate them this April.
the Hoply Bible
Dude, is that a book of beer recipes? Now that's a religion I'd be down with!
the Hoply BibleDude, is that a book of beer recipes? Now that's a religion I'd be down with!
No, it was a typo. I am perfectly imperfect, remember?
Thanks for pointing it out so I can correct it.
Or read the post above, where "even if it's fun" is added to the observation that attacking the practice of religion is pointless, but not to the same observation regarding homosexuality. (Apologies to that poster--I am not trying to call you out, but that is a good example of what I am talking about.)
I am that poster, and no apologies are necessary, but please let me take an opportunity to explain something -- it's easy to make fun of people who take themselves too seriously, and sometimes it's helpful to them (it is to me).
My gay friends make fun of each other, and me, all the time: I might say something like "Hey, dude, I ordered the rose wine for you -- it's a FABULOUS shade of pink!" and get a reply along the lines of "Oh, now he's noticing colors! What's next?!" It's OK in that context because (a) they realize I have zero antipathy towards them, or their orientation, and vice versa; and (b) they know I've got their back when push comes to shove; and (c) they appreciate that I can laugh at myself, and everyone else, and so can they.
Same thing with my Christian friends, who call me an "immoral, godless heathen!" -- but when we need to go on a beer run, I retort, "Why bother? Can't you guys turn water into wine?"
The minute someone chooses to become offended by all this, that's a sure sign their letting their grandiose ideas of self-imporantance as "cause messiahs" interfere with their humanity. It's a wake-up call. It's one I personally would be grateful for, and have been in the past.
So why call it out in a post for one and not the other? So far, the homosexual posters on this thread haven't been the ones being totally humorless.
The blogger is sincere in his desire for love and compassion to be our primary motivations in dealing with each other as Jesus wanted. The only really amusing thing about it is how earnest he is but as I see that as an all positive thing I restrain my normally teasing nature and hope he continues.
On the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah the funniest part of that story to me was always Lot’s response to the men when they demanded he send the strangers outside so that they may ‘know’ them. He profusely offers them his virgin daughters instead and tells them they can do whatever they want to them.
Damn, Lot I know being a righteous man means being hospitable but that seems a little out there. Of course there was something pretty dysfunctional about that family because after the cities are destroyed and Lot’s wife is slain for looking back at the destruction his daughters get him wasted and take advantage of him….hmmm.
The Catholic Church believes that all forms of gay sex are inherently degrading (maybe they spied on a weekend party at my house, in which case, I’m sorry) and should be avoided to preserve human dignity. I understand that Catholics think that because a distinction is drawn between behavior and nature it robs some of the weight of that proclamation. But you should realize that essentially you’re calling all gay Catholic men and women to live celibate lives. It works out to be not just giving up sex but giving up romantic love although. Some people are called to celibacy in religious life but having that decision made automatically for you is more than many can bear.
No, it was a typo. I am perfectly imperfect, remember? Thanks for pointing it out so I can correct it.
Again, there's that humor thing. Instead of accepting it for what it is (an attempt to reach out to you as a fellow human), you apparently choose to view it as an accusation of some kind? That speaks of a fairly serious persecution complex that you might want to get some help with.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
My religion teaches that the practice of homosexuality is sinful,Technically incorrect. Your teaches that homosexuality is sinful. Christianity, itself, has no problem with homosexuality and, as I've said earlier, three of the most active supporters of gay rights that I know personally are Christian ministers with substantial congregations. One of these three, by the way, is a highly regarded scholar of Greek.
Your church elders are simply ignorant of the Bible. The problem with that is that you should not simply follow what your church elders tell you. The Bible does not say, "let your church elders study to show themselves approved". It says "[you] study to show yourself approved".
Wait, so him listening to his ministers is incorrect, but you listening to the three you mentioned is better?
Shouldn't you both be digging deeper?
Third: My religion teaches that the practice of homosexuality is sinful, and while I confess to having occasional questions about that, I accept that (a) my pastor, (b) the Church officials, (c) biblical scholars who predate the current Church officials, and (d) God, in expressing His word through the Holy Bible (all of it, not just select verses) knows more about it than I do.
I don't disagree that many Christians view homosexuality as a sin. I disagree with their stance that it is a sin. It is a stance I see as harmful because it is used by less nice people to perpetrate some very awful things. I have multiple posts staking out the argument, but in brief:
Saying something is immoral opens the path to a dehumanizing path.
Once a group of people are dehumanized, it is both easier and more likely that violence will occur against them.
If you disagree with that, I'm happy to discuss it, but I strongly recommend you read what was said several pages ago along this specific sub-topic.
How is accepting the concept that all are born sinners equal to dehumanization? If all humans are sinners, then how is anyone dehumanized?
This would be just as dehumanizing as accepting the concept that nobody is perfect.
Because those are radically different concepts and this sort of false equivalence is disingenuous.
Me saying "well, no one's perfect" is a response to someone dropping a glass on the floor, or missing an oxford comma, or being late to work once in a while.
Saying you are a sinner and you were born a sinner and you will always be a sinner is saying 1)you have committed a heinous act against god, one that, if you don't seek forgiveness, will lead to your eternal damnation in a fiery hell. The acts that are sins are, at least according to most christians, pretty bad things. Murder, adultery, lying, stealing. I don't want to be associated with those things especially 2)if I'm born like that. Really? An infant is just as bad as a murderer? That's not dehumanizing? You're shitting me. 3)Nothing you can do about it. You're always a sinner. God always looks down on you and pities you. Poor little idiot.
Sin =/= mistake. Everyone makes mistakes. Not everyone sins. Sins are bad, bad, bad things.
Saying that everyone deserves to burn in a fiery pit of hell, everyone is human refuse, IS DEHUMANIZING TO EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM!
You either think a)calling someone a sinner is, in fact, dehumanizing or b)think sinning isn't all that bad of a thing, all things considered. If b, I want that in writing, because I have some people I'd like to murder as long as it's a comparable offense to misspelling your school's name on your CV or some such nonsense.
Saying something is immoral opens the path to a dehumanizing path.On the other hand, so does saying nothing is immoral.
Puts everyone in a bit of a pickle, really.
Explain how saying nothing is immoral is dehumanizing?
Explain how saying nothing is immoral is dehumanizing?
I would certainly think so -- morality, as an evolved response to living in communal societies, is a good part of our humanity. Saying "nothing is immoral" implies that we've lost a fair part of our evolutionary heritage as humans.
There's a big difference between saying, "all have sinned" and saying "some have sinned more than others".I can't remember who said it exactly, and I'm too lazy to check. Someone said something about not calling homosexuality immoral would go a long way towards not dehumanizing gay people. Or some such.
Doesn't the catholic church hold that ALL men are born sinners, and that sin is inherent in our being? Doesn't that just dehumanize us all?
...and the catholic church says both things.
The difference is that EVERYONE is dehumanized, some are just dehumanized more. But...what's an acceptable level of dehumanization?
I don't think the concept of original sin is a process of dehumanization, unless it is being used for the purposes of misogyny. The basic concept is a "nobody's perfect", which is a relational tool, not a dehumanizing one.
From how I understand it, some of the core themes of Christianity is forgiveness and redemption. You can see this from the Catholic sacrament of confession or the American evangelical concept of being born again. The point is that man is sinful and must work towards correcting those sins.
Homosexuality isn't the only sin that I disagree on with Christianity btw.
Man is born a sinner, not in that he has sinned, but rather has inherent urges which lead to sin. You aren't born a murderer, but you are born being capable of murder.
I do not believe that homosexuality is a choice. The only people who have told me it is are Christians who believe it is a sin. The scientific research on the topic suggests to me that it is not a choice and there are factors that affect whether you are a homosexual or not that happen prior to your birth.
In addition, the way that very conservative Christians use this viewpoint of being a sin is dehumanizing. They make gays out to be an other, separate from themselves.
Calling homosexuality a sin is not in itself dehumanizing. Rather it lays the groundwork for other things to be said which are though.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Explain how saying nothing is immoral is dehumanizing?Saying something is immoral opens the path to a dehumanizing path.On the other hand, so does saying nothing is immoral.
Puts everyone in a bit of a pickle, really.
Not immediately, but "leads down [that] path", as I said.
If nothing is immoral, then anything goes as long as you like it and can get away with it. Weren't you just saying a minute ago how bad, bad, bad certain things are? Yet if nothing is immoral, then as long as the people hurt aren't important to me, it's okay.
If nothing is immoral, then even the "don't be a dick" rule goes away.
No, it was a typo. I am perfectly imperfect, remember? Thanks for pointing it out so I can correct it.Again, there's that humor thing. Instead of accepting it for what it is (an attempt to reach out to you as a fellow human), you apparently choose to view it as an accusation of some kind? That speaks of a fairly serious persecution complex that you might want to get some help with.
I don't think he was feeling persecuted. I could read it as him humbling himself and let it be. Might be projecting just a wee bit on the guy. There's so much to be taken for granted with regard to trying to dissect emotion and/or intent when interpreting fonts on a computer monitor.
From one atheist to another, we all fall short of the mark to a degree. Emoticons aren't perfect, but I try to inject them as best as I can at times to imply that I was being light-hearted and/or satirical.
You drunken goat. ;-)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Yes, we should both be digging deeper. That does not, however, mean that we are both equally wrong. Its like science. Yes, we know more about physics than Newton did. Yes, we need to keep studying.My religion teaches that the practice of homosexuality is sinful,Technically incorrect. Your teaches that homosexuality is sinful. Christianity, itself, has no problem with homosexuality and, as I've said earlier, three of the most active supporters of gay rights that I know personally are Christian ministers with substantial congregations. One of these three, by the way, is a highly regarded scholar of Greek.
Your church elders are simply ignorant of the Bible. The problem with that is that you should not simply follow what your church elders tell you. The Bible does not say, "let your church elders study to show themselves approved". It says "[you] study to show yourself approved".
Wait, so him listening to his ministers is incorrect, but you listening to the three you mentioned is better?
Shouldn't you both be digging deeper?
But how do you know it's his ministers who are incorrect and not yours? Sounds to me like you swallowed what you were fed and then "corrected" someone for swallowing what he was fed.
Maybe you're right, maybe he's right, or maybe you're both wrong. But you're both doing the same thing: believing what your ministers told you.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Third, as you know nothing about me, I'd like you to tell me how you came to believe that I am simply believing what I've been told.
Because you had not yet stated this:
Second, I didn't swallow what I was fed. I actually reached the belief I did and then, later, discovered that several Christian leaders believed the same thing I did.
When I challenged you, all you'd said was basically "your minister's wrong; mine over here are right". But now you've given more information.
The drunken goat looks better.
Taller than I am, too!