Can we defeat homosexuality?

[MrFun]

By the way, a couple other posters earlier were talking about whether or not Romans 1 referred to Sodom. Even given that Romans 1 does not refer to Sodom, I just want to say that the actual passage of Sodom has nothing to do with homosexual behavior. It's rather a denunciation of hostile inhospitality and rape.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Asher

"have not yet" -- this is the kind of innocent wording that breeds contempt for Christians. You imply it is inevitable, which in turn implies you are on some higher level of existence that us atheists can only aspire to. Pick your words more carefully.

Faith is not a good, positive characteristic in most cases. Would you prefer the people who made airplanes designed it as they saw fit, and had faith that it would work? Or would you prefer there be some kind of scientific approach to how they're built?

And then explain why the construction of an airplane is important enough to require more than faith, while constructing a value system with important (and arbitrary) rules to run everyone's life by is not important enough for that.

Preemptive disclaimer: If you say "Pascal's wager" I'm going to go ape****.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MrFun
It's rather a denunciation of hostile inhospitality and rape.

It's only a denunciation of raping strangers, as the righteous Lott offers up his daughters to be raped instead.

But it's pretty disturbing that all the women and children of these two cities were massacred for the crimes of some men.

Then again, god also turns Lott's wife into a pillar of salt because she happens to look at what's going on. Guess he had to eliminate the witnesses, too.

[Q Classic]

Viewed through the lens of the culture, however, where women were not granted much respect or value, it would have been a fair enough trade.

After all, giving aid and comfort to strangers was more important. But that's the hospitality business for you.

Why else would Marriott and the Four Seasons allow their maids to be abused by the guests?

[Asher]

By the way, this seems to be a good thread to post this in.

The question is: What do those people with high IQs know that the people with low IQs don't?

http://hypnosis.home.netcom.com/iq_vs_religiosity.htm

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Asher

Exhibit B for why Christianity is absurd. Their beliefs radically and subtly change over time. You were wrong all the times before, but you're right now? Until they change again in the future.

Actually, that has been the general Christian belief ignoring politics.

And the majority Christian belief in the early church is that Christ would save everyone, Christian or not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_reconciliation

I personally follow this view: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilationism

The doctrine of eternal hell was first held by the church in Rome, and came to dominate when it came to dominate. I agree that it is a terrible doctrine and wish more would leave it. That doesn't mean that it is a central Christian doctrine.

JM

[Asher]

If Christ will save everyone, why bother with religion?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Asher
If Christ will save everyone, why bother with religion?

That's what Augustine realized. Why would most people care about following a religion unless they were threatened/bribed into it?

[Jon Miller]

A discussion of the point of Romans 1, is that it should be read in terms of what the author is discussing and leading up to . One of the biggest crimes of the fundamentalist is to take passages out of context and misuse them against others. However, those who attack Christianity do the same thing.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...h=Romans%201-3;&version=31;

In this we see that Paul:
1. Introduces himself
2. Says he wishes to visit Rome

Then he begins the purpose of his letter:
6I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 17For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last,[c] just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."[d]

3. (the end of Romans 1) He points out that all of mankind is sinners and living under the results of sin, particular pointing out the gentiles. That all deserve to be judged by God.
4. (start of Romans 2) He points out that both gentile and jjew are sinners, and the general populace pointed out previously can't be judged by others.
5. That even though the jews know the law, they still break it, and then they are no better than the gentiles (referred to at the end of Romans 1).
6. Repeating the main point of all this, no one is righteous, all are sinners.
7. So that the only way to righteousness is by faith in Christ. We can't do it by knowledge and trying to obey what is right (either by the law of God (given to the Jews) or by the law of reason (which he refers to).

JM

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Asher
If Christ will save everyone, why bother with religion?

Well, the traditional view of the Gospel is that it is the good news that Christ is your savior and will save you from your sins.

As I think I posted earlier, some groups have said that Christianity shouldn't be considered a religion.

JM

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Asher

"have not yet" -- this is the kind of innocent wording that breeds contempt for Christians. You imply it is inevitable, which in turn implies you are on some higher level of existence that us atheists can only aspire to. Pick your words more carefully.

Are you kidding me with this?
I respect you - what more do you want? How in anyway did you find offense with what I said? So I thought there might be a SLIM chance someday you may end up having faith in God. So sorry! If this expression of respect offended you, I'm guessing religious people have to walk on eggshells in your presence.
And I certainly do not think I'm better than you (thinking I'm at some higher level of existence).

Originally posted by Asher
Faith is not a good, positive characteristic in most cases. Would you prefer the people who made airplanes designed it as they saw fit, and had faith that it would work? Or would you prefer there be some kind of scientific approach to how they're built?

And then explain why the construction of an airplane is important enough to require more than faith, while constructing a value system with important (and arbitrary) rules to run everyone's life by is not important enough for that.

There's a difference between applying faith to one's belief in God and applying faith to practical, mechanical things we rely on in our lives. It's absurd to say we should construct a plane however we want, without applying mathematics, physics, mechanics and so forth.

I'm religious - not anti-science.

But this still does not negate the existence of God. I'm convince he just is, without questioning. I simply do not demand for scientific evidence for his existence.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


It's only a denunciation of raping strangers, as the righteous Lott offers up his daughters to be raped instead.

But it's pretty disturbing that all the women and children of these two cities were massacred for the crimes of some men.

Then again, god also turns Lott's wife into a pillar of salt because she happens to look at what's going on. Guess he had to eliminate the witnesses, too.

You are once more ignoring the story (or 'myth' if you will). It isn't a crime of inhospitality or sodomy that was the reason why they were destroyed. The angels had already come to destroy them, their actions had nothing to do with the effect (at the time).

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=18&version=31

26 The LORD said, "If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake."

31 Abraham said, "Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?"
He said, "For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it."

32 Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?"
He answered, "For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it."

33 When the LORD had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home.

The next chapter has the story of Sodom and Gomorrah that people know so well (and Lot having sex with his daughters).

JM

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


It's only a denunciation of raping strangers, as the righteous Lott offers up his daughters to be raped instead.

But it's pretty disturbing that all the women and children of these two cities were massacred for the crimes of some men.

Then again, god also turns Lott's wife into a pillar of salt because she happens to look at what's going on. Guess he had to eliminate the witnesses, too.

How people conceive of God as they imagine him to be has changed over the past couple thousand years. People who wrote the passages that became the Old Testament believed God to have been a domineering, incredibly demanding and even violently retributive God.

Today, many reasonable Christians no longer conceive that God is such. Look at how extreme fundies blamed sinners for such horrible disasters as the tusnami in Southeast Asia - many other people, including majority of Christians, never thought to believe God would have wanted that. And some of us DENOUNCED such bigoted remarks by the extreme fundies.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MrFun
Are you kidding me with this?
I respect you - what more do you want? How in anyway did you find offense with what I said?

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I look forward to the day when all religious people see reason and embrace atheism.

Offended yet?

There's a difference between applying faith to one's belief in God and applying faith to practical, mechanical things we rely on in our lives.

Only because you choose to make an illogical special exception for god which you apparently won't make for anything else. There's no REASON for there to be a difference.

I'm convince he just is, without questioning. I simply do not demand for scientific evidence for his existence.

And this is the very definition of irrationality.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Offended yet?

Yours was made in a blatant attempt to genuinely offend me. Mine was, I guess, a slip of the tongue with no intention of offense.