DrJägermeister Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 Where are you from? Germany, Netherlands or Denmark are my guesses. I´m German but most times I live in France. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 I wish I had that option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouch Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 Jesus was a f***ing charlatanI used to think that but i found it hard to reason because even if he was, you would expect that given a choice between being crucified and simply denying he was God any sane person would choose the latter. So you then logically have to conclude that he was insane. But there is really no other events recorded that would indicate that and you can't use the fact that he claimed to be the son of God as a argument for insanity because you can't prove he wasn't. Even if he was insane - there are twelve deciples (one of whom should surely have been smart enough to notice an insane person) and even suppose you argument was that they knew he was insane but played along just for kicks, all being a deciple ever brought them was persecution. So i just don't see how that conclusion holds water anymore. Given that i couldn't conclude that he was insane or a charlatan then i was left with the only option left - son of god - which is one of these realisations that no matter how hard you try, you can't ignore. Anyway banning religions because of a minority of fundamentalist nut-jobs is like banning guns because an crazy person shoots up a school. It's not the guns you have to deal with it's all the crazy people with guns. Banning my religion is as 'unconstitutional' as banning same-sex marriage (not to mention completely impossible to enforce) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 It's fundementally impossible to prove or disprove something for which evidence does not exist. Jesus might have been the son of god, or he might have been schitzophrenic. No way of knowing for sure. One thing we know, he definitely existed, and he definitely was crucified... the rest is faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John the Geek Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 You are 1/2 right. Acts 1:18-19 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. Yes. He DID hang himself. But in the 'process' of hanging (or attempting to hang) himself the limb on the branch in which he hung himself broke, and he fell to his death from a high point, and spilled his guts when he met the rocks on the cliff below. Mathew says he hung himself. Yes he did. But thats not what caused his spirit to depart. The impact to the ground is what killed him. I figured you'd take the "Kennedy single bullet theory." "Judas hung himself with yarn then bought a field with his VISA card and when the rope broke and he fell to the ground he played Mario Kart until his bowels spilled out." Not likely though... You see Matthew says that Judas regretted his actions and threw his money down in the temple and went and hung himself. Then the elders went a bought a field to bury the dead in, rather than keep his "blood money." (Matt 27:3-10) But Luke, in the book of Acts, says quite a different story. That Judas "bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out." (Acts 1:15-20) SO even if you try and play "magic bullet" and say they "both happened" you still have the obvious conflict of WHO bought the field. Was it Judas or was it the temple priests? It's obvious to anyone with half a frontal lobe that one of these two men are lying to us. They both knew Judas personally, and one of them flat out lied. My point is this; the Bible is a book. It was written by very flawed humans (despite their confidence that they were writing for God/Jesus' benefit) and it reflects the flaws and personal opinions of those people. Just because there is an obscure writing in Leviticus does not mean you get to go persecuting homosexuals. That's not quite "biblical" behavior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrJägermeister Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 Anyway banning religions because of a minority of fundamentalist nut-jobs is like banning guns because an crazy person shoots up a school. It's not the guns you have to deal with it's all the crazy people with guns. Banning my religion is as 'unconstitutional' as banning same-sex marriage (not to mention completely impossible to enforce) It´s not the same: {censored} haven´t done anything bad for my society. Your church has done many bad things the last few hundred years. Everything they have was stolen from the German society during more than 1000 years. In the dark age they took with force what they want, today they are selling dreams for money to naiv people (that´s a fraud and should be illegal). They don´t pay taxes for all these money they have stolen, that´s a shame. There is a simple way how to ban these guys: leave them, deny their god and don´t give them money anymore. It´s very simple but it works: the German church is complainig that more and more members are leaving this religion and that they can have a financial problem in the future. If the ruin is the only way to stop these guys, let´s do it and maybe in 50 years the nighmare called "religion" will end. P.S: I consider the most catholics as victims from these insane organisation, the real criminals are in the vatikan. So i just don't see how that conclusion holds water anymore. Given that i couldn't conclude that he was insane or a charlatan then i was left with the only option left - son of god - which is one of these realisations that no matter how hard you try, you can't ignore. He wasn´t the son of god (not completely translated, choose the German or French site to read the full text): http://www.anti-religion.net/propheties_jesus_e.htm or http://www.luigicascioli.it/dueprove_eng.php The english texts are not completely translated, some of them are not translated at all. If you spoke English and understand French or German you can help this site to translate some texts. http://www.anti-religion.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 religioustolerance.org is a great, and pretty unbiased site for this kinda thing. This is a good link for information on the gospels: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb1.htm Der Jagermeister: I agree. Religion doesnt keep me from shooting people in the head. The fact that I wouldnt get away with it is what stops me. ;-p But it's kinda the same. Why does a religious person not shoot someone in the head? because God will know and they DEFINITELY wont get away with it. Fortunately I dont live in a place where nutty zealots are constantly telling me what to do. Though there were some old catholic ladies with signs outside of the Da Vinci Code. Even though they were old ladies, I felt the finger was in order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouch Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 It´s not the same: {censored} haven´t done anything bad for my society. Your church has done many bad things the last few hundred years. Everything they have was stolen from the German society during more than 1000 years. In the dark age they took with force what they want, today they are selling dreams for money to naiv people (that´s a fraud and should be illegal). They don´t pay taxes for all these money they have stolen, that´s a shame. My church hasn't done any bad things in the last few hundred years. This is the problem - your projecting your negative views of large organised religion onto my personal faith. My church is independent non denominational run by it's members without any hierarchical link to a national organisation such as the roman catholic church or the church of england etc. We haven't stolen anything from German society. We don't 'sell' dreams, my church's leadership is accountable to it's members and is liable for all sorts of taxes which are payed in line with our laws. The actions you describe are not part of religious belief - they are actions of individuals who are simply hiding among a religious front organisation. To try and 'ban' religion because of the actions of this few people is like sayig Germany should be disbanded because it's full of nazi's who start wars. Thats just a 'burry your head in the sand and avoid the real problem' approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malakite Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 religioustolerance.org is a great, and pretty unbiased site for this kinda thing. This is a good link for information on the gospels: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb1.htm Der Jagermeister: I agree. Religion doesnt keep me from shooting people in the head. The fact that I wouldnt get away with it is what stops me. ;-p But it's kinda the same. Why does a religious person not shoot someone in the head? because God will know and they DEFINITELY wont get away with it. Fortunately I dont live in a place where nutty zealots are constantly telling me what to do. Though there were some old catholic ladies with signs outside of the Da Vinci Code. Even though they were old ladies, I felt the finger was in order. It is easy to hide behind a religion to make everything alright, also it is easy to blame not doing things because of said religion, because there is no way to really argue the point, since as soon as somone does ya just have to quote some other passage. I always believed that, ya may pray for your soul... but you still need to do your own dishes. Meaning choices, actions, are yours, mine, everyones own responsability. God doesn't make these choices for you, only set some guidlines about how things might be done. The bible isn't an exact.. it is a template. The hard choices are left to us because if we can't make those decisions then why should we even have the free will to do so? Btw- Checked out the things that make you angry link... Nice man LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgrimes80 Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 It is easy to hide behind a religion to make everything alright, also it is easy to blame not doing things because of said religion, because there is no way to really argue the point, since as soon as somone does ya just have to quote some other passage. I always believed that, ya may pray for your soul... but you still need to do your own dishes. Meaning choices, actions, are yours, mine, everyones own responsability. God doesn't make these choices for you, only set some guidlines about how things might be done. The bible isn't an exact.. it is a template. The hard choices are left to us because if we can't make those decisions then why should we even have the free will to do so? Amen As a Christian, I couldn't have said it better myself. Two Thumbs Up Using religion as justification for any kind of persecution rather than rationale is I'm not implying that religion should have no bearing on life's decisions, but even in this case; to infridge upon "{censored}" couples with the Bible as resource is hardly convincing. That same Bible says not to pass judgement, treat others the way you want to be treated... contradiction, I'd say, "YA." Back to the Bible as a resource... I'd like to ask anyone to reference a point, anywhere, that indicates disapproval of same-sex marriages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John the Geek Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 Back to the Bible as a resource... I'd like to ask anyone to reference a point, anywhere, that indicates disapproval of same-sex marriages. Most people go straight to Leviticus, which says nothing of marriage, but my favorite analysis of the topic is here at ReligiousTolerance. =) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
node64 Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 Malakite: i personally dont have anything against it. my little sister is {censored} and i would be happy for her if she wanted to get married, the religion thing was an example, and for the record i am a buddhist. and there is no difinitive answer to how the buddhist faith should view these things. I guess to me it depends on the circimstances, i dont see anything wrong with two same sex people who are not religious getting married. BUT i feel that two same sex people who are religious are hipocrats if they can follow only the parts that are easy for them. So my point was slightly off topic. And in the correct situation i thinbk same sex marrages are a healthy thing. and in the wrong situation i dissagree with them. i voted no becuase in my oppinion not EVERY marrage is correct, but that goes for differant sex marrage aswell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgrimes80 Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 Malakite: i personally dont have anything against it. my little sister is {censored} and i would be happy for her if she wanted to get married, the religion thing was an example, and for the record i am a buddhist. and there is no difinitive answer to how the buddhist faith should view these things. I guess to me it depends on the circimstances, i dont see anything wrong with two same sex people who are not religious getting married. BUT i feel that two same sex people who are religious are hipocrats if they can follow only the parts that are easy for them. So my point was slightly off topic. And in the correct situation i thinbk same sex marrages are a healthy thing. and in the wrong situation i dissagree with them. i voted no becuase in my oppinion not EVERY marrage is correct, but that goes for differant sex marrage aswell even IF homosexuality IS a sin... a homosexual is no more hypocrital than the average believer. All Christians are hypocrites... otherwise we'd be perfect. Do you have a job? that's a sin (personal gain)... Do you have sex for pleasure? that's a sin... The list goes on... All in all, everybody is a sinner in God's/Jesus eyes. Parts that are easy? What IF they can't help it. Homosexuality has diffinitive roots in the Roman times and still does today. What if it's simply nature not nuture. If you believe in Divine Destiny then God made those people {censored} for a reason. To teach us something then, and teach us something now... Maybe that homosexuality is a means of LOVE not a means of sexual desires (heterosexual sex is frowned upon as well) just as marriage is a pronouncement of LOVE not sexual desire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouch Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 Do you have a job? that's a sin (personal gain)...Do you have sex for pleasure? that's a sin... The list goes on... I don't agree with any of those statements - having a job is not a sin, doing something for personal gain is not sinful. It's when you choose material gains over doing God's will that it becomes sinful. Sex was designed by God to be pleasurable and thats not sinful - the bible only condemns sex outwith marriage.All in all, everybody is a sinner in God's/Jesus eyes.That i would agree with. If you believe in Divine Destiny then God made those people {censored} for a reason. To teach us something then, and teach us something now... Maybe that homosexuality is a means of LOVE not a means of sexual desires (heterosexual sex is frowned upon as well) just as marriage is a pronouncement of LOVE not sexual desire. As stated before heterosexual sex is in no way frowned upon by God when practiced in the manner in which God intended it. God didn't "make {censored} people" - God made people and gave them free will, unfortunately people chose to go against God's will and the result was that sin entered out world. Everyone has sinful desires - i'm frequently greedy, selfish, disobedient etc. It is not sinful to be attacted to someone of your own sex - however it is sinful to give in to such desires (in the same way it is sinful for a straight person to have sex outwith marriage) Thats doesn't mean God doesn't love {censored} people, he just hates their sins - as he hates my sins. Back to the Bible as a resource... I'd like to ask anyone to reference a point, anywhere, that indicates disapproval of same-sex marriages.There is no specific discussion of same sex marriage in the bible. Leviticus is generally referenced as a condemnation of homosexuality. Leviticus was a book of civil law for Israel and some would argue it's restrictions do not apply to modern society. I think if you can't find a reason to explain why a law in leviticus should not apply today then it does. However if you are in doubt of that Romans 1:26-27 also describes how men and women exchanged 'natural relations' fo unatural ones and that they recieved the 'due penalty for their perversion'. Again some christian groups regard this as a condemnation of sexual relations outwith marriage rather than homosexuality but it's a matter of interpretation and i don't agree with that one. Since the bible also teaches that sex is an important part of a marriage (see 1 Corinthians 7:3-5) you have to conclude that homosexual marriages are not permitted. Thats the basis for my belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 So, all a straight couple living in sin need do is get married ;-p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
node64 Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 jgrimes80, i am a buddhist so i do not believe that sexual pleasure is a sin. A buddhist is taught to refrain from sexual misconduct. and my religion doesnt forbid me from working for personal gain. What you need to remember is that when religion is mentioned, people dont always mean christianity. This is the point i was making, Everything is relitive to the situation of the individuals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 node: no one refers to buddhism when they say "religion". Buddhism may be a religion, but it's more like a philosophy from most people's perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
node64 Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 gwprod12: Buddhism is as much a religion as christianity or islam or any other religion. All religion in its basic form is philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouch Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 So, all a straight couple living in sin need do is get married ;-p lol - if only it were that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John the Geek Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 First, Buddhism is a religion, as a religion is essentially an definable belief structure shared by multiple people. Religion doesn't always involve churches or saviors... that's what usually throws people off. Second, people who are homosexual are acting as they feel is right. You're perspective that they are somehow living in sin is your own conclusion, and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of those you are judging. Just because you want someone to do/act/say/feel a certain way does not meant that they have to. that is what it means to be free. This is why neither lifestyle is wrong, as long as no one is being harmed or forced into things they do not wish to participate in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 okay, maybe the term "oppressive, dogmatic religion" is a better one. As far as I know, Buddhism has no specific tenets about how someone should go about their daily life. I dont think the buddha said no sex outside of marriage, no pork, no cutting of the hair, etc. That's what we all mean by religion. The way I understand it, and i am no expert on buddhism, is that the buddhist faith is about attaining enlightenment and moving to a more... unencumbered form. Just like any religion, if those who fulfill their "afterlife" exist, they're hiding it from the rest of us, so we cant know exactly how one gets there. The faiths of the book have a more formulaic approach. Do this, or else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malakite Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 Malakite: i personally dont have anything against it. my little sister is {censored} and i would be happy for her if she wanted to get married, the religion thing was an example, and for the record i am a buddhist. and there is no difinitive answer to how the buddhist faith should view these things. I guess to me it depends on the circimstances, i dont see anything wrong with two same sex people who are not religious getting married. BUT i feel that two same sex people who are religious are hipocrats if they can follow only the parts that are easy for them. So my point was slightly off topic. And in the correct situation i thinbk same sex marrages are a healthy thing. and in the wrong situation i dissagree with them. i voted no becuase in my oppinion not EVERY marrage is correct, but that goes for differant sex marrage aswell Well let me ask you this, and note this goes out to whoever My mother was remarring, to her chuch it was not right for someone to be devorced, and remarried (I don't know.. ask one who knows the religion thing better), now was it wrong for them to be married, and if so would it of been better if they remained single? How far do we take this? How far do we go before we start doing harm with our own beliefs. Note, they are still married to this day, livin' their happy lives... It turned out for the best that they did not listen to the nay-sayers.. would they of been so happy not being married? I can't say yes, but only point to the result of what did happen I have not talked about what I believed because it is really non-tangable.. There are no books to point to nor any set 'rules' to it. I believe in good and evil, simple as that.. there is good, and the base belief that a rational mind deep down knows the diffrence, all though sometimes refuses to go with it. Wether you believe in God,Booda,Cofusious (Yes I know I killed the spelling heh) it doesn't really matter, your actions matter, and what you do depends on what kind of person you are. This isn't a very difficult concept really, I mean too many people seem to over-complicate things, saying this is good.. this is bad. When really I do have to agree it is the situation that makes it good or bad. For example.... Thieft.. Normaly for self-gain, but what if your starving child needed something to eat so you stole for him? Is that bad, some say yes without thought, but consider it. You are sacrificing your own liberties, just for someone else who is in need.. You can't blanket things as bad, I know it is some-what true if you come up with a some extreme situation yes you can find anything good or bad. Does one man have to die on a cross for us to agree on what is good or bad? Do I have do believe your story over mine just to not be called a sinner? Isn't good (enter dietiey's name) supposed to be forgiving to the end, to the point of looking over, and *Forgiving* pasts evils? I am sorry, but I am not one to believe you have to blindly agree that Jesus died on a cross to go to heaven. I believe if you are a generaly a good person, despite the errors you make on the way.. that is what counts. I guess what I am tring to say in the end.. is blanketing {censored}-marrage as a bad thing is just going against the good.. not seeing what good can come out of such a thing, and only seeing the evil. Maybe other then to think about how much of a sin you think it is (Not you personaly node heh) think of the good things that can come out of it. Hypocritical or not.. One thing I do remember and it is my favorate saying (I am paraphrasing) Let he who has not sinned throw the first stone... I have done bad things in my past, made mistakes, who am I to judge them, and who am I to hate them for what they have done (Note: I do not think {censored}-Marrage is a sin personaly but to those who think it is) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
node64 Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 i think that if your mother and her husband truelly believe in there religion and that same religion says taht its wrong, then it is wrong. However if they dont believe in it then why would they get married at a church? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 If you think getting divorced is wrong, dont do it. If you are a dude and you wanna be with another dude, but you think it's wrong, dont do it. If you think it's wrong to own a Hummer, dont buy one. If you think going to church is bad for you, dont go there. If you think eating meat is wrong, dont eat it. Just dont make the choice for the rest of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OryHara Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 Just because there is an obscure writing in Leviticus does not mean you get to go persecuting homosexuals. That's not quite "biblical" behavior. Im gonna let Ouch speak for me on this topic from now own. I know whats in the Bible and follow God's word. I will lay down my life for what I believe. My faith gives me my strength to fight evil in people every day. Whatever Ouch says is what I would say as well. This topic has been taking too much of my time. Ive got too much real world stuff to do. Like pay bills, work, and make a living. Yes, I am a Southern Baptist Christian. But I don't agree politicaly with %95 of them. My politics are a entirely different world, and vision. Ill pray for you. Ill pray for you all. God bless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts