Your View of God

[FreakyLocz14]

And even ideal's thought true based on biblical interpretation's can be/are wrong.

Earth being center of our solar system?
How about this planet only being ~5k years old?

These were, at their time, religious based ideals that were backed up with the bible and yet later proven false with science.

And although it seems that way, this post isn't anti-god. Its anti-religion.

The funny thing is that, the Bible doesn't say that the earth is only 5,000 years old or that the earth is the center of the solar system.

 

[Mr. X]

Yes, but the point was that humans used the bible to back up those claims.

Its basically meant to show that humans can and have corrupted religion for their own whims.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Yes, but the point was that humans used the bible to back up those claims.

Its basically meant to show that humans can and have corrupted religion for their own whims.

Those people tried to use numbers used in the Old Testament to calculate the age of the planet. What they failed to realize is that many of the numbers used in the Bible and symbolic and not literal.

 

[Mr. X]

Which does nothing but prove my above point.

Intentional or not, they still manipulated Religion for their own gain.

 

[Livewire]

Protip: EVERY theory on the origin of the universe is just a theory.

You don't know what the word means in a scientific context.

 

[Dakotah]

Atheism is a religion because it is faith-based. There is no evidence that God does not exist, so to believe so without evidence is a belief based on faith. Agnosticism the complete absence of dogma.

Atheism is not a religion. I offer this website to help clarify it for you:

https://atheism.about.com/od/aboutatheism/p/AtheismReligion.htm

The bible NEVER says to kill homosexuals to my knowledge.

I quote from Leviticus:

Leviticus 20:13 (New International Version): If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

 

[KingCharizard]

Leviticus 20:13 (New International Version): If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Yeah I hate the new bibles... this crap is absurd, and i'm not even a homo i have a very beautiful family.. my point is the old bible supported beating women etc... they changed that thing for people

 

[TRIFORCE89]

Leviticus 20:13 (New International Version): If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

That's from the old testament. It's largely rejected by most churches and organized faiths. Fanatics obey that, I hope most people of faith don't.

It's the old testament. Being put to death was a punishment for everything. ...working on Saturday (sorry Wal-Mart door greeters), eating pork, being of other religions. Basically, everyone would be put to death.

 

[Dakotah]

That's from the old testament. It's largely rejected by most churches and organized faiths. Fanatics obey that, I hope most people of faith don't.

It's the old testament. Being put to death was a punishment for everything. ...working on Saturday (sorry Wal-Mart door greeters), eating pork, being of other religions. Basically, everyone would be put to death.

And yet, as a gay man, it's just one of the verses I have to contend with all the time. You would be surprised the number of people who use the old testament to condemn the LGBT community. They use Leviticus a lot, as well as Genesis, specifically Genesis 19.

The point is though, religion can be a source of great good, but it can also be used to commit unspeakable atrocities. I have always felt religion is supposed to be a personal thing, a way of thinking to guide us to a better life. But religion has been perverted into a vehicle by which people seek to impose their beliefs on others. "Believe as I do or you're going straight to hell" is a classic example of this kind of mentality, where the person who is of a particular faith views themselves as superior to those without, and so use this threat in an attempt to make them conform. It's bullying behavior and I reject it.

 

[lx_theo]

Protip: EVERY theory on the origin of the universe is just a theory.

You do realize that being a scientific theory only means that it doesn't have decisive proof that every single detail is correct. In order to be a scientific theory to begin with, there basically has to be a ton of evidence in the first place. In fact, something being a scientific theory probably makes it just as if not more reliable than something you read in a history book.

 

[Dakotah]

You do realize that being a scientific theory only means that it doesn't have decisive proof that every single detail is correct. In order to be a scientific theory to begin with, there basically has to be a ton of evidence in the first place. In fact, something being a scientific theory probably makes it just as if not more reliable than something you read in a history book.

Provided that history book isn't written in Texas, of course. ;)

 

[KingCharizard]

You do realize that being a scientific theory only means that it doesn't have decisive proof that every single detail is correct. In order to be a scientific theory to begin with, there basically has to be a ton of evidence in the first place. In fact, something being a scientific theory probably makes it just as if not more reliable than something you read in a history book.

which is why i've said this awhile back

Theory of relativity. Look at the first word of this statement. A theory is a conclusion based on evidence they have found to fit the idea. According to the evidence the big bang theory is said to be correct. How do we know for certain? There could have been another way the universe started. Also as you know from either the news or the new planet found thread another planet was found in a different galaxy or universe. What created that one? A big bang? or was that there first? or were we? We just don't know. We go by what we do know, the facts we can find to fit the evidence. So far no Evidence has proven god to be real or fake, he simply just is an idea. Some people to chose believe in that idea while other dismiss the idea, but it doesn't change the facts...

 

[twocows]

Protip: EVERY theory on the origin of the universe is just a theory.

Gravity was just a theory for the longest time. Being a theory doesn't say anything significant about its credibility other than there is at least some skepticism within the scientific community.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

You're right. The Bible doesn't say to kill people for being homosexual.

 

[Dakotah]

You're right. The Bible doesn't say to kill people for being homosexual.

Depends on which one you follow. There are over a hundred different translations of the bible, and for each one of those there is a denomination that claims their version is the closest accurate translation. The Catholic church uses a version that differs from the Baptists; the Baptists use a version that differs from the Protestants... and so on.

But one thing is for certain, most of these organized religions condemn a segment of the population for being born different. The Catholics call homosexuality a disorder, ignoring the fact that there isn't a single reputable psychological organization willing to classify it as such. The Baptists consider homosexuality a choice, ignoring the many studies that have been conducted indicating that being gay is an immutable trait.

This is the problem with belonging to an organized religion. You have to act a certain way and believe in a certain belief in order to belong.

When Canada first proposed amending the law to allow gays and lesbians to marry their partner of choice, the Catholic church and other denominations loudly condemned the idea. The Catholic church went as far as to threaten any Catholic politician who voted to allow same-sex couples to get married with Excommunication or not allow them to receive the Eucharist.

Thankfully, the politicians at the time, specifically the Prime Minister, told the Catholic church in no uncertain terms to butt out of state business, and did so using some very strong language I might add.

Any time a person who believes in God becomes associated with a particular religious denomination, certain expectations are placed on a person, including the altering of their beliefs. No one should have to do that.

As I mentioned before, religion should be a personal thing, with the only restrictions those that we place on ourselves according to our beliefs, not those placed upon us by someone claiming superiority over us.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Depends on which one you follow. There are over a hundred different translations of the bible, and for each one of those there is a denomination that claims their version is the closest accurate translation. The Catholic church uses a version that differs from the Baptists; the Baptists use a version that differs from the Protestants... and so on.

But one thing is for certain, most of these organized religions condemn a segment of the population for being born different. The Catholics call homosexuality a disorder, ignoring the fact that there isn't a single reputable psychological organization willing to classify it as such. The Baptists consider homosexuality a choice, ignoring the many studies that have been conducted indicating that being gay is an immutable trait.

This is the problem with belonging to an organized religion. You have to act a certain way and believe in a certain belief in order to belong.

When Canada first proposed amending the law to allow gays and lesbians to marry their partner of choice, the Catholic church and other denominations loudly condemned the idea. The Catholic church went as far as to threaten any Catholic politician who voted to allow same-sex couples to get married with Excommunication or not allow them to receive the Eucharist.

Thankfully, the politicians at the time, specifically the Prime Minister, told the Catholic church in no uncertain terms to butt out of state business, and did so using some very strong language I might add.

Any time a person who believes in God becomes associated with a particular religious denomination, certain expectations are placed on a person, including the altering of their beliefs. No one should have to do that.

As I mentioned before, religion should be a personal thing, with the only restrictions those that we place on ourselves according to our beliefs, not those placed upon us by someone claiming superiority over us.

That's incorrect. You don't have to follow the denomination's views 100% to be a member. Plenty of Catholics hold views and do thing that Church wouldn't approve of.

 

[Mr. X]

That's from the old testament. It's largely rejected by most churches and organized faiths. Fanatics obey that, I hope most people of faith don't.

So basically churches and faiths are allowed to reject the words of the bible as they please?

Im sorry. But the Bible is made up of two books, not one. You can't follow some things from one and some things from other. You either follow all of one, all of the other, or all of both. And if you disregard one for another, then you can't start bringing up ideals that are a part of the one you disregarded.

Also, do reread Leviticus 20:13. It does. But as with all religions, you only have to follow some of the words... Right?

Leviticus 20:13, from NIV Bible: If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

20:13, from KJV Bible. If a man also lieth with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have commited an abomination : They shall surely be put to death ; their blood shall be upon them.

The NIV bible is newest version of the bible, correct? And its disregarded by most. The KJV is older, yet accepted by most. Does this mean that the older version of something is correct? Then why do we not follow the older religion and instead follow a newer one? I can't see much difference between these verses, other then NIV is using newer language. Essentially, NIV is to our time what KJV was to King James time.

However, I don't see how religious people can have a problem against women who lieth with each other. It doesn't mention them. Know what this means? God was male and he likes to watch lesbian sex It means that if you follow the bible and do not attempt to interpret its words for you own use then you should have nothing against lesbianism.

All you saying that religion changed certain ideals for people, for the times... Think of this. Perfection requires no changes. And perfection can not be created from something that is imperfect.

 

[Dakotah]

That's incorrect. You don't have to follow the denomination's views 100% to be a member. Plenty of Catholics hold views and do thing that Church wouldn't approve of.

Granted, a lot don't, but by the same token, those that don't don't exactly advertise that fact to the church. The moment they do, however, the church reacts strongly to pull them back in line by threatening certain sanctions, as was the case with our politicians, and those in the U.S. who went against the church, including one Catholic nun, who was a member of the Phoenix Catholic hospital's ethics committee, and who was excommunicated and reassigned for her role in allowing an abortion to take place at the hospital, even though doing so saved the mother's life.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

So basically churches and faiths are allowed to reject the words of the bible as they please?

Umm... yes? That's why there's something like 30000+ Christian denominations. They're all different interpretations with their own rules, ideals, and beliefs.

Catholics also have the catechism, in addition to the Bible. And it says the following on homosexuality:

They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.

Perhaps not a glowing endorsement (what would be just discrimination?). But, it's far from "off with their heads!".

The Catholic Church also accepts the big bang theory and evolution.

The thing to remember is that these holy books were written in a time before modern science. Before we had answers to very large and existential questions that humans ask. The books were written my man. A transcription of both history and oral tradition. Implicit in this are the ideals of the time and the writer. A lot of the New Testament contradicts the Old Testament. I haven't read the Qur'an, but since it's basically "The Torah: Part III", it probably contradicts stuff from the Old Testament and New Testament too. Things change.

I consider myself a Catholic. I believe the tenants of the Apostles' Creed.

1. I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
2. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
3. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
4. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
5. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again.
6. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
7. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
8. I believe in the Holy Spirit,
9. the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints,
10. the forgiveness of sins,
11. the resurrection of the body,
12. and life everlasting.

But, where science had provided an answer to life's questions... I gotta go with science.

 

[Sheep]

There is no evidence of a supreme being so I stand neutral. I do lean much more towards science though, but with there being no proof on God existing or not existing, I'm still open to the latter.

The point isn't whether God actually exists or not either - it's about giving religious people that sense of hope and security, making their short stay on earth a good one. At least I think so.