Christianity in one word: Anti-homosexual

reply to post by SaturnFX


I was not referring to Paul. I was referring to more contemporary personalities.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Circular logic is defined as this:

Circular Logic

Or in other words, what you've been doing. You should consider speaking for yourself, instead of letting the Bible do your talking, my friend. It's seriously crippling your critical thinking skills.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

I was not referring to Paul. I was referring to more contemporary personalities.

In other words, people just as dead and irrelevant as St. Peter himself...or St. Paul.

Originally posted by mr-lizard

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by mr-lizard

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Christianity in one word: Anti-homosexual

That's TWO words.
and it didn't start with nor is it limited to the Christian faith.

Its one word. Anti is not a word in and of itself, in the same way un is not a word (undo, unintentional) Anti is a prefix
How Words Work

I mostly ignored the (incorrect) grammar nazi's earlier mostly due to not caring to educate them and instead focus on the thread verses their misunderstanding...but its late thread. enjoy.

Actually it is a word. And I fully replied to the topic too. I said anti-homosexuality is not limited to just Christians.

As a word on its own anti is an adjective or preposition describing a person or thing that is against someone or something else. In a casual sense anti is sometimes used as a noun for a person who is against something — if you’re not on the pro side, you’re an anti.

www.vocabulary.com...

Cheers

From your same source, first sentence

The word anti comes from the prefix anti-

did you not see the dash?
I am not using a word anti, I am using a prefix anti.
whats wrong with you anyhow?

reply to post by SaturnFX


The fact that you two continue to argue semantics instead of addressing the actual issue tells us everything we need to know about the actual issue.

I.e. that grammar is more pressing than inaccurate religious attacks.

Need we say more?

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

I was not referring to Paul. I was referring to more contemporary personalities.

Yes, I know you were
and I was referring to Paul
As Jesus never did name names overall...judge the tree by the fruit and all that.
If you consider all the wars, bigotry, etc etc etc in the name of christianity..it isn't from the words of jesus (turn the other cheek, love your enemy, etc) but from Pauls overriding of christs initial messages.

to me, that is a false prophet...no need to look at the latest GFLs and all that

Lets talk prophecy for a bit.
the religion will die when the word of christ is spread across the world (summery).
Well, I personally don't think its anywhere close to that..the instructions of paul is what christianity has been about for a very long time...the words of christ are just now starting to seed in society (tolerance, love, compassion, etc)....will be a long time before that also spreads across the globe..Pauls christianity has done much to slow down that growth.

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

The fact that you two continue to argue semantics instead of addressing the actual issue tells us everything we need to know about the actual issue.

I.e. that grammar is more pressing than inaccurate religious attacks.

Need we say more?

He isn't new to the thread...he has been here often basically saying the same thing over and over...figured I should address this real quick to shut him up once and for all about it verses him keep saying something inaccurate.

The matter at hand...perception of christianity is anti-homosexual.
truth is, its not just that, but the perception is valid (just as the perception of atheists are cynical)

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Circular logic is defined as this:

Circular Logic

Or in other words, what you've been doing. You should consider speaking for yourself, instead of letting the Bible do your talking, my friend. It's seriously crippling your critical thinking skills.

So you are telling me that I form all my thoughts according to the bible and then try and prove my theory using the Bible? I just proved to you that Jesus stated that God was his Father using a biblical quote is all. The rest is theological discussion, as can be shown that many others, including early Church fathers and theologians had ideas similar to mine, or more accurately, I have ideas based on theology of early Church theologians.
I do not care if you imagine it all to be simply circular logic.

And this is where a discussion of the Humanist Manifesto can come in handy. Humanists believe that man created gods and not that God created man in His own image and likeness.
Circular logic or not, humanists believe exactly the opposite of Christian theologians.

I also subscribe to the idea that the earth is many millions of years old, and that the Universe itself is created and dissolved in cycles.

This idea is referred to in Hindu cosmology as a day in the Life of Brahma(Hindu word for God)

The puranic view asserts that the universe is created, destroyed, and re-created in an eternally repetitive series of cycles. In Hindu cosmology, a universe endures for about 4,320,000,000 years (one day of Brahma, the creator or kalpa) and is then destroyed by fire or water elements. At this point, Brahma rests for one night, just as long as the day. This process, named pralaya (Cataclysm), repeats for 100 Brahma years (311 Trillion, 40 Billion Human Years) that represents Brahma's lifespan. It must be noted that Brahma is the creator but not necessarily regarded as God in Hinduism. He is mostly regarded as a creation of God / Brahman.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


What on earth makes you think God was/is anything like a man?

Of course, comparing our past actions in war and righteousness to God's criminal history, I suppose I can see a startling similarity...

Our arrogant belief that we are the most divine creature on the planet has determined the image of god within our own minds. It's pure arrogance. If anything, I would say that Satan should wear our face, and God's face would be that of the earthworm.

reply to post by Starchild23

What on earth makes you think God was/is anything like a man?

You mean why on earth would I ever believe that old Judeo-Christian idea that man was created in the image and likeness of God?

It is of course not possible for us to know everything about God in our finite understanding. But to imagine that God is not within His own Creation is to not understand the nature of the Cosmos.

That is, either you believe that the nucleus of the atom reflects the energy of God or it is just a creation of happenstance from the primordial sludge of nothingness.
Shall we discuss that?

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Circular logic made simple in regards to biblical religions:

The bible is infallible
because it says so
in the bible.

As far as the humanism movement. Although I do hold much of what is said in the second manifesto to be on the mark, I dont necessarily subscribe to all of their views.
But, humanism (counter to its original intent) is not a religion, nor should it be..it is a way of thinking and outlook that puts humanity in front of superstition and religious mind control so that we may recognise our contributions (and failures) as a species verses blame gods and devils for what has and will come...

Once you drop the god/aliens/superman will come save us from ourselves thinking, then you can start having an adult conversation on how we should progress our species according to our free will.

I don't know many people whom disagree with this, whom also have ability for rational thought anyhow. The argument many people (theists) have against humanism is that it removes god.
It does, and it doesn't. It removes it from the public discourse, but it doesn't remove it from individuals wanting to practice whatever they do...humanism is libertarian in its views of personal space...aka, do what you want so long as it harms none...it only effects society/our species as a whole...and that is, lets build and invent our way out by lifting everyone up as best we can.

reply to post by SaturnFX


Famous Humanists(John Dewey) have referred to humanism as a faith, so I have to counter you with that. What is religion but a belief. What is humanism but a belief system without believing in a God which created the Universe, that is humanists believe that the Universe was created by happenstance from primordial sludge, and that all the organization of the various species of plant and animal evolved Darwin style out of a disorganized sludge.

reply to post by SaturnFX

Once you drop the god/aliens/superman will come save us from ourselves thinking, then you can start having an adult conversation on how we should progress our species according to our free will.

Would you like to have an "adult" theological discussion on theories of Creatio Ex Nihilo or would you rather insult me with such statements of ridicule?
How we should progress as a species? Does it really matter if we are just animals having homosexual or heterosexual sex? Or would you like to discuss this with a deeper insight?

It sounds to me like you prefer ridicule to genuine discussion. So be it. Same goes to others here.

Can order come out of chaos?

The discovery that there may still be some underlying order—instead of complete randomness—in chaotic systems is, of course, still perfectly consistent with the laws of thermodynamics. The trouble is that many wishful thinkers in this field have started assuming that chaos can also somehow generate higher order—evolution in particular. This idea is being hailed as the solution to the problem of how the increasing complexity required by evolution could overcome the disorganizing process demanded by entropy. The famous second law of thermodynamics—also called the law of increasing entropy—notes that every system—whether closed or open—at least tends to decay. The universe itself is "running down," heading toward an ultimate "heat death," and this has heretofore been an intractable problem for evolutionists.

www.ldolphin.org...

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by halfoldman

 

That's the entire problem.

One: the Bible was not written for modern use, as is obvious by the superstitions displayed within the text.

Two: the Bible is WAAYYYYY too open to interpretation, which is dangerous in any culture.

We need rational people like you to get in to a conversation I swore on a stack (no pun intended) I thought I had my fill of decades ago. I want to go on record saying I am by no means a trained theologian. But the little I do recall from what I remember from reading the New Testament is there was nothing there that made any reference to sexuality. Those who think there was, perhaps they are confused with the Old Testament, and the Book of Leviticus. Personally though, I'm not religious, but if I was forced to chose it would (I can only wish) try to follow the teachings of Christ and The Buddha.

Perhaps your point that the bible was written for people of that age says a lot. Its often hard for us in our age to understand any where from 500 b.c.e to 500 c.e. very few people actually knew how to read or write. So the ways history and ideology were conveyed was by myth and metaphor. In fact thats how some of us keep detailed and complex secrets today. if something is so sensitive how do you remember the nitty gritty with out writing it down? You turn it into a myth, a heroic story. And it actually works.

For me Christianity is inclusive, not hateful. And as a gay man I will tell you, anyone out there who thinks being gay is a "choice" then your a Goddamn idiot. Who would willingly chose to be hated, disenfranchised, openly vilified by ones own family? I was lucky (I guess) because when I told my own father he said "well, you turned out OK in every other way" Go figure. And when I was asked early in my life by a mental pigmy, "when did you chose to be gay"? I asked him, "when did you chose to be right handed?"

Since I believe the Almighty does not make mistakes, we are left to figure out the truth our selves. It all starts with an open heart.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Famous Humanists(John Dewey) have referred to humanism as a faith, so I have to counter you with that. What is religion but a belief. What is humanism but a belief system without believing in a God which created the Universe, that is humanists believe that the Universe was created by happenstance from primordial sludge, and that all the organization of the various species of plant and animal evolved Darwin style out of a disorganized sludge.

edit on 20-5-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

Dewey can see it how he wants.
But it is not a religion...a religion requires a deity to focus on.
The belief in question is along the same lines of believing chocolate chip cookies tastes better than moldy bread. It may seem reasonable, but it is still just a personal preference...but either way, there is no deity/religion in this style of belief.

Humanism also is not set in stone. anyone can add, subtract, or alter its "tenants". It is more of a list of growing perceptions and understandings of our species existance and the best path forward to ascend.

Evolution, though not the core of humanist movement, is accepted as the likely scenario. Personally, by humanist tendencies allows for new evidence to be presented that alters the picture...someone else may not..their choice..but should new evidence show up that disproves evolution, humanism will alter to fit..and the person whom holds firm to evolution as fact, and ignores proof to show otherwise, will be rejected as just some foolish belief that counters evidence/proof.

But again, Evolution is not the central point of humanism..it is just a addition of understanding and acceptance.

Well, Saturn? Which is it to be? Ridicule or adult discussion? Humanism is the inversion of traditional religious thought. I have just shown that traditional thought can be converted into more scientific theory, and I have no problem relating to both religion and science. I think in the end science will prove some religious theories true. I do not subscribe to the theory that the earth is only 6000 years old. I do not think of God as an anthropomorphic man in the sky making all our decisions for us and condemning us to a hell if we don't do exactly as He says we should. But I do subscribe to an omniscient Being with knowledge far greater than any of us can imagine in our finite awareness.
You, on the other hand, seem to believe that god is a creation of man, and that the Universe evolved from a disorganized mass of sludge into the amazing organization of matter in the most complex of form by some kind of happenstance, unless you can indicate to me you believe otherwise....

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Once you drop the god/aliens/superman will come save us from ourselves thinking, then you can start having an adult conversation on how we should progress our species according to our free will.

Would you like to have an "adult" theological discussion on theories of Creatio Ex Nihilo or would you rather insult me with such statements of ridicule?
How we should progress as a species? Does it really matter if we are just animals having homosexual or heterosexual sex? Or would you like to discuss this with a deeper insight?

It sounds to me like you prefer ridicule to genuine discussion. So be it. Same goes to others here.

Can order come out of chaos?

The discovery that there may still be some underlying order—instead of complete randomness—in chaotic systems is, of course, still perfectly consistent with the laws of thermodynamics. The trouble is that many wishful thinkers in this field have started assuming that chaos can also somehow generate higher order—evolution in particular. This idea is being hailed as the solution to the problem of how the increasing complexity required by evolution could overcome the disorganizing process demanded by entropy. The famous second law of thermodynamics—also called the law of increasing entropy—notes that every system—whether closed or open—at least tends to decay. The universe itself is "running down," heading toward an ultimate "heat death," and this has heretofore been an intractable problem for evolutionists.

www.ldolphin.org...

edit on 20-5-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-5-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

Wasn't insulting you personally...rather insulting a mindset that we don't have to consider our actions because outside forces will come and fix it no matter how much we break it.
If you fit into this line of thinking, I can see how you may feel you want to be insulted...but the insult was not at you specifically.


Does it matter if we progress? what motivates us?
It does matter...just on a biological standpoint, even an amoeba will move away from danger and try to replicate itself in order to continue its existance and overcome. We are biologically programmed to survive, expand, and control our surroundings as best possible. All life on earth is. Actually, its the most important aspect of all motivation of all life.
Why? Well, that is a discussion that can be neverending...personal reasons are just as valid as big sweeping arguements. Personally, I think we (life) are trying to understand ourselves...for what end? well, we haven't figured that out yet.


As far as chaos goes. This is where I have some disagreement with humanism. They see all being happenstance from chaos. I see no chaos actually (well, I see chaos in a segment, but thats irrelevant). The "big picture" cannot allow for chaos..everything is a reaction from something else...every aspect of our universe is just reactionary from what happened the moment before..a rock hitting you on the head from a cliff above is not a action..its a reaction due to many other factors.

Chaos is just misunderstood complexity. Chaos is an illusion. The universe is working like a pool table, and everything is accounted for through simple reactions. Now, us able to see this big picture...well, I don't see a computer big enough ever being invented that could crunch those numbers.


aka, I do understand there is a order..I also wonder what the initial action was that started this big reaction. My mind has issues dealing with eternity...therefore I default questioning a beginning...a action...but then a new question comes when even starting to contemplate that..
what started that action...because that would also have to be a reaction to something else
which pushes me back into that pondering eternity thing again.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Well, Saturn? Which is it to be? Ridicule or adult discussion?

Bah, too quick..you know I type books in response!

(if you cant dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull-snip)

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


I think your question is (or is it my question..hmm), is this order that is in the universe conscious...intentful....or is it just order without reason.

the answer to that, for me anyhow, is..I don't know
and I don't believe anyone whom says they do know...whom is also a human like me.
Because, it is unknowable..at least with our current level of technology (and perhaps for all time..technological limit).

I don't know allows for lots of musings and wonderings though.

reply to post by SaturnFX

Does it matter if we progress? what motivates us?

Again, why should it matter at all if we are just animals with an animal brain which somehow took all this time just to organize itself from picking fleas off one another to thinking about Creatio ex Nihilo? Is there any point at all to our existence besides claiming we have no choice in being homo or hetero?