Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Obama, Gay Marriage, Original Sin, Founding Fathers, Catholics, and Pearls

Obama, Gay Marriage, Original Sin, Founding Fathers, Catholics, and Pearls (Page 8)
Thread Tools
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2012, 09:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
With regard to rights, it is easier to identify and/or acknowledge an injustice against a race or gender than it is a sexual orientation.
It may be easier, but that's not an excuse to practice laziness and not correct those injustices. That's one of the highlights of this issue; those who are against gay rights constantly use the same tired old arguments, quoting carefully selected snippets of their holy book and regurgitating the same endlessly, because of their intellectual laziness.

This is where we'd likely disagree more as I believe this is best handled at the State level and that includes distaste for DOMA.
We all live in the United States of America. The states' rights argument is another of those intellectually lazy ones, where it's convenient, because it's constantly used, and easy to dredge up, but we are a vastly different society today than 200 years ago, when people didn't move often, and customs/traditions/mores were based locally. I've moved at least six times in my life; should my rights and beliefs change, just because I moved? I think not.

There had also been scenarios in history where the centralized authority got in the way of States trying to pioneer new civil rights ground.
Such as?

If the Federal government must acknowledge marriage for purposes of managing the resources of the civil apparatus, it should be just that; a civil union between any two people who wish to contractually enter this agreement.
Your opinion is noted, and I agree, insofar as marriage is a civil contract. But the meanings, and usage, of words do change, and if a gay couple wants to call their union a marriage, that should be their prerogative.

Still, race and gender are regarded differently than sexual orientation and I would submit the fact that interracial marriage was legalized in 1967 yet we're still discussing gay rights nearly 50 years later as evidence of this phenomena.
The only evidence of any phenomena is that some issues take longer to change peoples' minds on. It still remains a fact that gay rights have accelerated at the fastest rate of any major societal change in the history of the U. S. There was nowhere a gay couple could form a legal union a little over a decade ago, and now there are six states where that's permissible. The rest will come, most of them dragging their knuckles, but they will come. Most of the hot air being generated by the opponents of gay marriage focuses around the nonsense that it will change the definition of a hetero couple's marriage. More Americans are starting to realize, all complex and superfluous verbiage aside, that it just doesn't matter to them if two committed adults want to join in a legal, and loving union, and that it, in fact, doesn't change their relationship. The hold outs are primarily older people, who need something from their past to hang onto, as a security blanket (people like stupendous, who can't stop bringing up tradition, and who would apparently still prefer living in a cave).

So again, you can say the parallels don't have to be exact for a valid comparison, but I disagree.
Of course you do, but it's being made more clear daily that you're wrong.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2012, 10:03 AM
 
So do you do as christians object to Jews, Muslims or other cultures calling their religious unions marriages? The widely accepted multi-faith usage of the terms marriage, husband, wife imply a very generic status to them.

Maybe you should change the name of your unions to "Christomarriage" or something like that.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2012, 11:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
So do you do as christians object to Jews, Muslims or other cultures calling their religious unions marriages? The widely accepted multi-faith usage of the terms marriage, husband, wife imply a very generic status to them.

Maybe you should change the name of your unions to "Christomarriage" or something like that.
You do realize that the "creator" that all the religions you mentioned worship isn't a different entity, right? THey all pretty much follow the teachings of a single deity and that for the most part, all of those faiths condemn homosexual behavior as sinful?

Our country was founded on the notion that there is a God, the majority of our citizens believes in the "God of Abraham" worshiped by Christians, Jews and Muslims, and that God's "word" is that heterosexual relations are not equal to homosexual relations. It would seem odd for a country based on the notion that all rights are given by an entity who most people believe does not find homosexuality and heterosexuality equals, to find that they should be treated as such as a right. Especially when logically, and rationally, they are only equal in the emotions involved and no other real significant societal interest.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2012, 11:55 AM
 
This particular preacher is not only against gay marriage, he's against civil unions for gays too, making his stance even more repugnant than the conservatives on this board.

This fellow evokes the nonsense "argument" that religion is not a restaurant, and you can't pick and choose what to believe. That raises a few questions: Does he support the stoning of gays to death, or has he chosen not to believe in that? Does he expel sinners from his congregation the way Paul insisted, or does he adhere to the Augustinian theology of a united church of saints and sinners? Being a Baptist, which of the four disputed origins of the Baptist denomination does endorse? So many choices to pick from.

Far from not being a "pick and choose" phenomenon, religion is precisely a pick and choose phenomenon. That's why there are so many religions and denominations (Jesus set the example as the picker and chooser par excellence). That's why there are no mutually agreed upon interpretations of the Bible (for instance, randsom theory vs vicarious satisfaction vs penal substitution vs moral influence).

In America every day, Christians leave one church and go to another, to pick and choose the right mix of theology, music, and coffee brands.

This whole "pick and choose" complaint is really stupid when you realize this isn't about religious beliefs, but political positions. For instance, which political position is a Christian required to endorse?

Gays should be prosecuted by the state and killed (The Old Testament)
Gays should be prosecuted by the state but not killed (typical revisionism)
Gays should be ignored but not prosecuted (a dead perspective)
Gays should be permitted civil unions (most conservatives today)
Gays should be permitted marriages (anyone with an ounce of self-reflection)

Here's the answer: none of them. Stop using your religion as an excuse and take responsibility for your own choices.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2012, 11:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I saw that Dakar and I've maintained that it is their differences that appear to be valid for most to this day; race and gender being much more clearly genetic and immutable.
I'd say sexual orientation in no less immutable then gender.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
With regard to rights, it is easier to identify and/or acknowledge an injustice against a race or gender than it is a sexual orientation.
Giving and enforcing rights isn't about ease. Difficulty of identification or acknowledgement has no bearing on whether someone has rights.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
This is where we'd likely disagree more as I believe this is best handled at the State level and that includes distaste for DOMA. There had also been scenarios in history where the centralized authority got in the way of States trying to pioneer new civil rights ground.
To which is say, how would this have worked out for slavery, or civil rights? Does homosexuals being granted limited rights based on the lottery of which state they are born in sound right to you?

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
If the Federal government must acknowledge marriage for purposes of managing the resources of the civil apparatus, it should be just that; a civil union between any two people who wish to contractually enter this agreement.
I have no issue with that. But since no one is championing that cause (nationally), until the day "marriages" are reduced to "civil unions" to satisfy the sensibilities of the religious, gays have every right to marriages as straights do.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Still, race and gender are regarded differently than sexual orientation and I would submit the fact that interracial marriage was legalized in 1967 yet we're still discussing gay rights nearly 50 years later as evidence of this phenomena. So again, you can say the parallels don't have to be exact for a valid comparison, but I disagree.
That's circular logic. Couldn't you play the same game with regards to voting rights?

"Still, race is regarded differently than gender and I would submit the fact that black voting rights were granted in 1868 yet we're still discussing "women's suffrage" nearly 50 years later as evidence of this phenomena."

Or, reverse it:

"Still, gender is regarded differently than race and I would submit the fact that women's voting rights were granted in 1920 yet we're still discussing "civil rights" nearly 50 years later as evidence of this phenomena."

You intimation that if gay rights were clear cut they would already exist casually glosses over that public perception of their lifestyle necessitated most to "stay in the closet" as it were, delaying their push for equal treatment as people. Is there not a parallel between homosexual males who married women to maintain societal acceptance and mixed race children who would try to pass as white? Both hid who they were so they could attain the most in society; If the general population knew what they were, they would be discriminated against and treated as less.

(Also, weird coincidence on the 50 years line not needing be changed for both examples, eh?)
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2012, 12:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
You do realize that the "creator" that all the religions you mentioned worship isn't a different entity, right? They all pretty much follow the teachings of a single deity and that for the most part, all of those faiths condemn homosexual behavior as sinful?
Yes I'm aware of it, I'm actually surprised to hear you bring it up as many people with beliefs like yours tend to skirt around the fact. You and I both know that I consider most aspects of all those religions to be utter nonsense and that certainly includes their attitudes to sex.

You have sort of sidestepped the question. Do you object to Buddhist marriage? Hindu? (Yes, I know that involves multiple gods). The particular religions in the question weren't really the issue of the question.
Do you believe then that marriage should apply only to religious people, regardless of religion?

Its interesting that religions that despite their obvious connections and similarities should be irrevocably opposed, will in essence 'band together' in the face of examination from non-believers.

I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2012, 12:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
You do realize that the "creator" that all the religions you mentioned worship isn't a different entity, right?
I think a great many Jews and Muslims would object to the notion that the god Jesus is the same god they worship.

Our country was founded on the notion that there is a God,
Sigh. Jefferson scrawled that in to pander to the religious people of his time. It really is the most effective example of political pandering in history, since it's still working today.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2012, 12:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
You do realize that the "creator" that all the religions you mentioned worship isn't a different entity, right? THey all pretty much follow the teachings of a single deity and that for the most part, all of those faiths condemn homosexual behavior as sinful?
You do realize that people back then were ignorant, and didn't know anything about the fields of medicine, biology, physics, psychology, pharmaceuticals, economics, and on and on? They made things up to suit their limited worldview, and as much as we've learned (especially in the relatively recent past), there are those who cling to outdated beliefs when their intellectual laziness becomes convenient.

Our country was founded on the notion that there is a God, the majority of our citizens believes in the "God of Abraham" worshiped by Christians, Jews and Muslims, and that God's "word" is that heterosexual relations are not equal to homosexual relations. It would seem odd for a country based on the notion that all rights are given by an entity who most people believe does not find homosexuality and heterosexuality equals, to find that they should be treated as such as a right. Especially when logically, and rationally, they are only equal in the emotions involved and no other real significant societal interest.
Our country was not founded on a notion of a god. Our country's founders were mostly Deists. Get over your intellectual laziness and learn something about the country you pretend to know so much about.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2012, 12:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
You do realize that the "creator" that all the religions you mentioned worship isn't a different entity, right? THey all pretty much follow the teachings of a single deity and that for the most part, all of those faiths condemn homosexual behavior as sinful?

Our country was founded on the notion that there is a God, the majority of our citizens believes in the "God of Abraham" worshiped by Christians, Jews and Muslims, and that God's "word" is that heterosexual relations are not equal to homosexual relations. It would seem odd for a country based on the notion that all rights are given by an entity who most people believe does not find homosexuality and heterosexuality equals, to find that they should be treated as such as a right. Especially when logically, and rationally, they are only equal in the emotions involved and no other real significant societal interest.
I don't get why any gay person would subject themselves to faith and religion of a institution that does not agree with there life style and says they will go to hell. Just shows how powerful the brainwashing is at childhood that they still want to believe in god even though god is supposed to hate them.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2012, 12:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
I don't get why any gay person would subject themselves to faith and religion of a institution that does not agree with there life style and says they will go to hell.
I can understand the viewpoint that a gay person would have that surely if there is a God, he wouldn't make me the way I am and then condemn me for whatever happens because of the way I am, and then either losing faith or never gaining it.

I can't understand the viewpoint that they are still going to consider themselves an adherent of a certain religious philosophy, but just pick and choose which things they like and suggest that the stuff they don't like doesn't matter and they are going to continue to act in the manner they desire despite the fact that it's pretty much "cannon" that doing that is sinful.

I can respect either not partaking, or partaking and choosing to abstain from acting on desires which have been deemed sinful. I can't really grasp the other option as reasonable or rational, and that's the route many on the left seem to choose.

Just shows how powerful the brainwashing is at childhood that they still want to believe in god even though god is supposed to hate them.
I know of no mainstream religious faith that teaches God hates people just because they sin. Everyone sins. The question is whether you choose to make an honest effort to abstain from sinning, or you simply have chosen to ignore the will of the "creator" disrespectfully. Even then, I doubt he "hates" people who chose to continue to sin.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2012, 12:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
I think a great many Jews and Muslims would object to the notion that the god Jesus is the same god they worship.
You don't know very much about religion then do you?

There is a reason why Jerusalem is the holy city for all three of those faiths. Think Linux, common code but different versions with different ideas of implementation. The different denomination can be thought of different branches.

Abraham, whose birth name was Abram, is the eponym of the Abrahamic religions, among which are Judaism, Christianity and Islam. According to both the Hebrew Bible and the Qur'an, through his sons Ishmael and Isaac, Abraham is the forefather of many tribes, namely the Ishmaelites, Israelites, Midianites and Edomites. Abraham was a descendant of Noah's son, Shem. Christians believe that Jesus was a descendant of Abraham through Isaac, and Muslims believe that Muhammad was a descendant of Abraham through Ishmael. Abraham is notable for his advocation and promotion of monotheism
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2012, 12:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I can't understand the viewpoint that they are still going to consider themselves an adherent of a certain religious philosophy, but just pick and choose which things they like and suggest that the stuff they don't like doesn't matter and they are going to continue to act in the manner they desire despite the fact that it's pretty much "cannon" that doing that is sinful.
Philosophy implies something is open to interpretation. Don't you mean dogma?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2012, 01:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
You do realize that people back then were ignorant?
Back then? They still aren't hard to find.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I can't understand the viewpoint that they are still going to consider themselves an adherent of a certain religious philosophy, but just pick and choose which things they like and suggest that the stuff they don't like doesn't matter and they are going to continue to act in the manner they desire despite the fact that it's pretty much "cannon" that doing that is sinful.

I can respect either not partaking, or partaking and choosing to abstain from acting on desires which have been deemed sinful. I can't really grasp the other option as reasonable or rational, and that's the route many on the left seem to choose.
ALL religious people are picking and choosing. You can't be a Christian without doing that since various parts of the bible contradict each other and the history of the church contradicts more of it.

Those on the left who choose to ignore certain parts are smart enough to realise that there has always been a human element to religion and hence there has always been flaws in its practises and thinking. Its funny how those on the right seem to understand this principle when it relates to politics such as the human failures of communism but refuses to consider it when it comes to belief. One would think that the existence of the WBC would be enough to open eyes to the fact that their religion remains to this day open to abuse, irrational hatred and extremist fundamentalism from misguided ministers acting in the name of god.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised given the way that survival of the fittest is freely cited by the right in discussions on free trade regulation but utterly refuted and misunderstood when it comes to biology.


Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I know of no mainstream religious faith that teaches God hates people just because they sin. Everyone sins. The question is whether you choose to make an honest effort to abstain from sinning, or you simply have chosen to ignore the will of the "creator" disrespectfully. Even then, I doubt he "hates" people who chose to continue to sin.
So god makes people gay but they should try really hard not to actually have any gay sex while all the straight people get can married and have all the sex they want? Do you have any rationale for this philosophy? Are they being punished for something? Seems a bit mean.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2012, 05:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
ALL religious people are picking and choosing. You can't be a Christian without doing that since various parts of the bible contradict each other and the history of the church contradicts more of it.
examples please.



So god makes people gay but they should try really hard not to actually have any gay sex while all the straight people get can married and have all the sex they want? Do you have any rationale for this philosophy? Are they being punished for something? Seems a bit mean.
How about Gen. 1:28
And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2012, 06:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
examples please.
Pffft. Try not to make it so easy. Here's the same event mentioned in two different books of the Jewish Bible:

2 Sam. 24:1: And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, “Go number Israel and Judah."

1 Chronicles 21:1: And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to go and number Israel.

So who motivated David, Satan or God?

Don't bother, this is child's play, the contradictions are so incredibly numerous. Of course, also incredibly numerous are the endless "fan-wanking" explanations from believers, who can imagine away every example with creative ad-hoc justifications.

How about Gen. 1:28
So in other words, not getting married and having children is morally the same as being gay? Wonderful, all those monks and nuns love to hear that sh!t.

How's this: Humanity now has dominion over the Earth, so this command has no value today. Sometimes God gives commands that only apply to specific people or specific times, not everyone at all times.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2012, 06:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
You don't know very much about religion then do you?

There is a reason why Jerusalem is the holy city for all three of those faiths. Think Linux, common code but different versions with different ideas of implementation. The different denomination can be thought of different branches.
Of course I know these three religions share some history. But many Muslims and Jews object strenuously that Jesus is the same God they worship. Congrats on completely missing the point.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2012, 06:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Of course I know these three religions share some history. But many Muslims and Jews object strenuously that Jesus is the same God they worship. Congrats on completely missing the point.
You know what brings the 3 of them together, I mean really brings them together. When a Atheist says there is no god. All the squabbling between the 3 is put aside while they focus on the Atheist lol
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2012, 06:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
You know what brings the 3 of them together, I mean really brings them together. When a Atheist says there is no god. All the squabbling between the 3 is put aside while they focus on the Atheist lol
Oh sure, watching the Muslims ignore the Jews so they can deal with atheists is so heartbreaking. Oh wait, that never happened.

This "unified voice against atheism" doesn't exist, except in the minds of some paranoid atheists.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2012, 06:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
examples please.
A List Of Biblical Contradictions
The Thinking Atheist - Bible Contradictions


And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."
How does this explain why god would cause someone to be born gay, thus encouraging them to disobey his wishes and so forcing him to punish them for doing so?
Surely everyone is born innocent (or at least equal since you can't tell if an infant is gay or not)? So if they are also born gay, then what did they do to deserve such punishment? I don't recall reincarnation being popular among Christians....
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2012, 06:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Of course I know these three religions share some history. But many Muslims and Jews object strenuously that Jesus is the same God they worship. Congrats on completely missing the point.
It's not so much that Muslims and Jews don't worship the same God as Christians. The difference boils down to how strict each tradition's tenets are with regard to monotheism. Judaism and Islam are pretty hardcore about it. One God ... no exceptions. Christianity espouses One God with three manifestations. The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit. With Jesus being "The Son". Both Judaism and Islam deny the divinity of Jesus. Judaism traditionally views Jesus as the most influential "false Messiah" to date. Whereas Islam traditionally views Jesus as a Prophet. Both consider Christianity to be polytheistic and the worship of Jesus as Divine to be idolatry. So insofar as a Christian is talking about "The Father" ... then they are on the exact same page with Jews and Muslims. Where they part company is on "The Son" and this rather nebulous concept called "The Holy Spirit". Never mind that the 99 Names of Allah can be considered "manifestations" of God. Never mind that an AngEL can also be considered a "manifestation" of God. Never mind that traditional African religion (including that of Ancient Egypt) is also monotheistic where the various "deities" or "gods" are manifestations of a single Supreme Being. If you can have three ... why not dozens right? I imagine you are well aware of all this but my point here is just to provide a bit of clarification to those who might be under the illusion that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are radically different religions. They are all branches on the same tree. And if their adherents weren't so busy arguing and bickering over doctrine and dogma (especially when NONE of their traditions are as purely "monotheistic" as they claim) they would see that they have far more in common than what sets them apart.

OAW
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2012, 07:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Surely everyone is born innocent .... ?
Not for those who subscribe to the notion of Original Sin.

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Jun 7, 2012 at 07:10 PM. )
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2012, 07:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Not for those who subscribe to the notion of Original Sin.

OAW
Thats why I added the equality part.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2012, 07:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Oh sure, watching the Muslims ignore the Jews so they can deal with atheists is so heartbreaking. Oh wait, that never happened.

This "unified voice against atheism" doesn't exist, except in the minds of some paranoid atheists.
Richard Dawkins would disagree, and just by chance documented it in Jerusalem for his film "Root of All Evil"
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2012, 07:54 PM
 
^^^

I personally find militant atheists like Richard Dawkins to be just as insufferable as religious fundamentalists. But maybe that's just me.

OAW
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2012, 08:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Richard Dawkins would disagree, and just by chance documented it in Jerusalem for his film "Root of All Evil"
If you say so. I don't follow writers like Dawkins since I don't need anyone to tell me how to be an atheist.

While the three "abrahamic" religions might agree that atheists are untrustworthy evil-doers, I don't see them getting together to oppress me. They can and will do that without needing to collaborate or set aside differences.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2012, 08:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
It's not so much that Muslims and Jews don't worship the same God as Christians. The difference boils down to how strict each tradition's tenets are with regard to monotheism. Judaism and Islam are pretty hardcore about it. One God ... no exceptions.
Ok, my fundamental point was that "merging" the Abrahamic god with Jesus really makes the Christian god a completely different concept in the eyes of many Muslims and Jews. I mean, if I started a new religion that merged Yahweh with Heracles, the resulting concept is a completely different concept than just Yahweh. Just because you share a common history doesn't mean you share a common conception.

Christianity espouses One God with three manifestations.
You move into unsteady ground with that assertion. Most Christian theologians would call that "modalism," which they reject. The "personhood" stuff in the trinity is a real landmine. It's almost impossible to talk about it without using the church-approved language, which doesn't explain anything.

So insofar as a Christian is talking about "The Father" ... then they are on the exact same page with Jews and Muslims.
Maybe.

In the Orthodox tradition, they talk about the "hypostases" of God, that is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. "God" is unknowable, so God makes himself known via these three (and only three) hypostases. So "God" is unknowable, but "God the Father" is knowable. So does the Jewish or Muslim conception of God equate with the unknowable God, or the hypostatic God the Father person?

Never mind that the 99 Names of Allah can be considered "manifestations" of God. Never mind that an AngEL can also be considered a "manifestation" of God.
This is why Christian theologians are adverse to language like "manifestation." They don't disagree that angels can be viewed as manifestations (or emanations) of God, but Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not.

Never mind that traditional African religion (including that of Ancient Egypt) is also monotheistic where the various "deities" or "gods" are manifestations of a single Supreme Being.
I've heard this theory, but I don't buy it, particularly the Egyptian angle. This sounds like taking distinctive late-antiquity Hindu theology and reading into other cultures anachronistically.

I imagine you are well aware of all this but my point here is just to provide a bit of clarification to those who might be under the illusion that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are radically different religions. They are all branches on the same tree. And if their adherents weren't so busy arguing and bickering over doctrine and dogma (especially when NONE of their traditions are as purely "monotheistic" as they claim) they would see that they have far more in common than what sets them apart.
Christianity has already walked back a great deal in the last 200 years. The Jewish aspect is celebrated by virtually everyone in a way that would have made Martin Luther's spleen burst.

But when talking about "branches on a tree," we are talking about shared history, not shared theology. There are simply too many conceptual barriers to get much closer than that. When you start asserting that the Christian god is "essentially the same" as the Jewish god or the Muslim god, you start wiping away essential theological elements and create a bland, meaningless "commonality" that actually merits nothing.

So yes, the Christians follow the God of the Jews, but they believe a lot of things about that god which is make him utterly unlike the God of the Jews as the Jews themselves see him. That fact has to be acknowledged.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2012, 10:20 PM
 
I must admit, when it comes to the Trinity, I prefer the medieval interpretation.

"God is beyond your understanding, so don't bother trying."

Beyond that though, medieval theology tends to make me nauseated.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2012, 10:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
If you say so. I don't follow writers like Dawkins since I don't need anyone to tell me how to be an atheist.

While the three "abrahamic" religions might agree that atheists are untrustworthy evil-doers, I don't see them getting together to oppress me. They can and will do that without needing to collaborate or set aside differences.
Know any Jews or Muslims? Ask them what they hate most, other Jews or Muslims or Atheists and ask them to be honest.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2012, 11:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
You do realize that the "creator" that all the religions you mentioned worship isn't a different entity, right? THey all pretty much follow the teachings of a single deity and that for the most part, all of those faiths condemn homosexual behavior as sinful?

Our country was founded on the notion that there is a God, the majority of our citizens believes in the "God of Abraham" worshiped by Christians, Jews and Muslims, and that God's "word" is that heterosexual relations are not equal to homosexual relations. It would seem odd for a country based on the notion that all rights are given by an entity who most people believe does not find homosexuality and heterosexuality equals, to find that they should be treated as such as a right. Especially when logically, and rationally, they are only equal in the emotions involved and no other real significant societal interest.
You do realize that same "creator" also specified that women be subservient to men? For a country that you think is based on the notion that all rights are given by an entity who didn't seem to feel that women had any rights that weren't granted by their men, it seemed to be able to eventually to get over that and grant women rights that weren't granted by the "God of Abraham". If your nation can accomplish that deviation from the teachings of the "God of Abraham", I'm certain it can accomplish others.

Originally Posted by the "God of Abraham"
1 Corinthians 14:34-36
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Ephesians 5:22-24
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Titus 2:4-5
Teach the young women to be ... obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

1 Peter 3:1
Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands.

1 Timothy 2:11-15
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2012, 11:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
I think a great many Jews and Muslims would object to the notion that the god Jesus is the same god they worship.
Jesus is not the "God" worshipped by Christians. He is considered one with God, yet his "son." He makes up part of God, but this IS an area where Muslims and Jews do disagree. "YHWH", is the "Father" worshiped by Christians, Jews and Muslims. He is the one that gave us the moral codes from the Old Testament. According to Christians, Jesus came to fill the prophecy of the "new covenant" which did away with many of the old ways and ceremonial law, while keeping the same moral code. Sin is still sin, but Jesus's blood was shed and there was no more need for the harsh, brutal sentences for breaking God's law.

Sigh. Jefferson scrawled that in to pander to the religious people of his time. It really is the most effective example of political pandering in history, since it's still working today.
Jefferson was just one guy. We didn't create the "United States of Jefferson." He "scrawled that in" because it was a principle supported by the majority.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2012, 12:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
You do realize that same "creator" also specified that women be subservient to men? For a country that you think is based on the notion that all rights are given by an entity who didn't seem to feel that women had any rights that weren't granted by their men, it seemed to be able to eventually to get over that and grant women rights that weren't granted by the "God of Abraham". If your nation can accomplish that deviation from the teachings of the "God of Abraham", I'm certain it can accomplish others.
One can bring up this cherry-picking policy a million times, but it apparently will never dissuade the intellectually lazy (or perhaps, more accurately, the intellectually devious), as they're not really interested in facts, but rather finding ways to self-justify a belief they've already cemented into their hard heads.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2012, 12:13 AM
 
Ether way, all 3 of the major religions have similar positions in regards to recognizing marriage, attitude towards gays and gay marriage. Its because they all stem from a common background.

Though I do wonder if they recognize marriage as valid in other cultures like say Hindu's
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2012, 12:21 AM
 
if there were gay people back in the bible's time, doesn't that show "gayness" is part of the human condition?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2012, 06:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Though I do wonder if they recognize marriage as valid in other cultures like say Hindu's
I already posed this question to Stupendousman. He has yet to answer it.

On the 'unified voice against atheism', I think it does exist. I don't think its much more than that though. The collaboration doesn't go far beyond debate. Stupendousman already cited Jews and Muslims to back his opinions on marriage a couple of pages back. Its a minor example but its an example.

I don't think its such a stretch either. Its perfectly possible to respect someone and hate them at the same time. I think people of faith respect that other people have faith too. I suspect they take Dawkins' stance on the nature of it "They are only _insert religion_ because they were born to _insert religion_ families/in _insert religion_ countries so to some extent its not their fault" which of course then requires "That logic doesn't apply to me because my religion is the right one."

Religious people have an extraordinary distrust of atheists. A deep-seated inability to comprehend how someone can function in life without a religion. Its not a position they can respect for the most part, and the hatred of course comes from fear. Partly fear because they don't understand them, partly because they think some of their flock will be tempted by their ideas and partly that their general influence will be undermined.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2012, 12:49 PM
 
All been answered many times over.
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2012, 12:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
if there were gay people back in the bible's time, doesn't that show "gayness" is part of the human condition?
All part of our fallen nature as the result of original sin.
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2012, 12:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
I personally find militant atheists like Richard Dawkins to be just as insufferable as religious fundamentalists. But maybe that's just me.
No, it makes sense. Any type of overly aggressive position like that is just irritating to listen to.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
I must admit, when it comes to the Trinity, I prefer the medieval interpretation.

"God is beyond your understanding, so don't bother trying."
Sounds like a different way of saying "It doesn't make any sense so it's best not to think about it."
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2012, 02:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Sounds like a different way of saying "It doesn't make any sense so it's best not to think about it."
Sin of pride you think yourself able to better understand better than your fellow man.

Unless you confess this and receive absolution, you've just earned yourself a one-way ticket to hell.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2012, 02:29 PM
 
I really have to wonder how much the religious element plays into hatred of gay people. It feels like at times it is the source of it all. Alot of the loudest haters of gay anything tend to be very religious people on both ends of the political spectrum.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2012, 02:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
I really have to wonder how much the religious element plays into hatred of gay people. It feels like at times it is the source of it all. Alot of the loudest haters of gay anything tend to be very religious people on both ends of the political spectrum.
Between the religious and the closeted, I'd say you have about 99% of the gay hatred covered.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2012, 03:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
All been answered many times over.
I can't imagine how without picking and choosing.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2012, 07:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
All part of our fallen nature as the result of original sin.
if we all have this so-called original sin, then who are we to judge others?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2012, 08:06 PM
 
You're not doing the judgement, God is.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2012, 09:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
You're not doing the judgement, God is.
then why did god make them gay?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2012, 09:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
All part of our fallen nature as the result of original sin.
Which would *also* have been created by a Creator that created everything.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2012, 09:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
then why did god make them gay?
It depends on how fire and brimstone you like your theology.

At the medieval end of the scale, he didn't. Adam put the sin in us. Humans were a perfect creation previous to that point.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2012, 10:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
It depends on how fire and brimstone you like your theology.

At the medieval end of the scale, he didn't. Adam put the sin in us. Humans were a perfect creation previous to that point.
ok how about let god deal with them in the end?

edit: also, if god only created "perfect" people and mankind created gay people...does that mean man is as powerful as god? just asking in general
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2012, 02:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Which would *also* have been created by a Creator that created everything.
God didn't create everything.

For instance, the gods he forbids the Jews from worshipping weren't created by him.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2012, 02:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
if we all have this so-called original sin, then who are we to judge others?
We aren't and we're told not to.

Not that I believe in original sin, it's a crock.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2012, 02:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
edit: also, if god only created "perfect" people and mankind created gay people...does that mean man is as powerful as god? just asking in general
I guess it depends upon whether you see the destruction of God's master plan as an act of creation or not.

Edit: also, it wasn't Adam and Eve's idea to eat the fruit anyway.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:42 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2