[Closed] God and the Afterlife......?

With very few exceptions this thread is an astonishing morass of ignorance. On both sides.

The main exception being what FeeFoo said above, on this page. The best post of the thread.

Would you respect my universe view quoted above or is it stupid?

Absolutely Junky. I think it's more important to respect the fact that people have and can have differing views than what the views themselves are.

joolsburger - Member
Whenever I hear the live and let live line I think of this

I don't belong to a religion and would say that tolerance is one of my key values, I can see where you are coming from.

Yes, that rings a bell junkyard. I don't recall who though.

FeeFoo - Member
It seems that people generally prefer an absolute.
That's why the religious are pretty unshakeable and the same goes for the atheists.
It's not an intelligent state to be in, no matter which end of the spectrum you place yourself.
The cliche that having an open mind means you'll believe anything is absurd. It just means you have sufficient confidence to have no need of an absolute position to feel secure.

Amen. I think that dogma and extremism are pretty valueless - no matter in what sphere.

I don't recall who though.

kja78

There is either a god or there is not a god and one is true and one is false. I am not sure why you would be that uncertain about the nature of reality.

Offence is a very subjective subject though. You are stating that a particular point of view is offensive as a fact. It may be offensive to you but not to someone else. Some people go out of their way to be offended by anything, other people don't.

I think it's more important to respect the fact that people have and can have differing views than what the views themselves are.

So, if condemning homosexuals and demeaning women [i]isn't[/i] the crux of Christianity (and does this also mean they're not all insistent that the world was created in a literal six days?), what is its main point?

I would prefer to hear the views of someone who knows what they're talking about, rather than those people who seem completely fixated on one or two subjects that the religion itself apparently doesn't seem to think are that important.

EDIT A general query, not a direct reply to the post above.

Good recall ernie!

Flounces anyway 😉

That was easier than I thought...

So, if condemning homosexuals and demeaning women isn't the crux of Christianity

There are a lot of people on here desperate for that to be the case. Sadly for them however it isn't. It's amazing how utterly fixated some people are with the homosexuality thing and a few lines in the Bible. It's like they really, really want someone from the CoE to say all gays should be burned alive. Sorry to disapoint you, but if you were to turn up at a church and say "Hi, I'm gay" you'd be welcomed with open arms. I've never met a Christian person in my life who gives two hoots what someone's sexuality is.

And if Christianity is so demeaning to women why do so many women attend church? Again, wanting something to be true because it suits your argument dosn't actually make it so.

Your prevaricating again and trying to debate me rather than the issue now. Finding the biblical view that homosexuality is an abomination punishable by death is not really searching for offence it just is offensive unless of course you think its ok to kill folk you disagree with in which case its brilliant and to be respected.

You're confusing what is written in the Bible with what the vast majority of Christian people believe. I've never met anyone who believes that homosexuality is an abomination punishable by death. I've met plenty people however who, for some reason, desperately want Christians to actually believe it.

So, if condemning homosexuals and demeaning women isn't the crux of Christianity

Yeah but the bible can be interpreted to suit your agenda, and a few words written a very long time ago in an ancient language can be taken out of context to prove your point, see 5thElefant's posts for example.

Here's the thread where kja78 explains things from his perspective :

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/anyone-read-the-bible/page/4#post-4848695

And here's some Catholics who don't appear to be 'on message' :

[url= http://www.sohomasses.com/ ]Welcome from the LGBT Catholics Westminster Pastoral Council. Our community is welcoming and open to all Catholics, with an active fellowship of many lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered Catholics, as well as their parents, families and friends.[/url]

The best post of the thread

Personally I thought gonefishin's comment about falsifiability was the most pertinent of the whole thread. But if we followed that then we couldn't have an argument which is what we're all here for isn't it?

some views are just irrational unevidenced gibberish

In your opinion. Other folk are more open minded. If you'd told an ancient Roman about the Internet he have thought you were talking gibberish.

So, if condemning homosexuals and demeaning women isn't the crux of Christianity (and does this also mean they're not all insistent that the world was created in a literal six days?), what is its main point?

You're confusing what is written in the Bible with what the vast majority of Christian people believe

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

i think the roman would ask me for proof - have they manged to get in the last 2000 years for god?

You're confusing what is written in the Bible with what the vast majority of Christian people believe.

How pick n mix can you be with religion? I seem to recall there's quite a few religious types who say you're not allowed to. Also if so many believers disagree with those nasty homophobic/sexist (amongst others, that birth control bit for eg.) sections of their chosen religion why haven't the leaders listened to their flock and officially repealed those bits?

I've never met a Christian person in my life who gives two hoots what someone's sexuality is.

Here's the thread where kja78 explains things from his perspective

His gist seems to be that we should consider what's written in context. Seems sensible.

So the leaders of all the christian denominations which don't call for the death sentence for homosexuality are wrong ? And Junkyard is right in how the bible should be interpreted ? Well that makes sense.

God it pretty clear unless you think is open to interpretation.

Seems pretty clear. But I think most christians are actually pretty nice, and they'd see the above and probably think "that's a bit of a bad thing to do, I don't think we'll bother"

It's a book that was written years ago, it's not an instruction manual for life. If people take positive things from it then that's fine by me,.

Are you asking me? I dunno 🙂 I'm still trying to work out who thinks what, I'm not answering questions!

Were you asking me whether I was asking you ? If so no, I was asking Junkyard. Although it was a rhetorical question so I wasn't really asking anyone.

Me? Yes. Someone else, I dunno? What?

I'm off to bed, my 'adorable' toddler had me up at 5 this morning to watch Horrid Henry and I'm spent.

So the leaders of all the christian denominations which don't call for the death sentence for homosexuality are wrong ?

I'm off to bed, my 'adorable' toddler had me up at 5 this morning to watch Horrid Henry and I'm spent.

i prefer to respect the right ones and disrespect the wrong ones....see also racism.

I was speaking of views related to religion, spirituality and atheism. Not all views Junky.

I am not really sure how else you can interpret that and its not my opinion it is what is written.
I agree that not all religious folk/churches do follow it but i dont think there is much wriggle room as it seems pretty unambiguous and not really open to debate or interpretation

So why are you all so obsessed with what was written in Leviticus? Assuming you think that all Christians must, by default, believe all gay people should be put to death because of a few lines, why do you not quote all the other, far more frequent, bits of the Bible, which state far more positive messages? It often seems to me that it isn't Christians who are worked up about homosexuality, it's the people who are atheist, or at least a vociferous minority.

All the anger, rage, hatred and abuse on here seems to come from just one side of the debate. It doesn't bother or offend me in the least, but it would be great to see more open mindedness. In centuries gone by religion was very guilty of dogmatic intolerance. Today that seems to have flipped 180 degrees.

I am not really sure how else you can interpret that and its not my opinion it is what is written.
I agree that not all religious folk/churches do follow it but i dont think there is much wriggle room as it seems pretty unambiguous and not really open to debate or intepretation

A fair point, but presumably you must also accept that what is written about having love and respect for all your fellow mankind is also not open to debate or interpretation? And there is far more of that in the Bible than a few lines in one book.

I agree that not all religious folk/churches do follow it...

Never mind about "not all", name me one leader of a christian denomination which interprets the bible the way you do, ie, that homosexuals should be put to death.

You're saying, for example, that the Archbishop of Canterbury is wrong in his interpretation of the bible, but that you on the other hand have the correct interpretation.

Let's not decide on what Christians believe based on what [i]you think[/i] they should believe, and instead let's focus on what they say they believe.

So why are you all so obsessed with what was written in Leviticus?

it isn't Christians who are worked up about homosexuality

it would be great to see more open mindedness

HH The movie?

That's the one. Gonna be a roooock star................

he's on FaceJazz.

[img] [/img]

name me one leader of a christian denomination which interprets the bible the way you do ?

you must also accept that what is written about having love and respect for all your fellow mankind is also not open to debate or interpretation? And there is far more of that in the Bible than a few lines in one book.

“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword

Let's not decide on what Christians believe based on what you think they should believe, and instead let's focus on what they say they believe.

Why don't we just read the books, and sod 'interpretation'? Oh that's right, because the books are both full of 'murder non-believer' type stuff, and you'd all rather pretend that didn't exist.

but if you were to turn up at a church and say "Hi, I'm gay" you'd be welcomed with open arms. I've never met a Christian person in my life who gives two hoots what someone's sexuality is.

I have.
We had a pretty devout Christian at work who when he started working for us was a woman. His church pretty much disowned him when he changed gender. Most of the people he assumed were his Christian friends there turned up to be somewhat fickle on his change of sex. Now happily married to his long standing female partner.

Religion = be nice or we wont let you play on a cloud - unless you say sorry, in which case do whatever you like and then we'll let you off anyway... Once we've rid you of the nastiness you were born with naturally!

I don't need too be threatened by a deity to act in a reasonable way.

“Either God can do nothing to stop catastrophes like this, or he doesn’t care to, or he doesn’t exist.
God is either impotent, evil, or imaginary. Take your pick, and choose wisely."

You can google if you like I am sur eyou will get some hits.

OK, you're being deliberately stupid. You know full well that there isn't a christian leader in the world, by that I mean catholic, anglican, orthodox, eastern, etc, which calls for the death sentence to be imposed on homosexuals.

TBH it was pretty stupid of me to engage you, and on a thread about religion no less. I should have known better - there's no excuse really.

Why don't we just read the books, and sod 'interpretation'? Oh that's right, because the books are both full of 'murder non-believer' type stuff, and you'd all rather pretend that didn't exist.

Are you really suggesting taking every verse or chapter literally, without looking at the context (who it was said by, to who, when, where)?

So, taking a completely innocuous verse that doesn't contain anything offensive. This one for example... '[i]But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him.'[/i] Are you saying that the only correct interpretation of that is that a man from Samaria passed by another man and took pity on him?

Ernie, it took you 6 pages!!!! 😉

Anyway in the words of Dave Allen, "Good night, thank you, and may your God go with you."

you're being deliberately stupid

What by quoting the bible in a religious debate 😕
Do you think you could forgive me the stupidity ?
Perhaps it was by agreeing repeatedly that many do not follow that teaching?

fwiw I found a uk hit on page one and you might want to have a look at Uganda as well then again you may just want to call me deliberately stupid

Because their thoughts often lead to actions, and homophobia, subjugation of woman, torturing of animals, and child genital mutilation are all evil

Good grief, that is not a very bright post I'm afraid.

Belief in God does not necessarily mean following religious doctrine, or being Muslim, Christian etc
Belief in God does not necessarily mean believing in creationism or intelligent design
Belief in God does not necessarily mean believing in an afterlife
Belief in God does not even include the belief that God created the universe at all.
Belief in God does not necessarily mean you are responsible for wars, genocide, and evil; and does not mean you are homophibic and mysoginistic

Let's not get this stuff all mixed up, otherwise your arguments are weak.

Surely building up of the heavier elements is an increase in entropy?

No. Atomic nuclei weigh less than their constituent parts, because some of the mass is converted to binding energy. Iron and nickel have the highest binding energy per nucleon which means they are the most stable and can be considered the lowest potential energy configuration. So large atoms splitting, or small ones combining could be an increase in entropy.

I think, anyway - never really understood entropy properly.

What by quoting the bible in a religious debate 😕

Yes of course, you know that is exactly what I meant.....you're not being stupid at all.

You really come across as an arrogant self-righteous boor on these threads, as you sit in high judgement of others. And yet I'm sure the irony of how defensive you can be of your weirdo vegan views and lifestyle, which most normal sensible sane people reject, is lost on you.