Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: God's Gays


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: God's Gays Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: God's Gays - 10/4/2009 11:48:31 PM   
Esinn


Posts: 886
Joined: 6/23/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TurboJugend

I am still trying to process all what you said..it is a lott, but

quote:

He said if God created us and we are to consider him like a Father and we are his children, where is the guidance ?

Some believe in a mixture of  God's creation and evolution.
Meaning God created the world..and then left to have evolution take over.
Would explain why he doesn't guide.

quote:

The book says Man should not lay with Man, but what about Woman with Woman.

Woman had a submissive role then....not important ( sorry ladies). And most male likes 2 females together...lol

quote:

My God is better than your God.


Impossible. There is only one.
lol





I did not read the op but I find the comments from Turbo to be disturbing. Those who believe in evolution/creation do so by necessity. This absolute BS is necessary because any person who does not wish to be marginalized by the majority has been slammed into the corner by the evidence(facts) of evolution. This is not a savvy theist who says this rather it is a scared person painted and handcuffed in the corner. God has not presented a shred of modern evidence to remotely suggest he is responsible for evolution. Although this science might have existed a little before Darwin it is less than 300 years old. Christians(mostly catholics I would venture) are forced to accept evolution if they wish to be taken seriously. The options is to admit their god is flawed or dig deep for BS. Modern day BS presented by a theist that proclaims to be savvy is their god(not yours) is responsible for both evolution and creation. This simple fact clearly violates an established and documented 2,000 year old view of judeao religions: Their god(not yours) created everything in it's present form using magic.

Modern science has pushed ancient religion so far into the dark ages most people, even the most dedicated object to: Talking snakes/donkies, man eating fish, zombies, the right to own slaves, the right to kill someone for working on the sabath or the right to kill homosexuals. However, the theists wishes to hold onto their fairytale. This is a story, that is a mistranslation, that is not true, this is how it was or this is an interpretation and this(what I say) is what it means.

Seriously what kind of a pathetic god uses evolution to create his masterpiece? When he pushed evolution into action what did he do for the next 15billion years? What the hell did he do for the 100trillion before that? But, this is the last shadow for the theist to hide in: Suggest his god is responsible.

I am not sure of your exact position here. It is not really of concern either. I am just attacking the evolution/creationism thing.

Now you did say there is only one god.
How do you know this? Is this one god the one you believe in? It is not the one literally billions of others believe in. They will tell you only their god is real all others false, this "1" you speak of too. What information are you privy to 'they' are not?

< Message edited by Esinn -- 10/4/2009 11:50:10 PM >

_____________________________

Let's break the law

(in reply to TurboJugend)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: God's Gays - 10/5/2009 12:05:39 AM   
Esinn


Posts: 886
Joined: 6/23/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
I grow tired of watching the religious bashers have at it because a piece of literature that was written over 2000 years ago.. AND that was badly translated... is STILL being used as a battering ram against people who believe in a faith.

It was badly translated in your opinion another translator perhaps thinks it was translated perfectly, this is the problem with the bible and always will be. People quote it when it is convenient to them and dismiss it when it isn't. A pointless document it is therefore. A book with blank pages is just as useful: you can fill them in as you go depending on what you decide is right.



BS

Modern scholarship clearly agrees with few exceptions that the bible was horribly mistranslated - amongst other things. The problem is not amongst modern scholars(even ancient). The problem is, like all 'niche market scholarship', it has not reached the mainstream theist, the theist accepts their hold text on face value not put forth the effort to investigate the claims or their theism is intentionally held away from such scholarship.

Edit:
I understand you said the bible was without meaning. However, the fact modern day theists do not agree or understand their holy books have far too many mistranslations in in them to be a reliable source does not wipe the slate clean of the fact mistranslations exist
:P

< Message edited by Esinn -- 10/5/2009 12:14:02 AM >

_____________________________

Let's break the law

(in reply to SL4V3M4YB3)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: God's Gays - 10/5/2009 12:18:29 AM   
HatesParisHilton


Posts: 3513
Joined: 12/27/2006
Status: offline 		heh heheh heh...

in support of my God Beloved GayMen... 

in some circles "splinter" is a nickname, for a cock.

guess the size (lack of) and guess the width (lack of)...

it's similar to another nickname:  "breadstick"

so let's be careful with "splinter-groups", folks!

bwahhh haww hawww!

< Message edited by HatesParisHilton -- 10/5/2009 12:44:59 AM >

_____________________________

I am (now) "Hiltie", hear me ROARRRRR! And have a cuffy cake, they're nice.

(in reply to SpinnerofTales)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: God's Gays - 10/5/2009 4:13:57 AM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Esinn
Modern scholarship clearly agrees with few exceptions that the bible was horribly mistranslated - amongst other things. The problem is not amongst modern scholars (even ancient). The problem is, like all 'niche market scholarship', it has not reached the mainstream theist, the theist accepts their hold text on face value not put forth the effort to investigate the claims or their theism is intentionally held away from such scholarship.

I am not going to learn Hebrew or Aramaic or whatever. I trust that the scholars that have do their job. The only exception I make is when I suspect that their translation / interpretation is at fault: then I will investigate in depth. This I do whatever the (scientific) subject is.

(in reply to Esinn)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: God's Gays - 10/5/2009 4:39:32 AM   
HatesParisHilton


Posts: 3513
Joined: 12/27/2006
Status: offline 		of course, email means electronic mail.

esinn would mean (misspelt) electronic sin.

thus esinn would probably not have any dog in your fight, rule.

or would have a doberman ala The Omen that he'd want to see devour your poodle as bloodily as possible.

just sayin'.

< Message edited by HatesParisHilton -- 10/5/2009 4:41:43 AM >

_____________________________

I am (now) "Hiltie", hear me ROARRRRR! And have a cuffy cake, they're nice.

(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: God's Gays - 10/5/2009 5:04:12 AM   
Justme696


Posts: 3236
Joined: 1/7/2008
From: Royal kingdom of the Netherlands
Status: offline 		Disturbing?

Neah..just my thoughts. You can agree or disagree.
That is why forums are there.

the use of "BS" made me stop reading btw.
Because you disgree, doesn'tmean others talk bullshit. It is just a sad attempt to look right.

< Message edited by Justme696 -- 10/5/2009 5:06:09 AM >

_____________________________

~Been there, done that, got the t-shirt

(in reply to Esinn)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: God's Gays - 10/5/2009 5:13:31 AM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Esinn
Those who believe in evolution/creation do so by necessity. This absolute BS is necessary because any person who does not wish to be marginalized by the majority has been slammed into the corner by the evidence(facts) of evolution.
God has not presented a shred of modern evidence to remotely suggest he is responsible for evolution. Although this science might have existed a little before Darwin it is less than 300 years old. Christians (mostly catholics I would venture) are forced to accept evolution if they wish to be taken seriously. The options is to admit their god is flawed or dig deep for BS. Modern day BS presented by a theist that proclaims to be savvy is their god(not yours) is responsible for both evolution and creation. This simple fact clearly violates an established and documented 2,000 year old view of judeao religions: Their god(not yours) created everything in it's present form using magic.

Theology evolves. The incarnate gods change their opinions when presented with new facts and experiences. Surely the Creator (and his predecessors) and his successors created everything by using magic - and the Divine complied, making it real. It would be like me saying to an engineer "I want light", knowing nothing about electricity nor physics, and him presenting me with a light bulb. Of course the Divine created the evolution algorithm - and Darwin was its prophet, yes: perhaps even its creator. If so, then factually it is correct that evolution has occurred during the past 3.8 billion years, whereas theologically it is correct that Darwin created it magically only 160 years ago.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Esinn
Modern science has pushed ancient religion so far into the dark ages most people, even the most dedicated object to: Talking snakes/donkies, man eating fish, zombies, the right to own slaves, the right to kill someone for working on the sabath or the right to kill homosexuals. However, the theists wishes to hold onto their fairytale. This is a story, that is a mistranslation, that is not true, this is how it was or this is an interpretation and this(what I say) is what it means.

Well, obviously there are donkies that are animals and donkies that talk; everybody (ought to) know(s) that.
As for the snake, I presume that you are referring to that business with Eve? I assume that the snake speaking was allegorical or in any case not true.
Man eating fish? Sharks? Or are you referring to the few cases known from folklore in which a fish did swallow a human? (I know about one case in Japan; the monster washed up dead on the shore of the lake; presumably the snack was too big for its digestion. I also vaguely recall a second case.)
Zombies are Haïtian; they involved poisoning someone (often a criminal) by a witch doctor.
The right to own slaves: forced labor is still alive and well in USA prisons
The right to kill someone for working on the sabath: is what Jews do; I have never heard of a single case of Christians killing another person for doing so.
The right to kill homosexuals: again, this is what Jews do. (Though I do recall that there may have been persecutions of homosexuals in The Netherlands some centuries ago; I could not find a reference, though.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Esinn
Seriously what kind of a pathetic god uses evolution to create his masterpiece? When he pushed evolution into action what did he do for the next 15billion years? What the hell did he do for the 100trillion before that? But, this is the last shadow for the theist to hide in: Suggest his god is responsible.

A very smart Divine that created its masterpiece in such a way that it would improve on itself by the process of evolution through natural selection (and its various forms).

The Divine, being 'outside' our universe, is not limited by time as we know it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Esinn
Now you did say there is only one god.
How do you know this? Is this one god the one you believe in? It is not the one literally billions of others believe in. They will tell you only their god is real all others false, this "1" you speak of too. What information are you privy to 'they' are not?

There is the Divine and there are the incarnate gods, and there is the perception of the Divine and the perception of one or more of the incarnate gods. Fact and perception are two different things.

There is only one Divine and there have been (and perhaps still are) various incarnate gods. Theologically, we may or indeed must, extrapolate the words of the incarnate gods to the Divine. It is known from Egyptian mythology that the Creator created the other incarnate gods and man because he was lonely. Extrapolated to the Divine, this implies that there is only one Divine.

(in reply to Esinn)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: God's Gays - 10/5/2009 5:18:04 AM   
HatesParisHilton


Posts: 3513
Joined: 12/27/2006
Status: offline 		Justme's post ended up in the wrong thread, God hates him!  bwahh hawww hawww!

_____________________________

I am (now) "Hiltie", hear me ROARRRRR! And have a cuffy cake, they're nice.

(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: God's Gays - 10/5/2009 5:23:59 AM   
Justme696


Posts: 3236
Joined: 1/7/2008
From: Royal kingdom of the Netherlands
Status: offline 		Where should it have been?  lol
( I was TJ...)

_____________________________

~Been there, done that, got the t-shirt

(in reply to HatesParisHilton)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: God's Gays - 10/5/2009 5:27:11 AM   
HatesParisHilton


Posts: 3513
Joined: 12/27/2006
Status: offline 		LOL, sorry, it just left me an openning for a joke.  couldn't resist...

good pic, btw!

God likes a good pic!

_____________________________

I am (now) "Hiltie", hear me ROARRRRR! And have a cuffy cake, they're nice.

(in reply to Justme696)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: God's Gays - 10/5/2009 5:32:26 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO your god?

DAMMIT!!! i lost the bet!!! unless your name is george

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to HatesParisHilton)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: God's Gays - 10/5/2009 5:40:55 AM   
Justme696


Posts: 3236
Joined: 1/7/2008
From: Royal kingdom of the Netherlands
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HatesParisHilton

LOL, sorry, it just left me an openning for a joke.  couldn't resist...

good pic, btw!

God likes a good pic!


still hope on a spot in heaven for me?

thank you

_____________________________

~Been there, done that, got the t-shirt

(in reply to HatesParisHilton)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: God's Gays - 10/5/2009 5:51:21 AM   
zephyrkajira


Posts: 238
Joined: 8/15/2009
Status: offline 		Nope Justme....but then none of us are going to heaven either so you are in good company 

_____________________________

Owned and operated by Maggie the kitten

Dyslexics UNTIE!!!!!!

(in reply to Justme696)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: God's Gays - 10/5/2009 6:01:53 AM   
pahunkboy


Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline 		I have heat- food and a roof.

So- yes- there is a god.

Don't blame god.   The power is with in you to chart your life.

Lets not get me started on the black nobility- the crown, the pope.
or the Immunatti-


(in reply to zephyrkajira)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: God's Gays - 10/5/2009 6:07:25 AM   
HatesParisHilton


Posts: 3513
Joined: 12/27/2006
Status: offline 		food fight for heaven!

messiest person at the end gets to sit next to (saint of your choice)!

_____________________________

I am (now) "Hiltie", hear me ROARRRRR! And have a cuffy cake, they're nice.

(in reply to pahunkboy)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: God's Gays - 10/5/2009 6:25:25 AM   
SL4V3M4YB3


Posts: 3506
Joined: 12/20/2007
From: S.E. London U.K.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Esinn
BS

Modern scholarship clearly agrees with few exceptions that the bible was horribly mistranslated - amongst other things. The problem is not amongst modern scholars(even ancient). The problem is, like all 'niche market scholarship', it has not reached the mainstream theist, the theist accepts their hold text on face value not put forth the effort to investigate the claims or their theism is intentionally held away from such scholarship.

Edit:
I understand you said the bible was without meaning. However, the fact modern day theists do not agree or understand their holy books have far too many mistranslations in in them to be a reliable source does not wipe the slate clean of the fact mistranslations exist
:P

I find this conversation akin to an English teacher telling me what Shakespeare meant by each line he wrote in old English. The interpretation you take from such things (when you are ignorant of the history of language) is your own ultimately. English professors may agree amongst themselves what the message to be derived is but a text in popular circulation will mean many different things to many different people. As long as the man in the street interprets something as he wishes it is really academic what the actual message is or when in history the true message from the bible came through more clearly (all of those things would be personal opinions based on personal interpretations).

There is something quite funny about people supposedly doing the work of god but not being able to write an unambiguous text for future generations even though they would be aware future generations would have to find meaning in it most, you'd think they'd concentrate on the basics. I've given this some thought (even I a non theologian can see the best way to outline something that can't be misinterpreted) it has to be short and concise. The more stories you tell the more chance you have that one of the stories told will contradict one of the other stories. The longer the stories are the more chance people will focus on the wrong parts of the stories as being the central message.

A true work of god would be far shorter. Most of us today could recount all the stories in the bible and what was considered the central message for each in a much shorter way. Information wise you can't really compress something into a shorter version to maintain the whole picture so therefore by that logic nobody should be asking others what the bible means. I'm not going to read the bible because space in my brain is finite so I have to ask others what it means or what the main points are; therein lies the problem. Yes you can compress a jpeg image but only if you accept some of the information you can live without but if you decide every pixel should be represented with the truth of what it is and not a best guess based on what the other pixels around it are then you must take the original amount of information as a whole and not reduce it at all. The credibility of theology as a whole relies on the fact some people are more willing to fill up their entire brains with religious texts and nobody else can really question them because only they have the whole version.

So there is a question here: How can I dismiss the bible if I've never read it all?
Ans. I like most people verify parts of a piece of work to decide whether or not it is worth committing to memory based on:
1) Can it benefit me in lieu of other information I may need in that brain space?
2) Can I understand what the author meant and learn from it?
3) Does it come from a good source who has a previous record in this subject or other subjects where they are recognised?
4) Is it something I am curious about?

These are the things off of the top of my head as to why I would consider reading or committing any document to memory. Given that in the case of the bible all of these answers would be 'no' apart from perhaps the last one, why would I study it just to prove someone else has the wrong interpretation? I can highlight the same by pointing out the various splits in the Church that have occurred because of convenient interpretation.

I don't really agree much with the policies of the Catholic church but you have to respect the fact social pressure doesn't often force them to look at how else this paragraph or others could be interpreted. Others that do simply lack credibility for me because on the one hand they are telling us how we should live but then revising that based on how able they are to reinterpret the text to meet modern social pressures that probably didn't exist when the bible was first written.

My simple conclusions are that as long as you are not harming anyone else live as you please and ignore the bible and other religious texts because everyone else is interpreting them as they wish anyway. Also there is no real proof what a god may care about.


_____________________________

Memory Lane...been there done that.

(in reply to Esinn)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: God's Gays - 10/5/2009 6:32:12 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		I direct your attention to this post

http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=2834453

The rest of your arguments seem to be directed more at yourself that anyone else. Perhaps you are trying to convince yourself that it doesnt matter. I read your posts here and simply smile. You dont have the ability to change my opinion on this subject. Far smarter men have delved into this issue.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to SL4V3M4YB3)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: God's Gays - 10/5/2009 9:05:32 AM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline 		The Bible wasn't written by God it was written by men. Wasn't there some guy namd "John" who wrote a bunch of stuff in it while he was living in a CAVE?
Then, a few hundred years later someone else comes up with "the seven deadly sins?"
So on the day before the "seven deadly sins" came out if you did one of them you were cool?
Term, I always thought you were kind of cute.



P.S. they left out a lot of stuff in the bible from the Gnostics.
Funny, to try to live your life by what some guy who lived in a CAVE 2,000 years ago "thought."

< Message edited by popeye1250 -- 10/5/2009 9:11:50 AM >

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: God's Gays - 10/5/2009 10:42:30 AM   
SL4V3M4YB3


Posts: 3506
Joined: 12/20/2007
From: S.E. London U.K.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
The rest of your arguments seem to be directed more at yourself that anyone else.

Yesss because I post stuff on a public forum to talk to myself all the time, very constructive.
quote:


Perhaps you are trying to convince yourself that it doesnt matter.

Nope, I know it doesn't matter. I'm just trying to convince the dogged followers of fashion it doesn't matter.
quote:


You dont have the ability to change my opinion on this subject. Far smarter men have delved into this issue.

I think it is rare that anyone here ever changes anyone’s opinion, the least we can hope to do through this limited form of interaction is provoke thought. Even that is hard for some especially those with the sense they need to be talking to people with a PhD in theology to get a totally new idea. Hands up those people with such a PhD??? Why lower yourself to answering me I'm simply a religious hobbyist, I've never at all ever wondered about god or if someone on planet earth knows more than I.

< Message edited by SL4V3M4YB3 -- 10/5/2009 10:57:33 AM >

_____________________________

Memory Lane...been there done that.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: God's Gays - 10/5/2009 11:24:48 AM   
MissCake


Posts: 149
Joined: 9/18/2008
Status: offline 		I am disturbed by the fundamentalist religious right political and religious doctrine as you are, and I am a Christian.  I do not believe in fatalism - that were are puppets of God's will.  I do not believe that to acknowledge the processes of evolution are to deny Christ.  I understand your rant - my rant even.  Do not confuse people of claimed faith who profess a particular doctrine - one which seems to deny observable realities - with all those of the same religion.  Many of us are entirely capable of reason, logic, and free-thought.  We don't like the stranglehold that extremists seem to have on the media.  We don't like that they seem to be our only mouthpiece.

It may do you well to look up Progressive Christianity and Process Theology.  Many of us acknowledge the creative and transforming power of God, not a coercive power.  It is clear to some of us that by looking at the world we can see God doesn't employ coercive power.

< Message edited by MissCake -- 10/5/2009 11:25:41 AM >

(in reply to zephyrkajira)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: God's Gays Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109