Homosexuality
-
autolycus:
What on earth is a religionist?? I've never heard anyone describe himself as such....Joseph27:
I don’t respect religion, however I am happy to say nothing until such time that the religious try to interfere and project their faith onto society, fundamentalist Christian or Muslim style.
Well, you don't have to be irreligious to not respect religion. I am 100% certain that being religious makes some people unable to respect religion — their own or anyone else's. The evidence is everywhere.
Come to think of it, I feel the same way about economists that you feel about religionists.
-
3Boys:
What does it mean to have a full understanding? If you are a strict Muslim and believe fully in the Quran and Hadith as taught to you by your parents and religious teachers then your understanding of the truth is very subjective and reliant on dubuious sources. If you believe what you are taught 100% and don't question it for a minute then why should I respect your beliefs especially if they don't reconcile with historical facts?Well,
I think there is a certain arrogance if one chooses to dismiss God and religion as hocus-pocus and superstition, when one does not have a full understanding, and when there are far greater intellects in society who do believe in God.
To state that there are far greater intellects in society who do believe in God than don't is pure fiction and disrespects the legacy of some of humanties greatest thinkers. Even today this ascertion is flawed and the band of atheists are more than a match for their religious contemporaries. Personally I am happy to be a rationalist pathenist though I am all too aware of what Freud would have to say about that. -
Joseph27:
I did not say that, merely greater intellects than those propounding a position on this forum.
To state that there are far greater intellects in society who do believe in God than don't is pure fictionJoseph27:
Well, show me. That's how atheists have always tried to pitch it. I was a rabid atheist myself. The question one needs to ask is, if the atheistic position is so clear, logical and appealing, why are there so many prominent figures in science, business, political leadership that DO believe in a personal God. Have THEY missed something, or have YOU?Even today this ascertion is flawed and the band of atheists are more than a match for their religious contemporaries.
Your position is coloured by your personal experience, that's too bad. Its the human expression of religion that is at fault, as has always been, not religion itself.
I took the reverse journey from you. I am a firm believer of evolution and evolutionary biology, of thermodynamics and the Big Bang and the age of the universe being multi-billion years old. I wrote a personal thesis to 'disprove' God to my friends based on these. For the longest time I believed that to believe in God was to disbelieve in these scientific facts......it does not. I have read Stephen Hawking's books, which are entertaining (as can be for the nature of the topics he covers) and illuminating. In his latest (The Grand Design), he does a pretty good job again in explaining the construct of the universe. A few things to note, is that he does effectively reverse his position that he propounded in the 'Brief History of Time' that we were at the cusp of the 'Theory of Everything', and the second is that he over-reaches himself and claims 'God is not necessary to explain the origin of the universe'. Really? I did not see anything in his book that supports that assertion in the least.
Read here an opinion from a greater authority than myself here --> http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=3141
and here -->
http://physicsworld.com/blog/2010/09/by_hamish_johnstonstephen_hawk.html
Stephen Hawking may be a genius, but he is no theologian, and has been amply demonstrated, he does not have infinite wisdom either. Its merely hubris and perhaps he needs to say it to scratch the itch of his bias. But such is how the atheistic position tends to be, there is actually no way to definitively exclude God. But there is enough coincidence and narrowness of conditions in the basic construct of the universe that could lend us to believe that there is a good possibility of a creative force.
At the of the day, one may read it as they wish. I am not here to pooh-pooh an atheistic world view, I've been there and I understand it. However, for anyone to come out and proclaim as 'FACT' that somehow God and religion has been disproved, is in my view, hogwash. It is but one view and cannot be presented in any other way but such. -
3Boys:
I did not say that, merely greater intellects than those propounding a position on this forum.
I wouldn’t ever purport to be a great intellect, I am well educated in a classical sense and spend a lot of time actively trying to learn more however I understand that there many vastly more intelligent than I am; some are atheist some are religious. I always think of two people in particular, one is a Franciscan brother and possibly one of the smartest people I have ever met – a great intellect and so successful outside of religious life; yet he felt compelled to dedicate his life to his beliefs. I couldn’t win a debate with this guy since he spends his life researching and debating, he does a good job for the community and I respect that though I believe that his dedication to the life of Jesus is bollocks.
The other person is a Muslim and very conservative – he works as a researcher and engineer with a big company and has one of the most logical brains and is brilliant at science. Yet he believes that the Quran is the unalterable word of god – he believes that the Hadith must be adhered to strictly and that women must cover up, that he can have 4 wives, and all those other really messed up parts of Islam.
At the very least one of these guys is wrong, and both certainly are a lot more academically intelligent than I am. Regardless I don’t let their academic credentials affect my confidence in my ability to reason and understand an issue. History has presented us with a myriad of great thinkers who have advanced the belief in a personal god though I only have to reference others who counter their arguments with, I believe, far more convincing logic.3Boys:
Again I cannot speak for others however all too often scholars can spend a life time defending a belief and simply reinforcing this belief over and over. Yes a lot of religious leaders purport to believe in a very personal god – one only has to listen to the ramblings of America’s political right to hear this (I would advise holding a bucket close by when you do chose to listen because it is often hard to stop yourself from being sick). Belief in God is comforting – a lot more so than belief in nothing but you cannot logically defend a personal god at least not the god propagated by the monotheistic religions. I teach my children about god – that is god that is everything, in everyone – a god that is the natural universe but not a god who stands by your side and listens to your personal prayers.Well, show me. That's how atheists have always tried to pitch it. I was a rabid atheist myself. The question one needs to ask is, if the atheistic position is so clear, logical and appealing, why are there so many prominent figures in science, business, political leadership that DO believe in a personal God. Have THEY missed something, or have YOU?
3Boys:
I would have thought the opposite is almost the case - religion is a sympton of humanities inability to answer complex questions at darker times in our history. The old testament, the new testatment and the Quran are all such flawed documents - to say convincingly that a god 'wrote' them is to deny the history behind them.Your position is coloured by your personal experience, that's too bad. Its the human expression of religion that is at fault, as has always been, not religion itself.
Again i take the quran - it was 120 years after the death of Mohammed that the pages of the book came together - lets not mention the satantic versus, or the pages lost, either deliberately or accidently yet this is meant to be the unalterable word of god and is worshipped as such. Then the hadith comes along which took even longer to be codified and is now used to ensure that woman are stoned to death for adultery or that dogs are dirty or whatever lame historical particularity is inforced across the muslim world.
The guy I mentioned before believes that with 100% conviction and is very smart, so does that make it true or is his brain somehow defective and unable to take such an obvious flaw in his logic? We are told to respect a persons faith but do you respect it if he believes that god told us to cover women up or that eating a particular type of meat is enough to land us in an eternity of torment? Can you respect a religion when its normative values are painted by such distorted images that only by denouncing these twisted elements are the majority able to fit in with modernity? Of course not all can and those are the delightful people martyring themselves outside of nightclubs and help curb the activities of the non religious.
All I say is that I doubt everything and believe in nothing but the beauty this planet possesses, in the intrinsic goodness of people who share a civilised view of the world, and in the love I share with my family.
So getting back to where this began - I cannot believe that any historical document written in much darker times should serve as an example on why a particular lifestyle is morally wrong. -
By the way I read those articles - I enjoyed reading Hawkings but I am not able to fully internalise and understand the big bang from start til now and accept no other theory. Hawkins is a smart chap though his ex wife said he was a bit of an ashle - it is great that we have such intellects to explore the nature and origin of the universe.
Whilst evolution is undoubtable, there is still so much unknown and thats the exciting part, finding out what its all about. Though when some very old document written by primative minds is presented to stifle debate or stop the quest for knowledge I take issue and again when it is presented to defend prejudice I get a tad miffed. -
The ‘old documents’ were never intended to stunt thinking or stifle debate. If that were the case, all Christians and Muslims will be stuck at pre-primary level of education, unwilling and unable to proceed to higher learning, yes? Just because you have had experience with people who purport it to be so, does not mean that it is the case. That is the straw man that you keep setting up, and it is very much a straw man. Its also ironic that if one believes in free debate, that one would immediately dismiss any religious view on any issue as an unreasonable one. Its a debate, is it not, and is a debate not predicated on beliefs?
Not every Christian is a Rush Limbaugh acolyte and not every Muslim is a 9-11 terrorist. You have painted stereotypes in your mind, and although you go on to cite acquaintances of yours, you inadvertently revert to the most conservative teachings/interpretations of the Holy Books and take those as the de-facto mainstream positions. They are not. In other words, just because you can debunk someone’s INTERPRETATION of the Bible, does not mean that the Bible is wrong. Straw men…
In essence, you have confirmed that your main beef is really against the practitioners of religion, and their interpretations thereof. You have chosen to detest an extreme manifestation of religion, and who can blame you? You have then chosen to fixate on it and not allow yourself to consider the alternative. How many Muslims you know gather around a pit to stone an alduterer? Yet, do you agree, as a married man with children, that adultery is perhaps a betrayal with far worse ramifications for spouse and family than many a petty crime? Do you not see the premise and the nuance?
You cite plentiful examples of egregious behaviour based upon possible wrongful theology, but I assure you, the non-religious are not to be outdone! Stalin come to mind, as does Pol Pot. As it turns out, being non-religious does not insure you against superstitions either, or the desire to quash debate. Some of the worse crimes against humanity were prosecuted by religious people, but I think the non-religious are not far behind. Taketh your pick, my friend!
As to your assertion that it is easier to believe in God than not, I beg to differ! I had a far more ‘carefree’ life as a non-believer. Another broad assertion about not being able to logically defend the existence of a monotheistic God? Maybe you can’t, but many others can! As it turns out, you ARE practising a religion, and teaching it as a creed to your children. But it is one that you have constructed yourself, anti-God, but a belief nonetheless.
Anyhow, I think I am at an end here. As I said, I am not here to start a fight, you can have your beliefs (or non-beliefs), and I mine. I will teach my children about God, to respect and love all of their fellow men, but I am in opposition to homosexuality being sold as normal, and it is my prerogative to say so. -
hmmm...so when is one a homosexual?
I can be fantasizing about bedding as many women as I like other than my wife and yet I'm not an adulterer until I really do so, ya?
So is a homosexual really a homosexual if his/her inclination is only in the mind? :? -
The old documents are just that – old and irrelevant and yet worshipped as fact regardless of any inconsistencies. None of these documents demonstrate any knowledge outside of what could be deemed ‘knowable’ at the specific moment in history in which they were written. To stunt thinking doesn’t mean you hold people at a preprimary school level – you can quite easily complete a PhD and yet be narrow minded. That is not setting up a straw man argument – the true advances in public discourse on this planet have come about through scientific discovery and held at bay every time by the relevant religious authorities of the day.
The specific examples I gave were to debunk your assertion that just because someone is very intelligent and believes in god then we to should believe in god since we are not as intelligent as these ‘pillars of wisdom’. Neither of my examples were extremists but both highly intelligent individuals who just happen to believe in something that I don’t.
I haven’t painted stereotypes – Rush Limbaugh and Osama Bin Laden are the extremes in their respective societies. My wife’s family is Indonesian Muslim and are as moderate and liberal as my Christian family back in Aus. They do however, as most Muslims do, believe the Quran is unalterable word of god… they can’t transcend this and they don’t want to even though a simple reading of the history of the time outside of religious pamphlets would reveal the true creation of their holy text. Am I dismissing the entire religion – yeah I am. I don’t buy it and I am sure don’t either – you will say you respect their right to believe it but you don’t accept that Mohammed spoke with God through Gabriel and who gave us the last message from God even though it was collated only 120 years later.
The bible on the other hand is clearly written by a hodgepodge of different authors and contains a large number of contradictions. We ignore most of the parts that are no longer relevant and hold tight to those areas that still resonate with a higher moral purpose. Again the 2 examples are indicative of their respective religions – the Franciscan teaches about Jesus and his message in a very liberal new age way – probably not even really in keeping with the overall Churches teaching. The Muslim chap again believes in the Quran – though he is stricter about observing the ‘tenants of the faith’. There are a lot stricter people than him - again that example was to highlight that just because you are academically or scientifically more gifted, you don’t necessarily possess greater insights as you insinuated in your earlier question.
As a former Christian I grew up with a fairly strict catholic teaching though as logic began to penetrate the veneer, the belief dissipated and people like Bishop Spong started to make more sense – once all the miracles are thrown away the story is quite hollow and though the myth of Jesus of Nazareth loses its appeal, the man Jesus of Nazareth still maintains a venerable position along with other great people of history. His paradigm shifting message of love though was already spoken about by people such as Confucius earlier than Jesus.
As a married man – I accept I am married to another human being who has their own thoughts, feelings and needs and if they ventured outside the walls of tradition marriage I wouldn’t consider that as much an act of betrayal as I would if she wanted to dress our daughters in Muslim headscarves and teach them that the Quran is the world of god. To attempt to rob my children of the chance of free thought is far more of a crime to me than any personal indiscretion than can beset any fallible human being in a moment of weakness.
You know citing Stalin or Pol Pot doesn’t do much for me – Stalin was training to be a Priest at one stage, Pol Pot wanted to revert to day 1,– each of their movements, their entire rationale was based on control, fear and paranoia. We just have to look at North Korea today to see that as well, godless as such but the state has replaced what was traditionally god’s territory.
Anyway you are right in one regard – neither of us can hope to change the others mind. I would never at any stage teach my kids that going to a gay bay and engaging in the most risqué lifestyle was the best choice for them however I would understand if they did and remind them of the traps just as I would a heterosexual child. You always want to arm your children with the life skills to make the best choices when they come to a fork in the road. -
You imply that somehow being intolerant of infidelity is therefore depriving children the ability the freedom of thought. Tenuous at best, and a repeating theme in your posts, that somehow belief in God and his laws therefore deprives an individual of the ability to think. You say you do not stereotype, but if that is not a stereotype, and an unreasonable one (as you yourself have implied), then I don't know what a stereotype is.
Joseph27:
And that is a world view that is completely at odds with mine. Perhaps you can tolerate infidelity (and honestly, I think its just hyperbole on your part), and take it as human fallibility. But your contention that putting a Muslim headscarves is somehow a betrayal of free thought, is plain hypocrisy, and as extreme as the Taliban who insist on Burqa, since if you really value free thought, and at some point if your wife believes in God again and chooses to pass that to your children, then that is her FREE thinking and her right, and who is to say that your position is any superior? You don't actually have a 'free' and open thinking, that you may have deluded yourself into thinking you do. Free and open means one is allowed to evaluate the information and arrive at one's own decision.As a married man – I accept I am married to another human being who has their own thoughts, feelings and needs and if they ventured outside the walls of tradition marriage I wouldn’t consider that as much an act of betrayal as I would if she wanted to dress our daughters in Muslim headscarves and teach them that the Quran is the world of god. To attempt to rob my children of the chance of free thought is far more of a crime to me than any personal indiscretion than can beset any fallible human being in a moment of weakness.
Joseph27:
An oft quoted position by atheists and one that turns logic on its head. I don't for one minute see my religion that controls via fear and paranoia, I came into it willingly and my eyes wide open, in adulthood, despite being in opposition to it in early years. Your contention that it is so clearly holds no water. Again, you paint a completely unsubstantiable depiction, a STEREOTYPE, and not even a very good one.You know citing Stalin or Pol Pot doesn’t do much for me – Stalin was training to be a Priest at one stage, Pol Pot wanted to revert to day 1,– each of their movements, their entire rationale was based on control, fear and paranoia. We just have to look at North Korea today to see that as well, godless as such but the state has replaced what was traditionally god’s territory.
\"North Korea godless ....replaced what was traditionally god's territory\"??.....gimme me a break! Only atheists would claim that Stalin and Pol Pot derived their inspiration from the fear and respect (which is what it means to be a follower of God, not merely the BELIEF in God, which even Satan did) of God. Yes, Stalin at one point was training to be a priest, but his actions later on in life were at complete odds with Church teachings at the time and one wonders how one can even draw the link that he had been 'inspired' by God or religion?? Sorry, you atheists can have them for your own, by no stretch of imagination or by any reasonable definition can they be called religious (or Godly) people. -
Joseph27:
how do you allow your child the chance of free thought?...
To attempt to rob my children of the chance of free thought is far more of a crime to me than any personal indiscretion...
...
what is this free thought? is it to think as one wishes?
or are you allowing your child the chance to think in a way that you believe are free thoughts?
how each one of us think is coloured by our own circumstances and environment.
none of us are free from external influences.
As such, I don't think it is possible for any of our thoughts to be really free, including this one :lol:
Your view of giving the chance of free thought a higher importance than personal indiscretion is not commonly shared in Asian society.
Ethical behaviour continue to be held close to many Asian hearts, guided by ethical thoughts, not free ones.
Acts of personal indiscretion are understood as the result of misguided thoughts.
Like 3Boys, I do not share this view of yours.
Knowing what is \"Right\" and \"Wrong\" means a lot to me, and my children.Joseph27:
I wish to arm my children to be able to make the best choices too....
... You always want to arm your children with the life skills to make the best choices when they come to a fork in the road.
But in my view, the best choices are those that result in happiness to oneself and others.
I believe that they will learn to make such choices, guided by thoughts of compassion and wisdom, and not the free thoughts of an ordinary fallible human.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login
