the bible - WTF IS THIS!

[QUOTE]emrabt  wrote:
i didn't want to criticise him too much in case he WAS well respected.
He's pretty mental, I was flicking through the TV channels late one night, there's something captive about seeing him spout off line after line of bible text, saying its wrong, then corrected it using the "correct" translation from the Qu'ran. i recommend everyone watch him in action, he's always on UK  channel "Peace" TV. It's really informative and weird, but it might just be my warped sense of Entertainment. The whole peace TV channel is about teaching tolerance of other religions, as long as those religions agree the quran is the true word of god. There is also the normal brain washing children’s programming you find on all religious channels. [/QUOTE]
Brother, the reason why ou see Dr Naik on Peace TV all the time is because Dr Naik owns Peace TV :D

[QUOTE]Amazon wrote:
Although I don't think your wanting to ban religious texts is particularly tolerant (not in the slightest), I am impressed that you were able to change your views on homosexuality as you learned more about it. Too many people refuse to take any steps to overcome their ignorance. For some people, there is no hope at all, but for others, education is really the key.[/QUOTE]
By the "ban the book" comment I was actually meaning to say that we are better off without religion, that's all. I am quite a tolerant guy, trust me. And I do consider myself as a practising Hindu too. But I think its more important to be compassionate than to believe in a faith system.
And our Freddie (and his pals Elton and Boy George) had no small part to play in my change in outlook towards homosexuality.

[QUOTE]Amazon further wrote:
Oh, and as a bi female who knows quite a few gay men, let me assure you that they don't understand how you could
get turned on by a chick, what with all the other guys around! :p :D [/QUOTE]
HAHAHA! I can imagine!!!

By the way, Amazon, I dunno if u remember, but sometime ago we exchanged a coupl PMs about Axl, and you were going to send me a response to a query of mine, but it never came. Prbably you sent it but it did not reach me (has happened before).

Is religion the cause of war? Let's see ...

Iraq 1 & 2 -- no
Falklands -- no
Panama - no
Grenada - no
Vietnam War -- no
Korean War -- no
WW2 -- no
WW1 -- no
Spanish-American War -- no
Franco-Prussian War -- no
American Civil War -- no
America-Mexico 1848 -- no
American Revolution -- no
War of 1812 -- no

It might be fairer to say that in the last 150 years or so, Westerners have gone to war for any number of reasons except religion. Even the Northern Ireland conflict was more about nationality than religion.

So there.

Brother, the reason why ou see Dr Naik on Peace TV all the time is because Dr Naik owns Peace TV :D
==== === === ================================

That explains why the channel is so weird, Dr Naik is far more powerful, rich and egotistical than I ever would have imagined.

Apart from being extremely biased towards Muslim beliefs a lot of what he says is good stuff, especially as some people ask some very strange questions, like “is wearing a tie a sign of Christianity?”, or "cars were invented by christians, am i allowed to drive one.?".

Let's break this down a bit.

1. The Bible is not hypocritical, the people who are supporting those banners are just trying to spark controversy (whether they believe it or not)

2. The Bible clearly states that homosexuality is an abomination.  In basic terms, it's a sin (just like lying and stealing).  Believing in that is personal preference, but if a Christian is going to be gay then they are a hypocrite to the Word of God.

3. We do not judge others, but the Lord does.  Judgement is his right and his right only.  We are only supposed to love and try to show our fellow humans the truth of God.

I am a Christian and my favorite band is Queen.  Is this wrong?  No.  I am just a person, and I have no right to cast judgement on people.  As long as I do not abandon my beliefs by swearing, drinking, etc., I am sure that I would still be a "good Christian".  I hope this helps.

ParisNair wrote: "By the "ban the book" comment I was actually meaning to say that we are better off without religion, that's all. I am quite a tolerant guy, trust me. And I do consider myself as a practising Hindu too. But I think its more important to be compassionate than to believe in a faith system."


Well, I think I should leave this alone as I really value religion and I don't we would be better off without it.

"And our Freddie (and his pals Elton and Boy George) had no small part to play in my change in outlook towards homosexuality."

I love Boy George. Or at least I used to. For some reason, I just don't like the middle-aged balding queen that he's become. The Boy George of the 80's was legendary; not only did I have a huge crush on him, but objectively I thought he was gorgeous. :D

Freddie was also okay. :D

"By the way, Amazon, I dunno if u remember, but sometime ago we exchanged a coupl PMs about Axl, and you were going to send me a response to a query of mine, but it never came. Prbably you sent it but it did not reach me (has happened before)."

Check your inbox. :D I have had trouble myself in the past, however recently it's been working, so I resent a copy just now.

catqueen wrote: .  And i think if we take the general overall emphasis of the Bible, it should make us more accepting of other ppls viewpoints, because we'd understand that God made us all different, and that it is more important to love and work together then to 'be right'. 

Unfortunately, this does not always happen. It is obvious that societies where religion is strong usually does not grant the same rights to all human beings and that is true for Christianity as well as Islam. Christians very often claim that homosexuality is a sin, that gays are offending God etc. Even though many Christian individuals do not share these opinions the legislature is influenced by these majority Christian views. The general belief that gays are inferior and that it is up to the majority heteros to "tolerate" them (or not) is deeply rooted in Christan belief. Before Christianity homosexuality was not persecuted or regarded a crime in most societies. It was Christian law that introduced the persecution of gays and it was the (non-religious) Napoleonic law that abolished the discrimination for a while after 1500 years of persecution until the religiously dominated governments (for example Prussia) regained power. Only if civil rights win over religious prejudice gay people are not be discriminated any longer.

Religious texts are, by and large, toilet paper, but don't let anyone tell you that religion is responsible for the world's problems.  It isn't.  Plain and fucking simple, religion is only one of many human constructs that becomes misappropriated by people who need a pretext to further their agenda.   If it isn't religion being bandied about as a reason to do mean things to one another, it's something else.

Religion gives many people the excuse to discriminate against others. It's not the reason, it's just the handle. Many good ethics come from religion, too. A society should take the good things and get rid of the prejudice.

Religion really isn't the cause of it.  Factional behaviour is.  An enterprising individual can use that mentality to their advantage; it's dead easy.  If it weren't religion being used, it would be some other "us vs. them" mechanism.  

If we get down to the semantics of it, religion is related to a lot of ills in our history; but only because it is there.  If we'd never come up with ceremonial burial, the belief in an afterlife, the concept of a supreme being and posthumous judgement at his/her behest, then it would be (and frequently happens to be) something else to blame for our lapses into barbarity.

"If" is all very well :-) I agree with you that religion is not the cause but just the handle but that does not help all the people who are discriminated in a religious discourse. They suffer from religiously defined and justified prejudice and not from hypothetical other excuses which might exist if religion did not provide for the excuses.

True enough!  As is often the case, religion or spirituality is what is used to get people sucked in, but the actual organisations (and the behaviour that they perpetrate) could just as easily be a grumpy postal service in lieu of a church.  I often wonder how the world might have gone without God gumming everything up - I suspect it wouldn't have been all that different.

(Atheists the world over would love to believe otherwise).

Similarly, I am pretty sure we'd have 'Islamic' terrorism without Islam. That is a perfect example of political and power motives wrapped up in tenets of religion. If it wasn't that it would be fealty to nation like it is for the rest of us purportedly on the white horses.

We would have terrorism but would we have stoning for adultery? Probably not because we only have this in countries where the Islam dominates legislation. The Nazis put gays into concentration camps but luckily the world did not say "if it were not the Nazis someone else would put them into the concentration camps". On the same note we should fight against Christian or other religious influence when it leads to discrimination, injustice and hatred.

" The Nazis put gays into concentration camps but luckily the world did not say "if it were not the Nazis someone else would put them into the concentration camps""

Look no further than what Japanese Americans had to contend with because of World War II.  

The tradition of public stonings as a punishment for a crime may have its roots in religion, but for a large section of the population, there must be a degree of it merely being an acceptable event because that's what they've always been told.  I still don't see the correlation between the Westboro Baptist Church's actions and a real connection with God.  Religion may be the avenue that Phelps and his ilk are using to connect with a broad audience, but his philosophy has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with good old fashioned bigotry.

He'd never admit it, but he's not telling gays that they're going to Hell because he thinks they're going to Hell.  He's just saying it to get attention and to make people feel bad for living a lifestyle he doesn't agree with.  One can make the argument that it's solely because of religion that he is acting that way, but that's utter baloney.  For every nut like him, there must surely be a dozen who can at least manage tolerance of things they do not agree with.  For my money, I've met plenty of religious people who didn't run websites called "GOD HATES FAGS".

YourValentine wrote: We would have terrorism but would we have stoning for adultery? Probably not because we only have this in countries where the Islam dominates legislation. The Nazis put gays into concentration camps but luckily the world did not say "if it were not the Nazis someone else would put them into the concentration camps". On the same note we should fight against Christian or other religious influence when it leads to discrimination, injustice and hatred.

Yes, we need to fight injustice -- but... i cant explain exactly but this argument doesnt feel right to me.  Perhaps today, most stonings for adultry etc happen in Islamic countries... but there are also Islamic countries where ppl ARENT stoned.  And what do u do with other wholesale wrongs against society?  If stoning is used as an argument against religion, then what about genocide? (you mentioned nazis -- yet u didnt use tht to say that political parties are wrong and should be fought against)  What do u do about corruption in the police force?  Or war?  Or execution in general?  (in a country where adultry is a capital offence, society frowns fairly strongly on it.  Why is that societies idea of what is a capital offence less valid then any other countries view, just because western society does not agree?)  All religions have been abused, al religions have at times used practices that are horrible... it is, in my opinion, a sign of human corruption, not a sign that religion is intrinsically wrong.  If religion is bad BECAUSE of evils committed, then ANY organisation that commits evil is equally bad -- so therefore, we need to not have governments, armies, police forces, schools or prisons.  But we all recognise that if a policeman accepts a bribe it is corrupt -- perhaps even system-wide corruption requiring massive changes, but we would not say that the world would be better without law enforcement, we recognise that this is deviating from the purpose of law enforcement. 
And i do agree that if Christianity or other religions lead to discrimination, injustice or hatred, that injustice, discrimination and hatred should be exposed for what it is and fought against.