the bible - WTF IS THIS!

This topic is disgressing....

We started with the anti-homosexual parts in the bible and how Christian influence is a hindrance to achieve full equal rights for gay people. I believe a society should not let a church rule over the civil rights of their citizens. You can have a different opinion, of course.  I am not against religion in any way - religion brought us the concept of forgiveness, the concept of compassion, the concept of charity. These concepts are valued by people who are not necessarily believers. However, Christianity also does not value the right of self determination of  the individual -  Christians believe that humans should believe without knowing and should obey God and the church with no questions. This concept is very hard to accept for non-believers and no society should have the right to enforce any such religious or church laws on the citizens or let any such "divine laws" or alleged "natural laws" trickle into their legislation. For example it is ridiculous that in a democratic, modern country like the USA the evolution theory cannot be taught in many schools - just unbelievable.

 I introduced the example with the Nazis because GratefulFan said that there would be "terrorism without Islam" and I think that nobody in their right mind thinks that it's okay for Nazis to kill gay people so why it is okay when a religion kills gay people? (Islam). Only because a wrong is comitted by a religion it is not any less wrong imo.

You say that an offense (adultery) is not per se invalid only because Western countries do not approve and you suggest that there is a social consensus about adultery being a capital offense. My answer is: in Nazi Germany the overwhelming majority approved of the Nuernberg race laws, the overwhelming majority did not mind that people were executed for listening to BBC radio. Please do not tell me that the brainwashed mob in a fascist country (or an Islamic theocracy) has the same educated opinion like people in a democracy where the rights of a minority is protected AGAINST a mob majority vote. I will always stand up against barbaric laws and against a state taking the life of a citizen (death penalty). Of course there is corruption in all societies and it must be rooted out, no country is perfect. There must be a basic understanding that all people have the right to  live to their own judgement without being persecuted by a majority, a church or a religion.

It should be noted that the Nazies did not create concentration camps. They are best known for it, but they did not bring it into the world.


Similarly, while the current focus is on Islamic (or as I prefer to say, Islamic-connected) terrorism, terrorism is not new. GratefulFan is correct; there would definitely be terrorism without Islam, since it was only in the past couple of decades, that terrorism and Islam became connected. Terrorism has been around for centuries, and has used for any number of ideological purposes, from creating anarchy to self-determination and independence. Even the current terrorists have motivations which is more political than religously based.

For that matter murderous homophobia is not unique to any religion or group. It's not accurate to say that Islam, or any other religon, kills gay people. It doesn't. Not simply because you'll find that murderous homophobia has been utilised in multiple Christian countries as well (such as in Africa), not simply because very few moderates would interpret their religions as condoning the murders of gays, but because most murderous homophobes hijack religion to justify their vile bigotry. I agree with Zebonka on this.

Also, YV, there are quite a few Muslim-majority countries (Indonesia for instance) which don't have stoning for adultery.

"Only because a wrong is comitted by a religion it is not any less wrong imo"

I agree completely. However it is important to note that religious people are not monolithic. The Israeli settlers and the nuts who killed Rabin don't represent me; Bin Laden and co don't represent my Muslim friends; Phelps doesn't represent any of the Christians who are appalled at what he is doing.

On that note, GF isn't excusing Islamic-connected terrorism. She is simply pointing out (GF, I remain pleasantly shocked that you're female :D) that before we blame Islam for terrorism, we should acknowledge that it would exist without terrorism. I don't see where you got that she or anyone else was excusing it simply because we acknowledge that terrorism didn't begin with Islamic-connected terrorism.

ThomasQuinn wrote: "Love Thy Neighboar as Thyself" is a phrase taken from the Gospel according to Matthew, a book of the New Testament. The denunciation of gays is taken from Leviticus, a book of the Pentateuch, the first part of the Old Testament. The two were written between 500 and 1200 years apart from one another. Also, before Jesus supposedly used the expression, "Love Thy Neighboar As Thyself" was already known in Hebrew (Leviticus 19:18). However, whereas Matthew takes it to mean loving your fellow-humans, the original Hebrew word for neighboar, rei'acha (I can't use Hebrew characters here because the forum won't display them), is used to describe fellow-Israelites (not Canaanites or Judaeans). So it doesn't really mean anything other than to favour your countrymen over others.
------------------------------------

You're assigning the Pentateuch too early a date. Lemche and Van Peters are probably right in that most of Genesis, Exodus and Leviticus were likely written *and* put together during the hellenistic period.

As for the topic, most of Ancient Israel's history is sheer fabrication, as Keith Withelam has brilliantly argued. The historical value of the Hebrew Bible is close to zero. 

No democracy should promote hatred against anyone, especially on the basis of a racist, ethnocentric and ruthless folklore as the Hebrew Bible. 

We should know better by now. We really do. By we I mean all of us: Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists...

The only thing we know for sure is that, despite our differences, we're all - Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, atheist or religious gays -  humans beings. That much science has been able to prove. And our morals should follow these findings and make it axiomatic that, for the simple fact that we belong to the same species, we should all have the same basic and fundamental rights and the chance to live a decent life with dignity and respect. 

Luther was no saint. But when I see all these religious fanatics I can only think of his brilliant aphorism: "Let God be God", if you really believe in him/it/she.

YourValentine wrote: This topic is disgressing....

We started with the anti-homosexual parts in the bible and how Christian influence is a hindrance to achieve full equal rights for gay people. I believe a society should not let a church rule over the civil rights of their citizens. You can have a different opinion, of course.  I am not against religion in any way - religion brought us the concept of forgiveness, the concept of compassion, the concept of charity. These concepts are valued by people who are not necessarily believers. However, Christianity also does not value the right of self determination of  the individual -  Christians believe that humans should believe without knowing and should obey God and the church with no questions. This concept is very hard to accept for non-believers and no society should have the right to enforce any such religious or church laws on the citizens or let any such "divine laws" or alleged "natural laws" trickle into their legislation. For example it is ridiculous that in a democratic, modern country like the USA the evolution theory cannot be taught in many schools - just unbelievable.

 I introduced the example with the Nazis because GratefulFan said that there would be "terrorism without Islam" and I think that nobody in their right mind thinks that it's okay for Nazis to kill gay people so why it is okay when a religion kills gay people? (Islam). Only because a wrong is comitted by a religion it is not any less wrong imo.

You say that an offense (adultery) is not per se invalid only because Western countries do not approve and you suggest that there is a social consensus about adultery being a capital offense. My answer is: in Nazi Germany the overwhelming majority approved of the Nuernberg race laws, the overwhelming majority did not mind that people were executed for listening to BBC radio. Please do not tell me that the brainwashed mob in a fascist country (or an Islamic theocracy) has the same educated opinion like people in a democracy where the rights of a minority is protected AGAINST a mob majority vote. I will always stand up against barbaric laws and against a state taking the life of a citizen (death penalty). Of course there is corruption in all societies and it must be rooted out, no country is perfect. There must be a basic understanding that all people have the right to  live to their own judgement without being persecuted by a majority, a church or a religion.

I agree with everything in this post.... bar the statement about christians thinking that everyone should believe and obey with no questions.  I am a christian and i dont believe that.  I think God gave us minds and choice to use.  And i believe that churches/religion and state decisions should be separate. 
And i didnt mean to imply that its ok for ppl to be stoned because the majority say so-- i believe that capital punishment is wrong.  The majority is often wrong.  What i meant was... hm hard to say exactly... but eg, in the usa, black criminals are more likely to get the death sentence then white criminals.  That is wrong.  Women are less likely to get a heavy jail sentence then men (esp for rape or child abuse).  That is wrong.  But we tend to hear more about islamic stonings then we do about injustice in the criminal system in the west.  Absolutely all ppl should have the right to live without fear of persecution.  But i do think my statement that just because the west disapproves does not make something wrong.  I personally believe the death penalty should be abolished completely.  And i also think it is wrong -- rly wrong -- for a woman to be stoned for adultry.  I also think its wrong for a person to be executed for trafficing drugs, as happens in many countries too.  But society does determine to an extent (obviously some countries it isnt that way -- dictatorships, etc) what will be accepted. 
But i think i pushed my point too far maybe, cos i do believe that all humans have fundamental rights, and killing is taking that away.  But i also do think we would still have injust executions whether or not they took place in islamic countries.

Yara wrote: ThomasQuinn wrote: "Love Thy Neighboar as Thyself" is a phrase taken from the Gospel according to Matthew, a book of the New Testament. The denunciation of gays is taken from Leviticus, a book of the Pentateuch, the first part of the Old Testament. The two were written between 500 and 1200 years apart from one another. Also, before Jesus supposedly used the expression, "Love Thy Neighboar As Thyself" was already known in Hebrew (Leviticus 19:18). However, whereas Matthew takes it to mean loving your fellow-humans, the original Hebrew word for neighboar, rei'acha (I can't use Hebrew characters here because the forum won't display them), is used to describe fellow-Israelites (not Canaanites or Judaeans). So it doesn't really mean anything other than to favour your countrymen over others.
------------------------------------

You're assigning the Pentateuch too early a date. Lemche and Van Peters are probably right in that most of Genesis, Exodus and Leviticus were likely written *and* put together during the hellenistic period.

========

Ah, but you're running ahead of yourself: they were cast *in their 'canonical' form* in the Hellenistic period. However, many *fragments* appear to be much earlier, as with the two conflicting creation stories I mention (Genesis 1 and Genesis 2), the older of which is assumed to contain parts predating the Babylonian captivity. Similarly, certain elements of Genesis, particularly  Genesis 49:8 to 49:12. Additionally, Psalm 104 is almost certainly derived from the Great Hymn to the Aten, suggesting an origin sometime not too long after 1300 BC.

Yeah, my husband thinks homosexuals are sick people. And that Gopd hates them. We have that debate alot.He always tells me that Freddie is burning in hell.I just laugh at him.Thinks all gays should be put on an island.Tells me am i gay, because Freddie is my idol.

"Yeah, my husband thinks homosexuals are sick people"

He's not referring to AIDS there, is he?

sharoncooper wrote: Yeah, my husband thinks homosexuals are sick people. And that Gopd hates them. We have that debate alot.He always tells me that Freddie is burning in hell.I just laugh at him.Thinks all gays should be put on an island.Tells me am i gay, because Freddie is my idol.

================================

nothin wrong if you are, im bie, its just taste, like some with music, some with art, some with movie genres... the ist goes on, but some people need to grow up and accept the fact people have different tastes to them and let them get on with their lives

nothin wrong if you are, im bie, its just tast.
======================================

You're probably not bi, just 13 and attracted to everything.

emrabt wrote: nothin wrong if you are, im bie, its just tast.
======================================

You're probably not bi, just 13 and attracted to everything.

=================================

i got a girlfriend, explain that :P

lifetimefanofqueen wrote: emrabt wrote: nothin wrong if you are, im bie, its just tast.
======================================

You're probably not bi, just 13 and attracted to everything.

=================================

i got a girlfriend, explain that :P
=======

You're just 13 and attracted to everything.

emrabt wrote: "You're probably not bi, just 13 and attracted to everything."
ThomasQuinn wrote: "You're just 13 and attracted to everything."


That's not necessarily true. Many people discover their sexualities at very young ages. Additionally for many their sexual preferences (not just what gender they are attracted to, but whom they are attracted to physially) are also set when they are young. It happened with me.

That said, sexuality is extremely fluid, and labels are quite meaningless, so the only person who really knows what they are attracted to, and can determine the label (if they want a label) is lifetimefanofqueen.

Amazon wrote: emrabt wrote: "You're probably not bi, just 13 and attracted to everything."
ThomasQuinn wrote: "You're just 13 and attracted to everything."

That's not necessarily true. Many people discover their sexualities at very young ages. Additionally for many their sexual preferences (not just what gender they are attracted to, but whom they are attracted to physially) are also set when they are young. It happened with me.

That said, sexuality is extremely fluid, and labels are quite meaningless, so the only person who really knows what they are attracted to, and can determine the label (if they want a label) is lifetimefanofqueen.
======

That tends to occur before puberty, not during it, actually.

ThomasQuinn wrote: "That tends to occur before puberty, not during it, actually."


It depends on the person. It may be true for most people, but is it still a generalisation and isn't true for all.

Anyway, I didn't mention puberty. That's an area which is the very definition of 'too much information', not to mention that we don't know when lifetimefanofqueen began to discover her secxuality. My point was that many people discover their sexuality and determine their sexual preferences when they are quite young; for most, it may be before puberty, for others it may be afterwards.

Anyway, I didn't mention puberty. That's an area which is the very
definition of 'too much information', not to mention that we don't know
when lifetimefanofqueen began to discover her secxuality. My point was
that many people discover their sexuality and determine their sexual
preferences when they are quite young; for most, it may be before
puberty, for others it may be afterwards.
===================================================

Which is why i said probably....