Board index › Coping in life › Parents' Discussion

why people who don't believe in God or pray,etc. feel ...

Page 6 of 7 [ 97 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

ImMelody
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jun 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 788
Location: DFW, TX

14 Dec 2008, 8:56 am

ThisUserNameIsTaken wrote:
That's because it wasn't in response to your post. Perhaps you should try reading the words above the quote box next time.


The comment was meant in jest. If you want to argue that the Bible says all those things are fine, then you should also be willing to defend when someone has a logical explanation why we shouldn't do those things today. (According to the Bible at least)


_________________
For parents with an Autism Spectrum Disorder: www.asparenting.com


kramer1
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 81

14 Dec 2008, 12:59 pm

Jesus Christ.



2ukenkerl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jul 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,277

14 Dec 2008, 2:41 pm

ThisUserNameIsTaken wrote:
PunkyKat wrote:
ThisUserNameIsTaken wrote:
PunkyKat wrote:
violet_yoshi wrote:
Why can't people who believe in God allow gays and lesbians to have a life of love and fufillment together?


Because God Himself says that a homosexual relationship is an abonation. Marriage is a holly sacrament between a man and a woman not a man and another man or a woman and another woman. A holly sacrament is a pretty serious thing. It's also mintioned somewhere in the Old Testament where God also condems beastiality.


In Leviticus, the same book where God calls homosexuality an abomination, God also goes on to say that the act of eating shellfish is an abomination. So why aren't you so vehemently against Red Lobster as you are against homosexuals getting married? I mean, God uses the same wording in both cases so he finds the act of eating lobster just as offensive as having gay sex.

Other fun facts about the Old Testament:

- God advocates slavery 100%. He says it's perfectly acceptable to sell your daughter into sex slavery, to hold a slave's family hostage in exchange for his continued servitude, and it's fine to beat your slaves granted you don't cause any permanent damage (though if you accidentally kill one of them that's fine as long as the slave didn't suffer for too long before dying).
- God advocates wife beating
- God advocates child executions
- God advocates genocide
- God demands that anyone found working on the sabbath day be executed

All of these things are stated explicitly in the Old Testament (mostly in Exodus and Leviticus). And the stuff about slavery was quoted quite a lot by slavery supporters back in pre-Civil War America (yes, as recently as the 1860's a large segment of the population believed that slavery was a moral institution created by God). In fact, slave masters would typically convert all their slaves to Christianity for the sole purpose of being able to use the pro-slavery passages in the bible to convince their slaves to remain submissive and obedient. This practice is even continued today in parts of the world where slavery is still practiced.

The Bible says a lot of crazy, immoral things, and most people just ignore those parts because they realize how insane they are. They try to pretend they aren't there or they aren't even aware of their existence because so few people actually read the Bible from cover to cover and of course your pastor isn't going to tell you about the parts of the bible where those great "family values" were thrown stra
ight out the window.


Don't eat shefish.


Great. What about killing kids for disobeying their parents? Should we do that too? What about killing people for working on Sunday? The Bible says to do that after all.


The Bible says nothing about sunday. It says the sabath, which is sundown on friday to sundown on saturday. BTW you know, it IS interesting. Germanic names(German and Danish) for weeks might be translated as:

1. Day of the sun <<<This would be the end of the first day, according to the Bible
2. Day of the moon
3. Day of Service
4. The middle of the week
5. Day of thunder
6. Day of freedom <<<This would be the start of the seventh day, according to the Bible.
7. <<< This one I have NO idea about! :oops: French and English DO imply it may be saturn's day. Maybe it is odd because the traditional jewish view of a day is off, so there is no relation between the two sets of days.

Obviously, there is SOME relation between some languages and the Bibles description of the 7 days. Contrary to ISO though, SUNDAY is the first day.



2ukenkerl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jul 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,277

14 Dec 2008, 3:22 pm

Fnord wrote:
ImMelody wrote:
As for dinosaurs and the like, there is no reason to believe that the original 7 days in Genesis were 24 hr days.

Why not? Either the Bible is the inaccurate and inerrant Word of God, or it isn't.


Actually, I think science agrees that they weren't 24 hr days. As I recall, they are supposedly getting shorter. It IS happening slowly though. A few hundred years wouldn't be noticable, but a few thousand probably WOULD. Of course, there is NO reliable frame of reference that goes back that far.

Fnord wrote:
ImMelody wrote:
Jupiter's day is only ~10 hrs long.

Jupiter's sidereal rotation period is 9.925 hours. However, comparing this value to Earth's is equivocating a non sequitor - you are comparing similarly-named events from two widely isolated frames of reference.


Interestingly, you really can't say for sure. EVEN if you knew it to the millisecond, you couldn't say it wasn't 4.5 minutes longer several thousand years ago.

Fnord wrote:
ImMelody wrote:
Even the original text, the word for day has been translated to even thousands of days.

וַיִּקְרָא אֱלֹהִים לָאוֹר יוֹם, וְלַחֹשֶׁךְ קָרָא לָיְלָה; וַיְהִי-עֶרֶב וַיְהִי-בֹקֶר, יוֹם אֶחָד

"And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day."- Genesis 1:5 (Translated from the original Hebrew).


I think the Bible here was simply getting across the idea that God doesn't care about time.

Fnord wrote:
ImMelody wrote:
So there is no reason to believe that evolution, dinosaurs, and the like did not occur according to the Bible.

The Bible does not allow for evolution, yet the fossil evidence does.


There is STILL debate! BTW the Bible speaks of monsters and dragons, and a previous era, so those that say it doesn't speak of dinosaurs, etc... are simply wrong. It EVEN says there were powerful giants! And it says they weren't human, so it wasn't talking about goliath.



ThisUserNameIsTaken
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 30 Nov 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 96

14 Dec 2008, 3:53 pm

ImMelody wrote:
ThisUserNameIsTaken wrote:
That's because it wasn't in response to your post. Perhaps you should try reading the words above the quote box next time.


The comment was meant in jest. If you want to argue that the Bible says all those things are fine, then you should also be willing to defend when someone has a logical explanation why we shouldn't do those things today. (According to the Bible at least)


Ah, so that's what this was talking about: "It clearly states in the New Testament, that leaders of our government are chosen by God. We should follow the laws set forth by our government." Well, that's easy to dismiss. All the Abhramaic faiths make a very point of saying that God is the ultimate authority on everything. Thus, according to the bible, it doesn't matter what our leaders think if God has a different opinion on the matter. Case in point: The Pharaoh of Egypt in Exodus. He was the leader of Egypt (and thus chosen by God according to that NT passage you're referring to) yet God certainly didn't hold the same views on particular issues that he did.

2ukenkerl wrote:
ThisUserNameIsTaken wrote:
PunkyKat wrote:
ThisUserNameIsTaken wrote:
PunkyKat wrote:
violet_yoshi wrote:
Why can't people who believe in God allow gays and lesbians to have a life of love and fufillment together?


Because God Himself says that a homosexual relationship is an abonation. Marriage is a holly sacrament between a man and a woman not a man and another man or a woman and another woman. A holly sacrament is a pretty serious thing. It's also mintioned somewhere in the Old Testament where God also condems beastiality.


In Leviticus, the same book where God calls homosexuality an abomination, God also goes on to say that the act of eating shellfish is an abomination. So why aren't you so vehemently against Red Lobster as you are against homosexuals getting married? I mean, God uses the same wording in both cases so he finds the act of eating lobster just as offensive as having gay sex.

Other fun facts about the Old Testament:

- God advocates slavery 100%. He says it's perfectly acceptable to sell your daughter into sex slavery, to hold a slave's family hostage in exchange for his continued servitude, and it's fine to beat your slaves granted you don't cause any permanent damage (though if you accidentally kill one of them that's fine as long as the slave didn't suffer for too long before dying).
- God advocates wife beating
- God advocates child executions
- God advocates genocide
- God demands that anyone found working on the sabbath day be executed

All of these things are stated explicitly in the Old Testament (mostly in Exodus and Leviticus). And the stuff about slavery was quoted quite a lot by slavery supporters back in pre-Civil War America (yes, as recently as the 1860's a large segment of the population believed that slavery was a moral institution created by God). In fact, slave masters would typically convert all their slaves to Christianity for the sole purpose of being able to use the pro-slavery passages in the bible to convince their slaves to remain submissive and obedient. This practice is even continued today in parts of the world where slavery is still practiced.

The Bible says a lot of crazy, immoral things, and most people just ignore those parts because they realize how insane they are. They try to pretend they aren't there or they aren't even aware of their existence because so few people actually read the Bible from cover to cover and of course your pastor isn't going to tell you about the parts of the bible where those great "family values" were thrown stra
ight out the window.


Don't eat shefish.


Great. What about killing kids for disobeying their parents? Should we do that too? What about killing people for working on Sunday? The Bible says to do that after all.


The Bible says nothing about sunday. It says the sabath, which is sundown on friday to sundown on saturday. BTW you know, it IS interesting. Germanic names(German and Danish) for weeks might be translated as:

1. Day of the sun <<<This would be the end of the first day, according to the Bible
2. Day of the moon
3. Day of Service
4. The middle of the week
5. Day of thunder
6. Day of freedom <<<This would be the start of the seventh day, according to the Bible.
7. <<< This one I have NO idea about! :oops: French and English DO imply it may be saturn's day. Maybe it is odd because the traditional jewish view of a day is off, so there is no relation between the two sets of days.

Obviously, there is SOME relation between some languages and the Bibles description of the 7 days. Contrary to ISO though, SUNDAY is the first day.


Most Christians observe the sabbath on Sunday, hence the reason why I said Sunday when referring to Christians. The day of the week doesn't matter though. What matters is that the bible does explicitly state that we are to kill anyone found working on the sabbath day. Doesn't that seem just a little messed up to you?



DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,689
Location: Northern California

14 Dec 2008, 4:06 pm

My opinion is that the Bible has to always be taken in context. In a time when people were really horrible to each other, much of what we consider negative today was actually a positive improvement. Which is why it is also impossible to take everything literally. There is a reason some texts are not cited today; they have little relevance. It doesn't mean they weren't the word of God, just that they weren't some of the more living, breathing, timelss words.

But, face it, either you find value in the book or you don't. Much has to do with how you read it in the first place.

And never, never, did God ask us to abolish our own consciousness. The Bible often warns of following rules to the distraction of missing the point, and missing the real need in the world. It is a teaching book, not a rule book, IMHO.

To tie that into parenting:

I teach my children never to cross the road alone (while they are young). But I also teach them reason. The house catches fire, I get killed, the children escape, but need to cross the road to be safe. Would I have them stop because I told them so? NO.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


ImMelody
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jun 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 788
Location: DFW, TX

14 Dec 2008, 4:19 pm

ThisUserNameIsTaken wrote:
ImMelody wrote:
ThisUserNameIsTaken wrote:
That's because it wasn't in response to your post. Perhaps you should try reading the words above the quote box next time.


The comment was meant in jest. If you want to argue that the Bible says all those things are fine, then you should also be willing to defend when someone has a logical explanation why we shouldn't do those things today. (According to the Bible at least)


Ah, so that's what this was talking about: "It clearly states in the New Testament, that leaders of our government are chosen by God. We should follow the laws set forth by our government." Well, that's easy to dismiss. All the Abhramaic faiths make a very point of saying that God is the ultimate authority on everything. Thus, according to the bible, it doesn't matter what our leaders think if God has a different opinion on the matter. Case in point: The Pharaoh of Egypt in Exodus. He was the leader of Egypt (and thus chosen by God according to that NT passage you're referring to) yet God certainly didn't hold the same views on particular issues that he did.


To use Exodus to refute Romans is laughable. Yes, the whole Bible is God's word, but for Christians, we have the new covenant to go by, not the old one. This is why we don't slaughter animals as sacrifice, why we are to obey the laws of our land, and are allowed entrance into heaven.


_________________
For parents with an Autism Spectrum Disorder: www.asparenting.com


Fuzzy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,223
Location: Alberta Canada

14 Dec 2008, 6:32 pm

DW_a_mom wrote:
There is a reason some texts are not cited today; they have little relevance. It doesn't mean they weren't the word of God, just that they weren't some of the more living, breathing, timelss words.


An interesting way to look at it.

It does, however, beg a question: Is there additional material that is now dated and should be redacted from scripture? And what authority should make that decision?


_________________
davidred wrote...
I installed Ubuntu once and it completely destroyed my paying relationship with Microsoft.


ImMelody
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jun 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 788
Location: DFW, TX

14 Dec 2008, 6:44 pm

Fuzzy wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
There is a reason some texts are not cited today; they have little relevance. It doesn't mean they weren't the word of God, just that they weren't some of the more living, breathing, timelss words.


An interesting way to look at it.

It does, however, beg a question: Is there additional material that is now dated and should be redacted from scripture? And what authority should make that decision?


(Warning: Tongue in Cheek comment ahead) The Pope, of course. After all, when he speaks on behalf of God, his word is inerrant.


_________________
For parents with an Autism Spectrum Disorder: www.asparenting.com


Fuzzy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,223
Location: Alberta Canada

14 Dec 2008, 6:51 pm

ImMelody wrote:
Fuzzy wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
There is a reason some texts are not cited today; they have little relevance. It doesn't mean they weren't the word of God, just that they weren't some of the more living, breathing, timelss words.


An interesting way to look at it.

It does, however, beg a question: Is there additional material that is now dated and should be redacted from scripture? And what authority should make that decision?


(Warning: Tongue in Cheek comment ahead) The Pope, of course. After all, when he speaks on behalf of God, his word is inerrant.


Tongue in cheek apparent! Though there is something to be said for having a CEO of a religion. One might not incorrectly say that Islamism could use a strong central influence to correct its deviant sects. The grass roots seems to lack the moral fibre to enact effective and needed change.

I want to thank you for your strength of conviction and participation here. It is through heated dialogue that the world becomes a better place.


_________________
davidred wrote...
I installed Ubuntu once and it completely destroyed my paying relationship with Microsoft.


DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,689
Location: Northern California

14 Dec 2008, 7:02 pm

Fuzzy wrote:

Tongue in cheek apparent! Though there is something to be said for having a CEO of a religion. One might not incorrectly say that Islamism could use a strong central influence to correct its deviant sects. The grass roots seems to lack the moral fibre to enact effective and needed change.



It works well when the leader is spiritual, insightful, and sensitive. It doesn't work well when someone corrupted either by power or lunacy gets into the position. Which is why the papacy has a bit of a spotty legacy.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


Fuzzy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,223
Location: Alberta Canada

14 Dec 2008, 7:09 pm

DW_a_mom wrote:
Fuzzy wrote:

Tongue in cheek apparent! Though there is something to be said for having a CEO of a religion. One might not incorrectly say that Islamism could use a strong central influence to correct its deviant sects. The grass roots seems to lack the moral fibre to enact effective and needed change.



It works well when the leader is spiritual, insightful, and sensitive. It doesn't work well when someone corrupted either by power or lunacy gets into the position. Which is why the papacy has a bit of a spotty legacy.


This is a fact!


_________________
davidred wrote...
I installed Ubuntu once and it completely destroyed my paying relationship with Microsoft.


ThisUserNameIsTaken
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 30 Nov 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 96

14 Dec 2008, 11:29 pm

ImMelody wrote:
ThisUserNameIsTaken wrote:
ImMelody wrote:
ThisUserNameIsTaken wrote:
That's because it wasn't in response to your post. Perhaps you should try reading the words above the quote box next time.


The comment was meant in jest. If you want to argue that the Bible says all those things are fine, then you should also be willing to defend when someone has a logical explanation why we shouldn't do those things today. (According to the Bible at least)


Ah, so that's what this was talking about: "It clearly states in the New Testament, that leaders of our government are chosen by God. We should follow the laws set forth by our government." Well, that's easy to dismiss. All the Abhramaic faiths make a very point of saying that God is the ultimate authority on everything. Thus, according to the bible, it doesn't matter what our leaders think if God has a different opinion on the matter. Case in point: The Pharaoh of Egypt in Exodus. He was the leader of Egypt (and thus chosen by God according to that NT passage you're referring to) yet God certainly didn't hold the same views on particular issues that he did.


To use Exodus to refute Romans is laughable. Yes, the whole Bible is God's word, but for Christians, we have the new covenant to go by, not the old one. This is why we don't slaughter animals as sacrifice, why we are to obey the laws of our land, and are allowed entrance into heaven.


Yes, I'm well aware that Christians consider only the New Testament to be valid. However, my posts have been in reference to people who use the anti-homosexual passages from the Old as reasons why they believe gays shouldn't marry, have rights, etc. See, as a Christian if you use passages from the Old Testament to try to make a religious argument you are inherently saying that the entire Old Testament is still valid. This has been the entire point of my posts: If you insist on using Leviticus and Exodus passages to argue against homosexuality then you must also obey all the other Mosaic Laws as well, a lot of which aren't very appealing to people living in modern society. And a person can't just pick and choose which parts of the Old Testament they like since it's all dogma; they have to take it all or take none of it.

And yes, I could use Exodus to refute your Romans passage because it's the same god in both cases. Unless you want to argue that God wasn't choosing human leaders before Jesus died of course. Even then it wouldn't really matter since there have been plenty of world leaders throughout history since Jesus who were very anti-Christian (the bible itself talks about some of these leaders). So obviously God doesn't intend for us to obey our leaders entirely or else Christianity would have been wiped out of existence long ago.



PunkyKat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 May 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,492
Location: Kalahari Desert

17 Dec 2008, 7:27 pm

ThisUserNameIsTaken wrote:
PunkyKat wrote:
ThisUserNameIsTaken wrote:
PunkyKat wrote:
violet_yoshi wrote:
Why can't people who believe in God allow gays and lesbians to have a life of love and fufillment together?


Because God Himself says that a homosexual relationship is an abonation. Marriage is a holly sacrament between a man and a woman not a man and another man or a woman and another woman. A holly sacrament is a pretty serious thing. It's also mintioned somewhere in the Old Testament where God also condems beastiality.


In Leviticus, the same book where God calls homosexuality an abomination, God also goes on to say that the act of eating shellfish is an abomination. So why aren't you so vehemently against Red Lobster as you are against homosexuals getting married? I mean, God uses the same wording in both cases so he finds the act of eating lobster just as offensive as having gay sex.

Other fun facts about the Old Testament:

- God advocates slavery 100%. He says it's perfectly acceptable to sell your daughter into sex slavery, to hold a slave's family hostage in exchange for his continued servitude, and it's fine to beat your slaves granted you don't cause any permanent damage (though if you accidentally kill one of them that's fine as long as the slave didn't suffer for too long before dying).
- God advocates wife beating
- God advocates child executions
- God advocates genocide
- God demands that anyone found working on the sabbath day be executed

All of these things are stated explicitly in the Old Testament (mostly in Exodus and Leviticus). And the stuff about slavery was quoted quite a lot by slavery supporters back in pre-Civil War America (yes, as recently as the 1860's a large segment of the population believed that slavery was a moral institution created by God). In fact, slave masters would typically convert all their slaves to Christianity for the sole purpose of being able to use the pro-slavery passages in the bible to convince their slaves to remain submissive and obedient. This practice is even continued today in parts of the world where slavery is still practiced.

The Bible says a lot of crazy, immoral things, and most people just ignore those parts because they realize how insane they are. They try to pretend they aren't there or they aren't even aware of their existence because so few people actually read the Bible from cover to cover and of course your pastor isn't going to tell you about the parts of the bible where those great "family values" were thrown stra
ight out the window.


Don't eat shefish.


Great. What about killing kids for disobeying their parents? Should we do that too? What about killing people for working on Sunday? The Bible says to do that after all.


She wanted to know why most Christians dislike homosexuals. I personaly don't care if a person is gay/lesbian. I personaly think it's rude and offensive to agressivly impose your orientation on everyone weither you are gay or straight. I have a few online friends who are gay/lesbian. They don't impose their orentation on me and I don't impose mine on them.



Jol
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 22 Dec 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 73

26 Dec 2008, 7:39 am

You have to understand that you religious people are a threat to the evolution of our species, sad i know, but you insist on defying all logic and think in the way of the brainwashed masses from 10,000 years ago.

It is you that stops us from taking the next steps. Just like a child becomes a man he puts away his childhood toys as a species we must put away our childish delusions.

For a realist watching you religious types is an utter insult to our species. You believe because you have been told to believe and when that belief allows you to make uninformed and utterly idiotic choices you are a threat to me and my family.



m91
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 204
Location: London, United Kingdom

26 Dec 2008, 9:21 am

I'm an atheist myself, but I don't have a problem with others being Christian etc. I mind my business, and they mind theirs. What I do have a problem is when some of them randomly come up to me and try to tell me that I'm wrong. I don't go up to them and tell them that they are wrong.

Some people randomly ask me why I don't believe in God, and then when I answer them, they try to start an argument with me about it and the start telling me to prove that God does not exist. I really don't give a damn if others believe in God or not. I was only answering their question and they take my answer like an insult. If they leave me alone and mind their own business, then I'll mind mine.


_________________
There are 3 types of people: Those who CAN count and those who CAN'T count.