Poll: To atheists:What kind are you?

[Seanchaidh]

Right, not homosexuals but homosexual sex. *rolls eyes* Hey guys, we hate the sin and not the sinner......can you please stay unhappy for the rest of your life? What's that? That the sin is a part of who you are? *mind explodes*

You must understand that Christians are quite used to expecting people not to have sex.

Most religious types aren't gay haters, though Christians and Jews and Muslims and Mormons and (so on so on so on) should be. Their books are clearly state to murder those who have homosexual sex. So no, most religious types aren't gay haters, they are just pickers-and-choosers.

Personal interpretation, rules no longer applicable, etc.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

WHY should this EVER have been applicable? WHAT sort of "personal interpretation" is there to this? It's a little specific and evil to brush it off so blithely. Why should the Church even associate itself with this doctrine? Why is "Thou Shalt Not Kill" so negotiable when it comes to sinners? No, it's fine, their blood shall be upon them, not you; it's like they killed themselves when your village stones them to death! How convenient. To consistently believe that the Bible has any non-trivial truth to it means that you must believe that at some point in time, THIS WAS ALRIGHT.

Is it really easier to believe that God works in mysterious ways than that cruel, vicious people wrote various books that include some virtue as well as vile, contemptible hatred clothed in moral overtones?

 

[Cakes]

I don't think I have much else to say on this subject because you just summed up my disdain subtly. Random people decide what is not applicable because now, for some reason, it's not moral to do in our society (though at one point rape was, apparently) and so it must be looked on as symbolism.

I seriously don't know how to put it more simply, and I have no idea where you see the problem.

The Bible is a decent book. It has some nice morals in it. Play nice, stay in school, etc. Then, part of it contains many rules and laws of an ancient world. They're old. Old as shit. Some of them are offensive by today's standards. Hey, the bible has some good stuff, why don't we just ignore the stuff that no longer applies, so as to not be offensive pricks?

I just do not see where the problem is here. You are literally saying you have more respect for the crazy fundies than the more rational types.

 

[Cliff_m85]

Adaptation isn't something that religion is particularly good at. "This is the word of God.......but not quite so much anymore" is the thought that floods my head when I hear about some person arbitrially deciding that (actual event) purgatory no longer exists.

All I can say is that the Church is akin to a short kid going through growing pains, and all the other kids around are looking at him yelling: "GROW FASTER!" It takes time, and a lot of weird philosophical/spiritual debates, for religions to adapt to new ideals, and it sometimes doesn't make much sense to anyone. All we do is try to make sure that what comes out at the end is a little closer to what Christ preached.

Our faith is something that even WE don't understand fully at times: we're constantly on a road to discover what it's all about.

I just wish people would be a bit more understanding of that, as opposed to getting all gung-ho anti-theism, and being just as trollish as our Fundies are. The best treatment for those guys is to ignore them and encourage the non-Fundies to stand up and take more active roles.

EDIT: Also, you are supposed to follow societal laws unless they fly directly against your faith. Sort of like the Constitution's views on following laws: you stick with them as long as they are reasonable, and you revolt as a last resort.

As you say, until the day when the theist will have to say "Jesus was actually a symbol, he didn't actually exist". Bit by bit the literal mindset is being chipped away by science and historic facts. The church isn't slowly growing, it's clutching to rubble as it slowly slides through their fingers.

 

[baseracer]

I don't bring it up. Not very many people know that I'm an atheist, since my family is very christian.

Still, everything dealing with science and religion really pisses me off. Especially when they quote a damn book over scientific work. (Guess i'm not quiet anymore)

 

[pompom8volt]

For all i know other people have said this (i didn't read anything except the poll and title), but the bottom one is agnostic...

 

[Seanchaidh]

offensive by today's standards.

Offensive? That's what you call murdering innocent people and blaming them for it?

 

[Standby]

I'm a lazy Atheist/Anti-theist, in that i still celebrate christmas.

 

[Zand88]

The poll is useless, because they all apply, in one way or another. I am reserved and respectful, and think that anything is possible. But when someone bring their religion in to any discussion, it should be automatically challenged. I think using religion as a reasoning for anything is silly, and deserves to be attacked.

 

[Insomniactk]

I am something in between "I'm a quiet atheist" and
"Religion is retarded. Must bash believers."
I do have friends who are religious, but if we would come to a discussion about god and stuff I probably would tell them something stupid...

[edit]

Oh, pretty much what he above me said. Please ignore my stupid formulated post.

 

[Cliff_m85]

I don't think I have much else to say on this subject because you just summed up my disdain subtly. Random people decide what is not applicable because now, for some reason, it's not moral to do in our society (though at one point rape was, apparently) and so it must be looked on as symbolism.

I seriously don't know how to put it more simply, and I have no idea where you see the problem.

The Bible is a decent book. It has some nice morals in it. Play nice, stay in school, etc. Then, part of it contains many rules and laws of an ancient world. They're old. Old as shit. Some of them are offensive by today's standards. Hey, the bible has some good stuff, why don't we just ignore the stuff that no longer applies, so as to not be offensive pricks?

I just do not see where the problem is here. You are literally saying you have more respect for the crazy fundies than the more rational types.

Deuteronomy 22: 22-29.

I'll cut it short. Rape a woman and you die. If she screams loud enough, she can go free. If she doesn't scream loud enough, she dies with the rapist. If she is in an isolated place and no one knows if she screamed, she can go free. If she is, however, unmarried and a virgin then she is now the property of the rapist.

Deny or confirm that this passage has brought about the murder of atleast one woman who was raped. Deny or confirm that this passage has forced a raped victim into marriage with her assaulter.

These rules WERE enforced back in the day. To say they should've been is absolutely immoral. Just saying "It doesn't apply" doesn't show that the god of the bible wasn't an evil immoral monster as some point. Erasing the page doesn't undo the past damage.

 

[raxer92]

I got badly screwed over by life starting at the age of 12 therefore ceasing all believe in the almighty jewish zombie though i usually try to keep my discontent with the jewish zombie to myself unless someone goes super extremist religious freak talk mode on me and begins to bash me for not believing in the zombie, then i get....mean o_o

 

[Cakes]

I think you were trying to quote me here? You just really messed up the quoting. Okay, I'll jump in.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Yup. That's Leviticus alright. Pretty nasty stuff.

WHY should this EVER have been applicable?

This book was written over 2000 years ago. They did some mean shit, which is why this was considered applicable way back when.

WHAT sort of "personal interpretation" is there to this?

What? "Personal Interpretation", as in, ignore some shit if it's horrible.

It's a little specific and evil to brush it off so blithely.

I seriously don't know what the hell you are on about. Yeah, Leviticus has some evil stuff in it. Which is why, through personal interpretation, you should come to the conclusion that some of these rules perhaps do not apply.

Why should the Church even associate itself with this doctrine? Why is "Thou Shalt Not Kill" so negotiable when it comes to sinners? No, it's fine, their blood shall be upon them, not you; it's like they killed themselves when your village stones them to death!

...calm the fuck down. Are you shouting at me...? What did I do?

How convenient. To consistently believe that the Bible has any non-trivial truth to it means that you must believe that at some point in time, THIS WAS ALRIGHT.

At some point in time, this was considered perfectly acceptable. Crazily enough, the moral codes of an ancient society seem horrible and barbaric to us. That's exactly what I'm getting at here.

 

[Mrsoupcup]

I'm religious I just have a hard time following the bible.... I still do belive in some form of god, after all it is quit possible that there is a God in the same right that the could be no God. I have never been dead so I wouldn't know.

 

[Cliff_m85]

Right, not homosexuals but homosexual sex. *rolls eyes* Hey guys, we hate the sin and not the sinner......can you please stay unhappy for the rest of your life? What's that? That the sin is a part of who you are? *mind explodes*

You must understand that Christians are quite used to expecting people not to have sex.

Most religious types aren't gay haters, though Christians and Jews and Muslims and Mormons and (so on so on so on) should be. Their books are clearly state to murder those who have homosexual sex. So no, most religious types aren't gay haters, they are just pickers-and-choosers.

Personal interpretation, rules no longer applicable, etc.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

WHY should this EVER have been applicable? WHAT sort of "personal interpretation" is there to this? It's a little specific and evil to brush it off so blithely. Why should the Church even associate itself with this doctrine? Why is "Thou Shalt Not Kill" so negotiable when it comes to sinners? No, it's fine, their blood shall be upon them, not you; it's like they killed themselves when your village stones them to death! How convenient. To consistently believe that the Bible has any non-trivial truth to it means that you must believe that at some point in time, THIS WAS ALRIGHT.

Is it really easier to believe that God works in mysterious ways than that cruel, vicious people wrote various books that include some virtue as well as vile, contemptible hatred clothed in moral overtones?

Indeed, odd how a god would be against sexual gratification of most sorts yet make our digits extend far enough to reach our sin-sockets and evil-rections.

My point exactly, personal interpretation is quite a scapegoat. People were harmed by these passages. Not just harmed but brutally murdered. I used the rape passage because it's even more thought-provoking. If a woman doesn't scream loud enough then she gets killed too......at a time in history when knives still existed or simple muffling abilities like a cloth or hand could be used. Just completely staggering that people think that that passage was ok for any time period.

 

[baseracer]

The poll is useless, because they all apply, in one way or another. I am reserved and respectful, and think that anything is possible. But when someone bring their religion in to any discussion, it should be automatically challenged. I think using religion as a reasoning for anything is silly, and deserves to be attacked.

This person speaks the truth.

 

[scotth266]

As you say, until the day when the theist will have to say "Jesus was actually a symbol, he didn't actually exist". Bit by bit the literal mindset is being chipped away by science and historic facts. The church isn't slowly growing, it's clutching to rubble as it slowly slides through their fingers.

The idea that Jesus was just a symbol would be contradicted by historical records that the Catholic Church uses as evidence to support the idea that Jesus did actually exist.

We have opposing views on the way the Church is going: I see it as finding more realistic applications of the faith, and adapting to a new societal code.

Offensive? That's what you call murdering innocent people and blaming them for it?

Once again: that was a different era, one in which close-knit societies were incredibly important. A divided group of people was a weak group waiting to be conquered. I don't really see why you need to be argumentative about it now anyways, considering that the overwhelming majority of bible-following religions these days consider killing to be a sin, regardless of which sexuality of person you happen to be killing.

And this thread's been peaceful so far. Don't go starting the flames.

EDIT: I believe that the people who were killed/suffered at the hands of these now-outdated codes must be enjoying a special reward in heaven for the stuff they had to go through.

 

[Cliff_m85]

I think you were trying to quote me here? You just really messed up the quoting. Okay, I'll jump in.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Yup. That's Leviticus alright. Pretty nasty stuff.

WHY should this EVER have been applicable?

This book was written over 2000 years ago. They did some mean shit, which is why this was considered applicable way back when.

WHAT sort of "personal interpretation" is there to this?

What? "Personal Interpretation", as in, ignore some shit if it's horrible.

It's a little specific and evil to brush it off so blithely.

I seriously don't know what the hell you are on about. Yeah, Leviticus has some evil stuff in it. Which is why, through personal interpretation, you should come to the conclusion that some of these rules perhaps do not apply.

Why should the Church even associate itself with this doctrine? Why is "Thou Shalt Not Kill" so negotiable when it comes to sinners? No, it's fine, their blood shall be upon them, not you; it's like they killed themselves when your village stones them to death!

...calm the fuck down. Are you shouting at me...? What did I do?

How convenient. To consistently believe that the Bible has any non-trivial truth to it means that you must believe that at some point in time, THIS WAS ALRIGHT.

At some point in time, this was considered perfectly acceptable. Crazily enough, the moral codes of an ancient society seem horrible and barbaric to us. That's exactly what I'm getting at here.

And you accidentally quoted me.

The question is not if it was considered perfectly acceptable. It's that these verses killed people. Innocent people. People who had not harmed anyone. Erasing them doesn't undo the damage. At one point in time god called for those laws, and eager nonskeptical people carried them out thinking they were doing what was right.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

Cliff_m85 was just WAITING for this thread.

 

[Mrsoupcup]

I'm religious I just have a hard time following the bible.... I still do belive in some form of god, after all it is quit possible that there is a God in the same right that the could be no God. I have never been dead so I wouldn't know.

 

[Cliff_m85]

As you say, until the day when the theist will have to say "Jesus was actually a symbol, he didn't actually exist". Bit by bit the literal mindset is being chipped away by science and historic facts. The church isn't slowly growing, it's clutching to rubble as it slowly slides through their fingers.

The idea that Jesus was just a symbol would be contradicted by historical records that the Catholic Church uses as evidence to support the idea that Jesus did actually exist.

We have opposing views on the way the Church is going: I see it as finding more realistic applications of the faith, and adapting to a new societal code.

Offensive? That's what you call murdering innocent people and blaming them for it?

Once again: that was a different era, one in which close-knit societies were incredibly important. A divided group of people was a weak group waiting to be conquered. I don't really see why you need to be argumentative about it now anyways, considering that the overwhelming majority of bible-following religions these days consider killing to be a sin, regardless of which sexuality of person you happen to be killing.

And this thread's been peaceful so far. Don't go starting the flames.

The Catholic Church still presents the Shroud of Turan as evidence, so let's not play that game.

Different era doesn't matter. It would be just as evil for me to rape you today as it would've been in the ancient era with a piece of paper giving me the go ahead because your left ear is a little bigger than the right ear.