Can We Have a Respectful Discussion on Religion?

[duraaraa 203]

Don't worry, someone will be along shortly to say something like "Well, that's the old testament and things were different then" or "The new testament is about the new message from Christ"

That person will later use Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 as proof God hates homosexuals.

What a fun book. You can literally make it say whatever you want.

I just looked up those two Leviticus passages...

All of them say "with a man as he does with a woman"

So... if he has sexual relationships with a man in a different way than a man and a woman would, he'd be okay... one would think so, anyway.

In fact, considering that men do not have female reproductive organs... I don't think it's actually possible to do as the passages condemn, unless one of them men were to have some kind of sex change surgery, but still remain a man...

This is all too confusing for me. I'm done with religion for today.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

To my knowledge, the prevailing line of thinking is that the accounts in the Torah were widely exaggerated, and fictional. There is no justification for genocide whatsoever in Judaism. It is not and was never meant to be literal.

The punishments described were never meant to be carried out either. The rules established to convict and sentence someone to the fate prescribed are virtually impossible. It's a warning, nothing more.

I was taught in Catholic school that the story of Adam and Eve is just that - a story. In fact, the concept that words must adhere strictly to material representation (facts), is something relatively contemporary in terms of civilization. The purpose of words wasn't to be factual, but to convey a truth, which is different. What seems to be happening across many of the major religions in modern times, is followers confusing truth as fact with an emphasis on fact finding rather than on truth and enlightenment. I see fundamentalism as a cancer among all the religions, because it stifles true spiritual awakening.

[decocker 7,198]

religion itself is a cancer to spirituality. cut out the middle man.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

religion itself is a cancer to spirituality. cut out the middle man.

How so? The early followers of Christianity came together through a common bond, even though they often disagreed and bickered over such things, like continuing the Jewish traditions of circumcision and abstaining from unclean sources of food. If the followers of a religion believe or are being told they must adhere strictly to every teaching of that religion, that to me is a cult. The spiritual journey of the individual is dependent on the community, just as a child to its family.

Edited April 29, 2013 by Lincolns mullet

[GandD 5,966]

I was taught in Catholic school that the story of Adam and Eve is just that - a story. In fact, the concept that words must adhere strictly to material representation (facts), is something relatively contemporary in terms of civilization. The purpose of words wasn't to be factual, but to convey a truth, which is different. What seems to be happening across many of the major religions in modern times, is followers confusing truth as fact with an emphasis on fact finding rather than on truth and enlightenment. I see fundamentalism as a cancer among all the religions, because it stifles true spiritual awakening.

Wouldn't you say the same thing about anything you wanted to keep "just because?" It seems like people hang on to religion and culture regardless of whether or not they agree with it. "Oh you can't take it literally" is a nice way of saying I don't like what it says but I like i like the idea of keeping it. People justifying the bad parts of the Bible sound so much like a woman (or man if you want to be pc about it) defending an abusive spouse. Apparently the Bible means well.

Edited April 29, 2013 by GandD

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Wouldn't you say the same thing about anything you wanted to keep "just because?" It seems like people hang on to religion and culture regardless of whether or not they agree with it. "Oh you can't take it literally" is a nice way of saying I don't like what it says but I like i like the idea of keeping it. People justifying the bad parts of the Bible sound so much like a woman (or man if you want to be pc about it) defending an abusive spouse. Apparently the Bible means well.

No. There's a difference between traditions, which can be enriching and positive, and traditionalism - the strict adherence to a tradition for tradition sake, which forgets the evolution of culture and religion. I don't think most religions believe they've got it all figured out and are without error. The exemption would be fundamentalists. They have permeated and dominated the public discourse of religious beliefs nowadays that outsiders have the impression that their rigid beliefs and traditionalism is an accurate representation of the religion they profess to follow.

[decocker 7,198]

If the followers of a religion believe or are being told they must adhere strictly to every teaching of that religion, that to me is a cult. The spiritual journey of the individual is dependent on the community, just as a child to its family.

in my experience, religion exludes more community than it builds.

my parents' christianity has changed so much since i was young. for example my mom no longer believes in a literal heaven or hell. she's changed her opinions about homosexuality. she's come to these changes not because the church has changed, but because her experience within secular society has. what i don't understand is stripping away the boundaries of a religion so that it fits more complacently within the confines of a person's spiritual journey. if the tenents of a religion must be so pliable to work within your life - why recognize the religion at all? what purpose does it serve?

[GandD 5,966]

No. There's a difference between traditions, which can be enriching and positive, and traditionalism - the strict adherence to a tradition for tradition sake, which forgets the evolution of culture and religion. I don't think most religions believe they've got it all figured out and are without error. The exemption would be fundamentalists. They have permeated and dominated the public discourse of religious beliefs nowadays that outsiders have the impression that their rigid beliefs and traditionalism is an accurate representation of the religion they profess to follow.

So there's fundamentalists that believe in what the bible or tradition says word for word and people who want to gain the meaning of the bible or tradition. Both sides in my opinion are bad. Fundamentalists hold blindly to the past and can not move forward effectively holding humanity back.

The contextual crowd tends to pick and choose what the want to support their cause. This becomes even more dangerous when you have an agenda. We see it time and time again. The fact that we're still figuring out what the meaning of the bible is could just as easily mean we're constantly updating what we think the meaning is to make ourselves feel better. The meek shall inherit the earth......... Well, what is meek exactly? Like, can I still own a Mercedes and get to Heaven? Sure, whatever you want.

[Karee 4,190]

So there's fundamentalists that believe in what the bible or tradition says word for word and people who want to gain the meaning of the bible or tradition. Both sides in my opinion are bad. Fundamentalists hold blindly to the past and can not move forward effectively holding humanity back.

The contextual crowd tends to pick and choose what the want to support their cause. This becomes even more dangerous when you have an agenda. We see it time and time again. The fact that we're still figuring out what the meaning of the bible is could just as easily mean we're constantly updating what we think the meaning is to make ourselves feel better. The meek shall inherit the earth......... Well, what is meek exactly? Like, can I still own a Mercedes and get to Heaven? Sure, whatever you want.

How about just calling the bible another book. Kinda like Moby ####### or Catch 22. Sure there's lessons to be learned, but don't take it too serious.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

How about just calling the bible another book. Kinda like Moby ####### or Catch 22. Sure there's lessons to be learned, but don't take it too serious.

That describes my attitude toward religion in general. It seems education turns us all into cynics, looking for some sinister meaning in everything. Sometimes a movie is just a movie, and nothing more.

[GandD 5,966]

How about just calling the bible another book. Kinda like Moby ####### or Catch 22. Sure there's lessons to be learned, but don't take it too serious.

That's what I'm trying to do without getting shot in the face.

[Karee 4,190]

That's what I'm trying to do without getting shot in the face.

Be careful out there. Religious nuts tend to carry guns these days.

[duraaraa 203]

I think that religion is a way to control people. Perhaps the original intention was not to control people, but it has certainly been used to control people, and tell them, or in some cases force them, to live a certain way.

There are people who believe that David Blaine can levitate, and that pro wrestling is real, after all.

[GandD 5,966]

Be careful out there. Religious nuts tend to carry guns these days.

I figure I'll at least be safe here as long as I confine my religion bashing to Christianity.

[Karee 4,190]

I think that religion is a way to control people. Perhaps the original intention was not to control people, but it has certainly been used to control people, and tell them, or in some cases force them, to live a certain way.

There are people who believe that David Blaine can levitate, and that pro wrestling is real, after all.

Of course it's a way to control people. You have to tell little Johnny that if he grows up and breaks one of the 10 commandments, that he'll be forced to spend eternity taking it in the a$$ by scary devil looking guys with pitchforks.

It's all about fear. Who wants to go through that for eternity?