Science LGBT+ and religion

[Lycanthrosis]

In any case, after reading the bible several times and looking through clasules, being gay is not something I find a sin. The reason I am a bit homophobic is because I can´t see how it is anything but a disease, possibly a genetic disease, but still a disease. It is something out of someone´s control that interferes with stable body behavior. I don´t have anything against gay people, but I do think they should be treated like someone who lost a limb: let them live and be themselves, but not encourage others to follow that example.

In terms of my religion? Well, if you´re a good person, you´re a good person. Heck, I wouldn´t judge even if you were a bad person. God´s mercy is infinite after all.

I'd love to be able to ask people burning in hell for eternity if God's mercy is indeed infinite.

in the two times I read it, I never found evidence of that. Still, I am only human, I might have missed it. Would you care to tell me where that passage was, exactly?

I got your back, fam.

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. Leviticus 20:13

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination. Leviticus 18:22

 

[Idea]

I got your back, fam.

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.Lev.20:13Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.Leviticus 18:22

I´ve already explained these in this thread.

I'd love to be able to ask people burning in hell for eternity if God's mercy is indeed infinite.

God does not send anyone to Hell. A mind clouded with sin chooses to reject God even in His Might, and in doing so, chooses to reject everything God is, everything good. The eternal suffering in Hell is a simple matter of the lack of happiness due to it´s rejection.

Why does God even allow people the choice? Because free will is a requirement for true happiness. Imposed happiness is a destruction of the self, it simply isn´t real happiness. Therefore he allows us free will, the possibility of choice to be with him or not. Yet even the worst of the worst is given the chance for redemption both on Earth and up above.

 

[Lycanthrosis]

I´ve already explained these in this thread.

I wonder how long it would take for me to come up with the explanations (see: excuses) that you came up with if I were to stumble upon a copy of the Bible after all of humanity had been wiped out and I had nothing else to go off of but the Bible itself.

God does not send anyone to Hell. A mind clouded with sin chooses to reject God even in His Might, and in doing so, chooses to reject everything God is, everything good. The eternal suffering in Hell is a simple matter of the lack of happiness due to it´s rejection.

That's an interesting perspective on it. However, I'd love to see that backed up with the Word of God.
I'm familiar with plenty of verses that describe the actual experience of being in Hell.

Why does God even allow people the choice? Because free will is a requirement for true happiness. Imposed happiness is a destruction of the self, it simply isn´t real happiness. Therefore he allows us free will, the possibility of choice to be with him or not. Yet even the worst of the worst is given the chance for redemption both on Earth and up above.

Let me put you through a hypothetical here...
... You are a father and your little daughter is practicing riding a bike. She is safely practicing in your driveway, but seems to be nearing the road where there is heavy traffic. Do you warn her, or no?
Aside from that there are a few other questions to be asked...
Could all-powerful, all-knowing, all-mighty God not have created an option where free will is a possibility without the possibility for evil as well? If not, why not?
Can actual "free will" exist under an all-powerful God in the first place? An entity that literally controls everything about reality?

1. The old testament should rarely be interpreted litterally. It is a collection of books written in several times in the traditional oral and poetic fashion of the time. Some say it may have been dictated by God himself, but then again, Jesus did speak in a lot of parables too. The reason for this cryptic form of talking is in the book of the apocalypse, though that is a talk for another time.

Sorry, but I can't let this go either. There are very important parts within the Old Testament that, if you do not interpret them literally, screw up the entire rest of the Bible and God's supposed will for mankind in general.

 

[Idea]

Sorry, but I can't let this go either. There are very important parts within the Old Testament that, if you do not interpret them literally, screw up the entire rest of the Bible and God's supposed will for mankind in general.

notice the word "rarely"

That's an interesting perspective on it. However, I'd love to see that backed up with the Word of God.
I'm familiar with plenty of verses that describe the actual experience of being in Hell.

As a Roman Catholic, I do not believe in the Bible as the sole source for the word of God, but the Holy Church as well, in particular the Pope, who is infallible in spiritual matters.

In fact, it´d be silly if anyone could just pick up the Bible and interpret it themselves. There is but one truth, one real interpretation. So obviously, there have to be higher authorities as to how it should be interpreted.

I wonder how long it would take for me to come up with the explanations (see: excuses) that you came up with if I were to stumble upon a copy of the Bible after all of humanity had been wiped out and I had nothing else to go off of but the Bible itself.

The Bible itself is a book written nearly 2000 years ago. It has various non-scientifically-factual stories and various contradictions in the litteral interpretation as well as usually some translation errors.

That the Bible isn´t supposed to be interpreted litterally and that it is the sole guide for the religious truth isn´t just a far fetched theory, it´s common sense. Common sense that a handful of fundamentalists and a bunch of atheists seeking to pick on low-hanging fruit tend to forget. Sometimes, on purpose.

... You are a father and your little daughter is practicing riding a bike. She is safely practicing in your driveway, but seems to be nearing the road where there is heavy traffic. Do you warn her, or no?

Yes, obviously.

Could all-powerful, all-knowing, all-mighty God not have created an option where free will is a possibility without the possibility for evil as well? If not, why not?

In the ultimate sense, what is good or evil? If you believe in the Christian God, you also believe that good corresponds to God. Good is part of God´s essence. All that is good is part of God, although God transcends good. It´s a very complicated concept, I realize, that I doubt I could explain properly myself. In any case, evil is, therefore, all that rejects God AKA all that rejects good.
The answer to your question is, yes, but only partially. Free will is possible without the choice for evil, but when it comes to the free will to choose happiness, evil is required. Because you cannot CHOOSE happiness, unless the option for not happiness exists. Unless the option to reject God exists.
It´s a limitation on God´s power, mind you. That would be like saying "the single husband", with "single" here being used in the relationship sense. "Husband" is a word that already implies marriage. If they are married, they are not single, if they are single, they are not married.

Can actual "free will" exist under an all-powerful God in the first place? An entity that literally controls everything about reality?

Yes, because said entity decides not to control our actions.

 

[Lycanthrosis]

I'm thoroughly enjoying this conversation. Just thought I should add that~

As a Roman Catholic, I do not believe in the Bible as the sole source for the word of God, but the Holy Church as well, in particular the Pope, who is infallible in spiritual matters.

An infallible human being? I wonder how God would feel about that.
I'd like to raise a concern here also: Pope Pius IX was not speaking in error when speaking about the immaculate conception?
That sure isn't a claim that I'd like to be forced to back up..

In fact, it´d be silly if anyone could just pick up the Bible and interpret it themselves. There is but one truth, one real interpretation. So obviously, there have to be higher authorities as to how it should be interpreted.

I don't see how you logically conclude that "there have to be higher authorities as to how the Bible should be interpreted" from the premise that "there is but one truth, one real interpretation."
Why would God not make the book that can bring people into his love easy for us to understand...?

The Bible itself is a book written nearly 2000 years ago. It has various non-scientifically-factual stories and various contradictions in the litteral interpretation as well as usually some translation errors.

That the Bible isn´t supposed to be interpreted litterally and that it is the sole guide for the religious truth isn´t just a far fetched theory, it´s common sense. Common sense that a handful of fundamentalists and a bunch of atheists seeking to pick on low-hanging fruit tend to forget. Sometimes, on purpose.

And yet the Bible makes such grandiose claims about the nature of reality and about it's own infallibility as the Word of God.
Where else would you have the idea of the Christian God anyways, if not from that very book.
As I said before, if I were to come across the Bible with no other resources but it, I would only be able to take it at face-value.
I would think twice before making such blatant claims about one thing being the sole guide for religious truth also.
Isn't that hard to say when it is riddled with inaccuracies and falsehoods?

Yes, obviously.

And yet the all-powerful and all-loving God wouldn't do what is necessary to protect his offspring. Odd.

In the ultimate sense, what is good or evil? If you believe in the Christian God, you also believe that good corresponds to God. Good is part of God´s essence. All that is good is part of God, although God transcends good. It´s a very complicated concept, I realize, that I doubt I could explain properly myself. In any case, evil is, therefore, all that rejects God AKA all that rejects good.
The answer to your question is, yes, but only partially. Free will is possible without the choice for evil, but when it comes to the free will to choose happiness, evil is required. Because you cannot CHOOSE happiness, unless the option for not happiness exists. Unless the option to reject God exists.
It´s a limitation on God´s power, mind you. That would be like saying "the single husband", with "single" here being used in the relationship sense. "Husband" is a word that already implies marriage. If they are married, they are not single, if they are single, they are not married.

Where was it said that there is any limitation to God's power?
Regardless of that, I'm curious of what you think about this.

Does free will exist in Heaven?

 

[Idea]

I'm thoroughly enjoying this conversation. Just thought I should add that~

Glad that you are (I think? Depends on how you mean it... )

An infallible human being? I wonder how God would feel about that.

Well, the Pope is infallible BECAUSE of God. Via the Holy Spirit.

I'd like to raise a concern here also: Pope Pius IX was not speaking in error when speaking about the immaculate conception?
That sure isn't a claim that I'd like to be forced to back up..

It´s not about liking or not. It´s about understanding that there needs to be a higher authority to guide the masses, because otherwise the religon would be a bunch of conflicting opinions and therefore meaningless.

I don't see how you logically conclude that "there have to be higher authorities as to how the Bible should be interpreted" from the premise that "there is but one truth, one real interpretation."
Why would God not make the book that can bring people into his love easy for us to understand...?

For the same reason he doesn´t just show up in all his Might right here on Earth. God´s might is such that if he were to show up in it, we would loose all will and just submit, so to speak. We would loose our free will. Telling things in a clear manner would be against the point.

Furthermore, regardless of what should or not be, there is the fact that the Bible IS not so simple to understand. The way it is written by itself suggests something that is not written like you would an actual report, especially not a modern one.

If there is one truth, then it´s not just anyone who will reach it. Two people with different opinions will not both have the truth. So, if someone is in a better position to understand it, that person is someone whose opinion should logically stand above the others.

And yet the Bible makes such grandiose claims about the nature of reality and about it's own infallibility as the Word of God.

Yes. But not as the full word of God, nor as a litteral text.

Where else would you have the idea of the Christian God anyways, if not from that very book.

God/Jesus
Logic
Christian Church
Our own Imperfection
Reality

As I said before, if I were to come across the Bible with no other resources but it, I would only be able to take it at face-value.
I would think twice before making such blatant claims about one thing being the sole guide for religious truth also.
Isn't that hard to say when it is riddled with inaccuracies and falsehoods?

The purpose of the church IS that the Bible is not something that should be taken without any other resources.

And yet the all-powerful and all-loving God wouldn't do what is necessary to protect his offspring. Odd.

Oh no, he did. The Bible and the church exist. Using your metaphor, the father did warn the daughter. But the daughter may have chosen to cycle at double speed against incoming traffic because she didn´t believe her father.

Where was it said that there is any limitation to God's power?
Regardless of that, I'm curious of what you think about this.

Does free will exist in Heaven?

It does. Eternity is like an instant. There isn´t really a sum of moments, there is no passage of time. Hence the choice that you make as you enter it is the choice that stays with you for it´s entirety.

 

[Lycanthrosis]

Glad that you are (I think? Depends on how you mean it... )

It does. Eternity is like an instant. There isn´t really a sum of moments, there is no passage of time. Hence the choice that you make as you enter it is the choice that stays with you for it´s entirety.

I don't mean it in a negative way. Trust me.

Alright, there is Free Will in Heaven, correct?
This means that there is no guarantee that Heaven will be any different than Earth.
Even more interesting is that if there is no Free Will in Heaven, people would essentially be robots.
Is the answer "Yes there is Free Will, it's just that nobody will want to sin"?
Why not just have that in the first place on Earth then?

(This is all disregarding my actual views on "free will," mind you, which is that it is actually an illusion~)

 

[Idea]

Alright, there is Free Will in Heaven, correct?
This means that there is no guarantee that Heaven will be any different than Earth.
Even more interesting is that if there is no Free Will in Heaven, people would essentially be robots.
Is the answer "Yes there is Free Will, it's just that nobody will want to sin"?
Why not just have that in the first place on Earth then?

pretty much, yes, that is the answer. It´s more like, once you choose something in eternity, it´s like if you always made that choice. Everything in eternity is everlasting.

Why not just have that on Earth? Because Earth is the preparation. Humans are not ready to make free will choices when they are born, and if someone was created as an adult, they would basically be programmed. So, there needs to be a life that comes before that ultimate choice.

 

[Lappi]

They go together about as well as peanut butter and yellow jackets in an sandwich.

Honestly I feel like anyone who can accept it who claim to be an devout anything are bending they're own rules about a large amount. The problem with so many Christian's now is that they just cherry pick. You can't just have the nice parts then ignore how the same book(well technailly not. But apart of the same thing) says that it has specific rules for slavery.

 

[Lappi]

I'm thoroughly enjoying this conversation. Just thought I should add that~

An infallible human being? I wonder how God would feel about that.
I'd like to raise a concern here also: Pope Pius IX was not speaking in error when speaking about the immaculate conception?
That sure isn't a claim that I'd like to be forced to back up..

I don't see how you logically conclude that "there have to be higher authorities as to how the Bible should be interpreted" from the premise that "there is but one truth, one real interpretation."
Why would God not make the book that can bring people into his love easy for us to understand...?

And yet the Bible makes such grandiose claims about the nature of reality and about it's own infallibility as the Word of God.
Where else would you have the idea of the Christian God anyways, if not from that very book.
As I said before, if I were to come across the Bible with no other resources but it, I would only be able to take it at face-value.
I would think twice before making such blatant claims about one thing being the sole guide for religious truth also.
Isn't that hard to say when it is riddled with inaccuracies and falsehoods?

And yet the all-powerful and all-loving God wouldn't do what is necessary to protect his offspring. Odd.

Where was it said that there is any limitation to God's power?
Regardless of that, I'm curious of what you think about this.

Does free will exist in Heaven?

If you say heaven exist and considering the Bible saying otherwise.
Your sole purpose in heaven is go and kiss God's ass like the humble all caring God he is for all eternity. Because god knows that's just exactly what you want.

Or maybe heaven was a concept made thousands of years before the Bible and just like the Bible is a copy and paste of 18 other epics from it's time.
Who knows.

 

[Idea]

Oh yes. Because infinite torture for a finite crime is so merciful and well thought out.
It's like saying a parent saying
"I birthed you, oh yea, you have free will.
Then if you dont do exactly what I say. Or on the off chance we never met me because you were adopted, then I'll hunt you down, lock you up in an celler, make you immortal then torture you for not loving me. Oh wait, I'm not doing it, my cousin Larry is. Who used to be like you, but didn't like the fact that he was a slave."
The Bible is wierd.
May not be the best comparison but it's the best I could come up with.
I mean, do we put murderers on a low powered eletric chair and make them suffer till the end of time. For one murder.
Honestly, if god needs to be spread by men, and needs to convince children. He isn't doing a great job.
Also wtf is a mind filled with sin.
"I'm sorry god, I thought about eating shellfish. Maybe getting an tattoo"
Nope. Sorry, off to hell.
"But what about child molester Jim over there! He married a 9 year old"
Sorry, not my jurisdiction. Apprently an all powerful God has no say in what Allah does.
"Then why do you have the right to send me to hell!"
Because you happened to grow up in an Christian family. NEXT!


So why are you in hell?
"I thought about eating shellfish"
Damn, all I did was murder a hole town. But that wasn't the deal breaker. Turns out tattoos send you to hell.



(See how silly your Bible can get XD.)

Unfortunately, I already explained that God does not send people to Hell, they choose to go.

The Bible is not weird, unless by weird you mean hard to comprehend. In which case, yes, it is. That´s why we have the church. That´s why Jesus came. Because these things are several miles away from our brightest minds and we humans could use a little help on occasion to understand them. AKA the Pope.

 

[Verdance]

Lappi
I'll thank you not to conflate all theologies and philosophies with one another in this way, and so ignorantly. It demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the nuance of faiths outside your realm of experience, and a lack of respect for ways of life other than your own. Your comments about things like the rules against shellfish and tattoos are reference to Jewish law given in Leviticus, and so your point fails in several discrete ways: 1) the Jewish belief system does not necessarily include a heaven or hell, or any sort of afterlife, 2) as I have previously explained, Leviticus refers to things being ritually unclean (the word used for "abomination" in the original Hebrew is toevah, which refers to idolatry or things incongruous to one's religious practices, NOT to moral judgment), 3) many Christian scholars argue that Levitican law would not even apply to Christians because Jesus created a new pact with god which supersedes the old one for his followers.

Religion itself is almost never directly incompatible with anything. It is the choices of people interpreting their reference- making the choice to be tolerant or to be hateful and bigoted and using their scripture to support that point- that determines how they use their religion. Religion and religious texts are, as a rule, malleable and open to interpretation, sometimes with contradictions, just like any secular philosophy. If you planned to make a critique of religion (and I get the feeling that you did this out of smugness and sense of superiority, and not any genuine concern for LGBT people) you have done a poor job of it.

Tl;dr: log off and read a book. Educate yourself.

 

[Lappi]

Lappi
I'll thank you not to conflate all theologies and philosophies with one another in this way, and so ignorantly. It demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the nuance of faiths outside your realm of experience, and a lack of respect for ways of life other than your own. Your comments about things like the rules against shellfish and tattoos are reference to Jewish law given in Leviticus, and so your point fails in several discrete ways: 1) the Jewish belief system does not necessarily include a heaven or hell, or any sort of afterlife, 2) as I have previously explained, Leviticus refers to things being ritually unclean (the word used for "abomination" in the original Hebrew is toevah, which refers to idolatry or things incongruous to one's religious practices, NOT to moral judgment), 3) many Christian scholars argue that Levitican law would not even apply to Christians because Jesus created a new pact with god which supersedes the old one for his followers.

Religion itself is almost never directly incompatible with anything. It is the choices of people interpreting their reference- making the choice to be tolerant or to be hateful and bigoted and using their scripture to support that point- that determines how they use their religion. Religion and religious texts are, as a rule, malleable and open to interpretation, sometimes with contradictions, just like any secular philosophy. If you planned to make a critique of religion (and I get the feeling that you did this out of smugness and sense of superiority, and not any genuine concern for LGBT people) you have done a poor job of it.

Tl;dr: log off and read a book. Educate yourself.

To sum up what you said 30% that your right about. Which i will admit to. then 70% is just You are ignorant, you need to expand your view, you need to see how i see then you could agree with me and just because i feel like it, you need to educate yourself because i went to college or took the time out of my busy like to read about this and i just want to feel bigger than you.
How about you follow that book of yours and be humble.
edit: Sorry bout that, typo.

 

[Lappi]

Unfortunately, I already explained that God does not send people to Hell, they choose to go.

The Bible is not weird, unless by weird you mean hard to comprehend. In which case, yes, it is. That´s why we have the church. That´s why Jesus came. Because these things are several miles away from our brightest minds and we humans could use a little help on occasion to understand them. AKA the Pope.

I meant wierd by strange, it loops into itself.

 

[Idea]

I meant wierd by strange, it loops into itself.

loops into itself? What do you mean by that?

 

[Idea]

To sum up what you said 30% that your right about. Which i will admit to. then 70%'
You are ignorant, you need to expand your view, you need to see how i see then you could agree with me and just because i feel like it, you need to educate yourself because i went to college and i just want to feel bigger than you.
How about you follow that book of yours and be humble.

Actually, he never once said "agree with this" or "believe in this". He merely factually stated that you mixed several different beliefs into your obvious strawman. Beliefs whose rules and consequences are different, while you assumed they belonged to all of them.

 

[Idea]

No you need to educate yourself before claiming something about a belief which you obviously don´t understand. Until you do, you have no right or authrotiy to comment on those things

 

[Lappi]

loops into itself? What do you mean by that?

It is a self fulfilling prophecy. If you want me to go in depth i will. This would be an actual argument, not just an loose bundle of points that i made in 3 minutes meant to cause trouble and logic majors foam at their mouths. Honestly im surprised my post got so much attention in the first place. It was more of a Shitpost if anything else. I often debate in my social circles outside of my work, but here im just too lazy to give a fuck. But if you want to send me an private message about anything your more than happy too.

 

[Lappi]

Lappi
I'll thank you not to conflate all theologies and philosophies with one another in this way, and so ignorantly. It demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the nuance of faiths outside your realm of experience, and a lack of respect for ways of life other than your own. Your comments about things like the rules against shellfish and tattoos are reference to Jewish law given in Leviticus, and so your point fails in several discrete ways: 1) the Jewish belief system does not necessarily include a heaven or hell, or any sort of afterlife, 2) as I have previously explained, Leviticus refers to things being ritually unclean (the word used for "abomination" in the original Hebrew is toevah, which refers to idolatry or things incongruous to one's religious practices, NOT to moral judgment), 3) many Christian scholars argue that Levitican law would not even apply to Christians because Jesus created a new pact with god which supersedes the old one for his followers.

Religion itself is almost never directly incompatible with anything. It is the choices of people interpreting their reference- making the choice to be tolerant or to be hateful and bigoted and using their scripture to support that point- that determines how they use their religion. Religion and religious texts are, as a rule, malleable and open to interpretation, sometimes with contradictions, just like any secular philosophy. If you planned to make a critique of religion (and I get the feeling that you did this out of smugness and sense of superiority, and not any genuine concern for LGBT people) you have done a poor job of it.

Tl;dr: log off and read a book. Educate yourself.

Have a good day though, i see that you are well versed in these areas.

Though i do have to say, dont call people smug, and say they have a superiority complex, then tell them to educate themselves. OR state they're intentions.
If you stuck to the top part, i would have agreed with you fully, and i even i admit im wrong when you bring this up. Im just too lazy to care. Exept for the part about stating what i respect, what is in my experience, and call me ignorant.

So my advice if it means anything. Just post this

. It demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the nuance of faiths outside your realm of experience, and a lack of respect for ways of life other than your own. Your comments about things like the rules against shellfish and tattoos are reference to Jewish law given in Leviticus, and so your point fails in several discrete ways: 1) the Jewish belief system does not necessarily include a heaven or hell, or any sort of afterlife, 2) as I have previously explained, Leviticus refers to things being ritually unclean (the word used for "abomination" in the original Hebrew is toevah, which refers to idolatry or things incongruous to one's religious practices, NOT to moral judgment), 3) many Christian scholars argue that Levitican law would not even apply to Christians because Jesus created a new pact with god which supersedes the old one for his followers.

and skip out on the constant low-key 'Im better than you' part.
Also i agree with the part about religion being open to interpretation.

 

[Verdance]

Lappi
If you don't understand something, you should not attempt to speak with authority on it at all. I happen to have gone out of the way to educate myself on religion and different religious theories because I am humble enough to know when I don't know enough about something. I still don't know everything that there is, and especially not on all world religions. However, as a gay Jew myself, I especially hate when people attempt to use my people's scripture as a pass to be homophobic, or to misrepresent us.

You appear to be smug and arrogant when you try to enter a legitimate conversation clearly lacking knowledge, simply to "be a troll" or "get people riled up." I made an assumption about your character based on your behavior, not mine. I have known a lot of people who take the approach you did in order to prove that all religion is bad or absurd, when they have usually only had very limited experience with it.

If you actually want to learn more, Google is at your fingertips. There are plenty of scholarly articles, not to mention video and audio lectures online on the subject of religion and queerness and religion in general (one of my personal favorites being Reza Aslan). If you have religious friends or family, it might be worthwhile to talk to them about their beliefs in a civil and respectful way. Learning is something you need to choose, and something you do for yourself. Other people can give you resources, but education is a personal action.

 

[Idea]

and you do? I am perfectly fine with accepting everything i said being wrong. I didnt come here for a debate. I came here to say what i wanted to and get out. If you feel like you must dissect every part of my poor 5 minute argument then go ahead. You will find it very poor and ill admit it. Its not a good argument, do you want me to say that. Or will you still be unhappy.
(Also, who does have the right or authority though, i can say it, until you rip my tongue i will yell it. Because its the internet, and its free speech, on an forum)
Because i say it doesnt mean im right. technically almost this whole thread is opinion because there are no sources. Its opinion vs opinion. I can claim all i want, but the time and the conviction you go to talk to me, should say something. So instead of just yelling EDUCATE YOURSELF, YOU HAVE NO AUTHORITY!!!!

It is a self fulfilling prophecy. If you want me to go in depth i will. This would be an actual argument, not just an loose bundle of points that i made in 3 minutes meant to cause trouble and logic majors foam at their mouths. Honestly im surprised my post got so much attention in the first place. It was more of a Shitpost if anything else. I often debate in my social circles outside of my work, but here im just too lazy to give a fuck. But if you want to send me an private message about anything your more than happy too.

Yes, I do have authority to comment on these things. Because I know better than to shitpost about them. Because topics like religion are life-defining, and a little bit of episthemic responsability (that is, responsability about what we believe and communicate to others) goes a long way into making discussions meaningful and lives better. Even if you meant no harm, you can still cause confusion for not real reason. Not because you don´t agree with me. You can be an atheist all you want, and I will never bash people for being an atheists, in fact, I wouldn´t even call this bashing exactly. But that comes in the condition that they do not try to attack my beliefs without even knowing anything remotely close to what they are.

You say you are part of the lgbt community, so think about when those things were demonized. When the lgbt community was thought of as perverts, sluts and rapists, among other things that I probably don´t know or even imagine, was that a good thing? Were people being associated with those things just because a bunch of others decided to call them that without really digging into it just something you feel was rightful? I for one don´t.

I did explain my point. You don´t even have to look far, it´s in this very thread. And I also explained a lot of the thing you are STILL complaining about now.

As for the self-fulfilling prophecy, having in consideration two parts happened and one is still to happen, I can hardly see how the concept applies, but I´d be more than happy to hear you out.

In short. If you have something serious to say, something that you can back up with any form of justification other than prejudice, by all means, go ahead, exercise your free will. If you don´t have something meanignful to say, don´t waste the time of everyone you quoted. Because you ask questions and make comments whose answer you seemingly don´t really care about.

 

[Lappi]

Yes, I do have authority to comment on these things. Because I know better than to shitpost about them. Because topics like religion are life-defining, and a little bit of episthemic responsability (that is, responsability about what we believe and communicate to others) goes a long way into making discussions meaningful and lives better. Even if you meant no harm, you can still cause confusion for not real reason. Not because you don´t agree with me. You can be an atheist all you want, and I will never bash people for being an atheists, in fact, I wouldn´t even call this bashing exactly. But that comes in the condition that they do not try to attack my beliefs without even knowing anything remotely close to what they are.

You say you are part of the lgbt community, so think about when those things were demonized. When the lgbt community was thought of as perverts, sluts and rapists, among other things that I probably don´t know or even imagine, was that a good thing? Were people being associated with those things just because a bunch of others decided to call them that without really digging into it just something you feel was rightful? I for one don´t.

I did explain my point. You don´t even have to look far, it´s in this very thread. And I also explained a lot of the thing you are STILL complaining about now.

As for the self-fulfilling prophecy, having in consideration two parts happened and one is still to happen, I can hardly see how the concept applies, but I´d be more than happy to hear you out.

In short. If you have something serious to say, something that you can back up with any form of justification other than prejudice, by all means, go ahead, exercise your free will. If you don´t have something meanignful to say, don´t waste the time of everyone you quoted. Because you ask questions and make comments whose answer you seemingly don´t really care about.

Because you ask questions and make comments whose answer you seemingly don´t really care about.

Meh, im bored.

You say you are part of the lgbt community, so think about when those things were demonized. When the lgbt community was thought of as perverts, sluts and rapists, among other things that I probably don´t know or even imagine, was that a good thing? Were people being associated with those things just because a bunch of others decided to call them that without really digging into it just something you feel was rightful? I for one don´t.

Course it wasnt an good thing. Thats why it has been fazed out with only small sects still existing. But the point is i dont closely hold those views. Its not my free will its a lack of caring. I couldnt care less if god existed, or if homosexuality is wrong. Because ill be dead soon anyways.
To me there is just no point in believing in something uncertain if that makes an sense (In my book at least) But im going off topic.

Honestly i Did not really bother looking more than 5 post deep because im here for a quick laugh and maybe to see just how many people will jump on a laughably bad argument. Suprisingly 2 was that number.

Lappi
If you don't understand something, you should not attempt to speak with authority on it at all. I happen to have gone out of the way to educate myself on religion and different religious theories because I am humble enough to know when I don't know enough about something. I still don't know everything that there is, and especially not on all world religions. However, as a gay Jew myself, I especially hate when people attempt to use my people's scripture as a pass to be homophobic, or to misrepresent us.

You appear to be smug and arrogant when you try to enter a legitimate conversation clearly lacking knowledge, simply to "be a troll" or "get people riled up." I made an assumption about your character based on your behavior, not mine. I have known a lot of people who take the approach you did in order to prove that all religion is bad or absurd, when they have usually only had very limited experience with it.

If you actually want to learn more, Google is at your fingertips. There are plenty of scholarly articles, not to mention video and audio lectures online on the subject of religion and queerness and religion in general (one of my personal favorites being Reza Aslan). If you have religious friends or family, it might be worthwhile to talk to them about their beliefs in a civil and respectful way. Learning is something you need to choose, and something you do for yourself. Other people can give you resources, but education is a personal action.

I assure you that i may be a 'troll' or enjoying myself a little too much. But trust me when i say i have considered educating myself. And i have, and still am. But there is a difference between making a very bad argument and just not trying. I find you to be very smart on the subject. and i respect that.
Also i dont mean to misrepresent anyone. The people following that religion especially. Religion is very much an loose choice. No one is a cookie cutter of an religious text.
My family is Lutheran and i have tried to have civil discourse. They usually revert to what i have done.
Though i thank you for actually making me work for how i talk to you, i usually dont care enough to correct myself but you are of the few that bring great rebuttals.
If you wish to have civil discourse and maybe even educate me on the topic. Please message me.

I know that i am not all knowing on the subject, but i have learned more and more. I just need to get out of the habit of making 3 minute jumbled together arguments. Maybe drink less, and also get more sleep.

 

[MISTER UN. 0W3N]

.... I don't usually get deep these discussions. I just wanna drop something off as a means of civil discussion about homosexuality (LGBT+ in general) and the Bible. Not putting my opinion and what not out there (since I did the survey ages ago; I just wanted to help with Pokegeek151 's paper). BUT... since everyone loves interpreting the bible, why not debate/interpret the Book of Samuel and the figures David and Jonathan? It'd be interesting to see what y'all say. That's it. xD That's all I wanted to say with things kinda... well... turning into this:

More like "a hate-filled pit of anger and disagreement." Just an opinion of what I read over and interpreted from the text. *ba dum diiiiiiiiiiish*

 

[TheRockInception]

.... I don't usually get deep these discussions. I just wanna drop something off as a means of civil discussion about homosexuality (LGBT+ in general) and the Bible. Not putting my opinion and what not out there (since I did the survey ages ago; I just wanted to help with Pokegeek151 's paper). BUT... since everyone loves interpreting the bible, why not debate/interpret the Book of Samuel and the figures David and Jonathan? It'd be interesting to see what y'all say. That's it. xD That's all I wanted to say with things kinda... well... turning into this:

More like "a hate-filled pit of anger and disagreement." Just an opinion of what I read over and interpreted from the text. *ba dum diiiiiiiiiiish*

ABSOLUETLY IRRELEVANT TO JESUS /s

in other news, how I feel when I walk into this thread late and to see no non catholic interpretations of jesub and the bible

 

[High Moon]

.... I don't usually get deep these discussions. I just wanna drop something off as a means of civil discussion about homosexuality (LGBT+ in general) and the Bible. Not putting my opinion and what not out there (since I did the survey ages ago; I just wanted to help with Pokegeek151 's paper). BUT... since everyone loves interpreting the bible, why not debate/interpret the Book of Samuel and the figures David and Jonathan? It'd be interesting to see what y'all say. That's it. xD That's all I wanted to say with things kinda... well... turning into this:

More like "a hate-filled pit of anger and disagreement." Just an opinion of what I read over and interpreted from the text. *ba dum diiiiiiiiiiish*

So true, I want to add a little something.