Teach Me(et all) Your Religion!

[Volafortis]

I don't think you can pick semantics over word choice in a book that has been translated countless times, and dealt with thousands of years of linguistic evolution.

I think the best you can pick out of the bible is broad meaning, because arguments like the one above aren't about the book itself, they're about the interpretation of the book by the translator, and not just a direct translation, but a translation of the book as it was given to them by someone else who had translated it.

Plenty of opportunities for less reputable persons of power to change words and intent around, particularly when most of the book's lifetime, the vast majority of people were illiterate.

[Deedles]

Wouldn't it be quite redundant for the bible to state that you shouldn't do that if it's just to say that it's physically impossible? Why not state everything that isn't possible then? The text must have some other meaning than "don't have sex in a mans vagina because a man doesn't have a vagina". When I say must I don't mean to dictate what can or cannot be put in there, just to say that it would be quite stupid.

I'm not gonna express bluntly why I tend to say that line every time the 'do not lie with a man' line comes up, but it is, obviously, because I don't agree with it, and I don't agree with religious texts dictating the lives of people who aren't religious.

[Merrymaker_Mortalis]

^ I agree.

I don't like it when faith is forced on people. It seems like an irony.
--
The Bible states compassion and tolerance are virtues.
The Bible states that we shouldn't judge others.

Sin is something that distance a person from God. IF homosexuality is indeed a sin, then it is something that is between the person who "sinned" and God himself.

Other sins such as murder, thievery adultery etc. hurt other people. Therefore we have laws that address these issues.

Homosexuality in itself is not damaging to anyone. The only damage is if you believe it is a sin and it's distancing the person from God.

Even then, if someone is disconnected from God, how on earth is rebuking them going to be helpful? Be warm. Show compassion.
-
My opinion is this: if you believe homosexuality is a sin, don't be a dick. It's not your problem. If you feel the need to intervene, be nice. Be human. As opposed to being judgmental and human.

The Bible expressed God/Jesus as forgiving and loving. The vast majority of violence comes from humans or the old testament.

[AlexanderDitto]

I don't think you can pick semantics over word choice in a book that has been translated countless times, and dealt with thousands of years of linguistic evolution.

I think the best you can pick out of the bible is broad meaning, because arguments like the one above aren't about the book itself, they're about the interpretation of the book by the translator, and not just a direct translation, but a translation of the book as it was given to them by someone else who had translated it.

Plenty of opportunities for less reputable persons of power to change words and intent around, particularly when most of the book's lifetime, the vast majority of people were illiterate.

This argument is valid unless the person you're speaking with believes the translations are the inspired word of their god.

The Bible states compassion and tolerance are virtues.
The Bible states that we shouldn't judge others.

Sin is something that distance a person from God. IF homosexuality is indeed a sin, then it is something that is between the person who "sinned" and God himself.

Other sins such as murder, thievery adultery etc. hurt other people. Therefore we have laws that address these issues.

Homosexuality in itself is not damaging to anyone. The only damage is if you believe it is a sin and it's distancing the person from God.

Even then, if someone is disconnected from God, how on earth is rebuking them going to be helpful? Be warm. Show compassion.
-
My opinion is this: if you believe homosexuality is a sin, don't be a dick. It's not your problem. If you feel the need to intervene, be nice. Be human. As opposed to being judgmental and human.

The Bible expressed God/Jesus as forgiving and loving. The vast majority of violence comes from humans or the old testament.

God is sometimes described as forgiving, compassionate, and loving, but, even in the New Testament, is also described as judging. See Matthew 10:34 when Jesus says

Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace but a sword.

Which may have been referencing the similar passages in Luke (12:49-53, 22:35-38):

Click to Expand

I have come to cast fire upon the Earth; and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished! Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.

And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

And, of course, Revelations is also part of the New Testament, and it's violent as all get-out.

Theologians have struggled to reconcile this shit for centuries. The interpretation of God and Jesus as loving and forgiving is a modern attempt to reconcile non-violence with these teachings about judgement and sin.

[Merrymaker_Mortalis]

Even then, it's not our mortal's position to judge others.

The only way you can is if you're 100% clean yourself, which is impossible.

[Elomin Sha]

Even then, it's not our mortal's position to judge others.

Yes it is. We were 'given' free will weren't we?

The only way you can is if you're 100% clean yourself, which is impossible.

In regard to the 'clean'. That would be hard to be considered since if we were created we were made inferior to begin with by someone/thing that was not very bright. Example: instead of saying you are clean he wants a blood self-sacrifice of himself to himself as a loop hole to a structure it created.

[Merrymaker_Mortalis]

I think you have the choice to, but it's hypocritical.

[Elomin Sha]

How so?

[Merrymaker_Mortalis]

Don't complain about a splinter in your brother's eyes when you have a whole plank in your own. Remove that plank from your own eye before commenting on your brother's splinter.

Who ever has lived a clean and honest life can throw the first stone.

There's a lot of "please stop being hypocrites" in the Bible.

[Elomin Sha]

Errr, what are you talking about? I don't see how coming up with a parable has any relevance. It's a non-answer.

[Darkflame]

Just plopped by to say I am a Agnostic who believes IF there is a God, there is so many possibilities as to make any specific religion as created by humans unlikely.
I think I would personally rank some of the highest possibilities of a creator to be either a "universe hivemind" style god, or a "person who programmed the universe before hitting run on their simulation" style god as pretty high. (as both of these get around the issue of "if God created the universe where did he stand?" style questions - which is a silly way to say a creator is a more complex starting point then nothing at all)

Unrelated, but Id also question why so few people believe in an evil God, a bored God, a chaotic God etc. It seems to be a good God or nothing.

Their not nice possibilities, but they are possibilities no?

[Lord Chrusher]

I do not see how God as the simulator gets around the where did God stand question. You now have plenty of unknowns about the nature and origin of the simulator and the simulation.

[Elomin Sha]

They may be possibilities, some people believe the God in the OT and NT are two different Gods.
I recently heard about Sophia and how she created Yahweh who is actually the Devil when he created his angels and the world from Gnostic Text.

But, there still needs to be a proof that God exists.

[Darkflame]

I have heard ideas along that line before.
But is there any (currently active) established faiths that believe in non-good Gods? Or has civilization been filtering them all out?

I do not see how God as the simulator gets around the where did God stand question. You now have plenty of unknowns about the nature and origin of the simulator and the simulation.

Well, it explicitly pushes the whole of our reality as a "subreality" of another reality.
So it certainly doesn't explain how something came from (absolutely) nothing.

But it could get around any questions of "most simple" by virtue of the fact we would have no clue about the physical laws in the "outer reality". The nature of the outer reality might be so different to ours that a creator (or creators) make more sense to "just exist".

The computer simulation is only an analogy, of course, as whatever the "real physics" is could be quite different. I think the only thing you could state is our reality must be more simple then the "real" one - or contain less information.

[AlexanderDitto]

I have heard ideas along that line before.
But is there any (currently active) established faiths that believe in non-good Gods? Or has civilization been filtering them all out?

This question is unclear. "Good" is a subjective word. Also, deity.

In short, though: yes, there are. Hinduism, Shinto, Bantu, for example, include Gods/primary deities which are not expressly "good."

[Darkflame]

"This question is unclear. "Good" is a subjective word..."

Ah, great question.

Good to me I define as "tries to minimize harm"
Which pushes the question somewhat to "what is harm?", of course.

Which I define as something like;
"what the (potential) person being harmed would consider a experience they wouldn't want to have (assuming they are in their right frame of mind and have had time to consider the situation)"
I had to add that last bit, as a child might consider "eating their vegetables" as being an "experience they wouldn't want to have", but when older understand it as good for them to have it. So harm has to be sort of taken over a broad timescale rather then in the moment.

Also I think the word "tries" is important - if you genuinely try to do good but it blows up in your face, your still a good person. (at least, for that action/intention )
So, I guess a completely incompetent God can still be a good one

"Also, deity."

Hmm..this one I find much harder actually.
A "creator of everything" is easy to define, and if theres a single god thats often the case.
But when theres a polytheistic beliefs, the line between deity and other things becomes a bit blurred doesn't it?
Is a deity merely something with more (magic?) powers? Simply anything worshipped?
I don't know.

I guess polytheistic beliefs tend to give more characteristics to dieties in order to justify the separation*, so you end up with ones other then "generic good" more easily.

*I wouldn't be surprised if a kinda "cultural evolution" goes on with Gods gaining attributes and the more meme-tastic ones stick, and sometimes ones get so different as to separate off.

[BarcodeReader]

I really don't know what good it may to share it here, but I haven't seen a single mention of someone having a similar background on the site, so here goes: I'm a LRR fan, and I'm a Mormon.

[Merrymaker_Mortalis]

I play in my church's evening band. But I seem to face friction with my sister who wants me to play quietly during lyrical bits of the hymns to sound "better".
And I'm thinking, why can't I play how I feel like playing with consideration for others? I'm not doing a performance. I'm just playing along to a hymn. By making it into a performance I take away the point of playing a hymn.

[Metcarfre]

You sound like you shouldn't be in the band, then.

[Merrymaker_Mortalis]

It's only my sister that whines. No one else cares

I avoid being in the morning band because there seems to be more, strict.

A church service is about worship and appreciation. It's not a stage show.
I think you'd get along with my sister Met

[Darkflame]

God has to hear the words silly, how else will he judge you all?

[Metcarfre]

A worship band, even more so than a regular band, has to work together to produce a cohesive vision for how each song should go and how the congregation should experience it. I've been doing sound in my church for a few years now, and the bands that can't get that part together are always the most grating.

I suggest you reconsider participating if you aren't willing to collaborate with the rest of the band and follow the directions of your worship leader.

[AlexanderDitto]

A worship band, even more so than a regular band, has to work together to produce a cohesive vision for how each song should go and how the congregation should experience it.

It's just as important to do this in a regular band. I don't think the "worship" part has anything to do with it.

If you're in a musical group, your sound is supposed to "fit" in with everyone else's sound. That's the reason big groups (like orchestras) have conductors; one of their jobs is to keep everyone's sound balanced.

If you're just playing for you, why are you playing in a public place?

[Merrymaker_Mortalis]

I should have been more specific, sorry.

playing with consideration for others?

Anyways.

[Merrymaker_Mortalis]

I like to look at song lyrics for songs and consider them in a Christian context. It's a fun hobby of mine. I don't take it too seriously as it's similar to looking for Jesus' face in toast ([color]because I would somehow know what he looks like?[/color]). However, if it's intentional, sometimes there's an element of missing the point. Often the common mistake of "earning salvation", which is false.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UZs9aJfdNQ
Is an example of a song that you can extract song imagery from the lyrics.