• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

No problem

Awesome. I just didn't want to start off on a dishonest foot :)

So... Well the evidence of the Gospels stand up to scrutiny, if they were bogus stories I doubt that the parts of them that show total weakness on the part of their writers would have been written.

So, I take this to mean more or less "They showed weakness (or any negative attribute) about themselves in the text, why would they do that if they made it up? They'd leave the negative stuff about themselves out if they were making it up" (please tell me if I am wrong, English isn't my first language and I want to be sure!)

There is virtually no doubt that the Gospels were written around 100 AD, and it is stated that 500 people saw the resurrected Christ, and many were still alive, now if that wasn't true, a really unbelievable thing, don't you think that some record of someone rebutting the statement would exist? Did a whole group of people lie about this for some unknown nefarious purpose?

But how do you know 500 people saw it? How do you know one person, or two people, or twelve people didn't just "say" that 500 people saw it? Again, I am not mocking, I am genuinely curious about your view on it. Unless there's some kind of evidence suggesting this indeed happened, there's no reason to expect anything rebutting it. You may have studied this more than me, so I am curious.

They make total sense from the standpoint of geography, customs and beliefs of the time, and historical fact, For decades the name of the Roman governor at the time of Christ given in the Bible was doubted, Pilate, because it was not found on any lists of governors in Judea, but finally an engraved marble stele was found near the governors mansion that stated Pilate was governor in the reign of the emperor in power at the time of Christ.

For me, that doesn't demonstrate anything necessarily more than whoever wrote it at the time was aware of a Governor named Pilate, customs of the time and other known events. Again, maybe you have more information so I am curious. If I write a story claiming something extraordinary and include things that were customs today, the name of a US senator or state governor (someone important today that may not be known at all in 1 or 2 thousand years)... However long later it's dug up that would be nothing more towards the veracity of my other claims than some girl named Anneke lived in 2016 and was aware of said governor/official and the customs at the time I lived. It wouldn't necessarily give any credence to an extraordinary claim I made, would it? It would go much further with me personally if there were hard evidence or other sources that cited the dead walking the streets, the darkness, etc.. Especially since this was a time of obsessive record keeping and it would have been well known and widespread without question.

For me the answer to some deep philosophical problems can be found in Christianity. I have read Kierkergard, Pascal and other philosophers on these issues. Why is there anything ? Can nothing produce something ? Why does mankind seem to have an inherent cross cultural sense of right and wrong ? Does evil exist, and if so, why is it evil ? anyway you get the idea.

Difficult area as well. Why wouldn't there be something? As far as we know - something can't come from nothing but that's not what anyone I've heard of in the scientific community claims. In fact creation is more "something coming from nothing" than say, the big bang which speaks more to how the universe may have come to exist in it's current state (not from "nothing"). And if one has a problem with an eternal universe for example, they'd also be required to have a problem with an eternal deity (unless they were being intellectually dishonest). As for a cross culture sense of right and wrong, I wouldn't posit that this is true at all. Some cultures have wildly different concepts of right and wrong than others. I'm positive there are parts of humanity who have wildly different concepts of right and wrong compared to you or I. In fact I know it for certain. Connected cultures seem to have slightly (or sometimes largely) similar concepts of morality, but that could be attributed easily to the simple fact that they are connected and influence each other to varying degrees. As for evil, I think that's another thing that isn't universal. Your idea of evil may be very different form mine, and mine from yours. For example, how would one read the Bible from how we ourselves view morality and come away with God being less evil than Satan? You could make an argument that stands for you as to why he is the good guy, but it could also easily be made the case from the information within the Bible that he's the antagonist.

It's all tricky for sure, and again, just curious for your views! All of the things you mentioned are so very open, and it's why I personally look for more. But I appreciate that it's evidence for you and am curious about your answers if you wish to provide them! Peace :)
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Well, I know of some denominations that adhere to Paul's admonition, and the women do, because they believe he is right.
And they are a very slim minority that largely exists outside of the awareness of mainstream thought, and most people today in the West will not tolerate it.
You are incorrect in your belief that I am " only taking in what you agree with, and completely dismissing the resources that suggest you are wrong" I am probably as well read as you on many of these topics.
You don't seem like it. Translations are notoriously difficult, especially when the material is coming from a long-dead culture.
There is only one Divine Existence....there is only one result to the achieved...it is the goal and destiny of all souls to realize THAT...
You're missing the point. It doesn't matter what people believe in, they still experience the same things - some of them without concepts of gods or souls.
Absolute nonsense, what translations have these alleged great scholars produced ?
This is an example of dismissing what you haven't agreed with, because you have been shown the products of these translations.
Using the rules of evidence, there is ample evidence for the truth of a Bible.
Where? It claims that the world is flat and fixed. It states the entire Earth was flooded. The Bible claims that pi = 3. There is no firmament. It calls the moon a light, but the only light of the moon is actually a reflection of sunlight. There are so many blatant factual errors with the Bible, how can we assert that there is truth in it? Obviously there is some truth to it, but it's not exactly a good substitute for a history book.
In your example of the unicorn, I would counter with light conditions. weather conditions, distances, any and all factors that could allow me to ask that under these conditions, and the frame of mind and condition of the witness, could a reasonable and prudent person see something that looked like a pink unicorn to him. Is reality a perception, or an absolute ?
Truth is absolute. 2+2 will always equal four. The circumference of a circle is always 2piR. These are truths, and they are absolute. Even if by this stretch you present someone thinks they saw a unicorn does not mean they saw a unicorn. The perceptions does not match reality, because it is not reality, because pink unicorns do not exist.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Well, if I lied, and said 500 people saw X, and my statement was widely circulated wouldn't someone somewhere say "that's funny he says those people are around, but nobody has ever spoken to them and heard this outlandish story from them" 3 people seeing something is pretty easy to control, but 500 ? The Gospels were known to have been circulated, and there is plenty of criticism of the new faith in contemporary writings, but as far as I know, there is no one saying these 500 or at least some of them could not be found. As to creation, the big bang theory, as I understand it, proposes that everything there is, matter, energy, light, time and space began when a singularity (unknown) of infinitely compressed something the size of an atom, began for some unknown reason, to rapidly expand creating everything, the universe, the laws of physics, etc., etc. Nothing can ever be known in retrograde past the planck epoch, a point milleseconds after the bang, beyond which in retrograde, all laws of physics break down. So the singularity is proposed, but can never be "seen" or identified, or measured by the laws of physics, so the singularity, if it existed can never be known, So, I could say everything came from nothing, and no one could prove me wrong. Interestingly, the big bang shares much in common with the Biblical account of creation. There appears to be cross cultural prohibitions on murder (not killing), child molesting, certain forms of theft, and others. If good ( at least as far as these go), is present in humanity, where did it come from, and why does it exist ? The archaeological evidence is just one example of a continuing chain of discoveries that confirm the factual basis of the Bible, and these discoveries continue to this day, Credibility in hard physical evidence is being more and more established. As to evil, I think a mass murderer of children would be considered as evil in all cultures, but why ? What compels us to hold that the killing of children is wrong, evil ? I believe there are universal laws of good and bad, and traces of them can be found in all cultures, because humanity was at the beginning very aware of these laws, and although they have been severely degraded, a remnant of them remains. There is much more evidence from the Bible that I would be happy to share with you, as well as the reasons for my faith, but unfortunately I am an old guy, with MS, so typing can be a real chore, so hang with me and I will try to answer each of your questions, whatever they may be, but it will take some time
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
ALL interpretation is agenda-driven. In fact, the writing, itself, was agenda-driven. The great scholars of the texts do agree with me. I studied under two people who have been on translation teams. There's always more to figure out, as we get further from the sources and further into our own cultural development and scientific discovery -- as well as newer textual discoveries and methods of criticism.
There is nothing more to discover.....the book has been written....reinterpreting it to misrepresent what it said is not scholarship...
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
As to creation, the big bang theory, as I understand it, proposes that everything there is, matter, energy, light, time and space began when a singularity (unknown) of infinitely compressed something the size of an atom, began for some unknown reason, to rapidly expand creating everything, the universe, the laws of physics, etc., etc. Nothing can ever be known in retrograde past the planck epoch, a point milleseconds after the bang, beyond which in retrograde, all laws of physics break down. So the singularity is proposed, but can never be "seen" or identified, or measured by the laws of physics, so the singularity, if it existed can never be known, So, I could say everything came from nothing, and no one could prove me wrong.
But you could also say that everything came from pudding, and no one could prove you wrong.

Science and scientific conclusions aren't based on "what we can't prove wrong", they're based on "what can reasonably be demonstrated to be true". You assertion is still not justified, neither rationally nor scientifically.

Interestingly, the big bang shares much in common with the Biblical account of creation.
How, exactly?

There appears to be cross cultural prohibitions on murder (not killing), child molesting, certain forms of theft, and others. If good ( at least as far as these go), is present in humanity, where did it come from, and why does it exist ?
Humans are social animals, able to communicate and empathise. Cross-cultural values are merely indicators that humans draw morality, at least at a basic level, out of a common desire to share space, increase survival, and cooperate as a community to benefit the whole. Basic reasoning suggests that a society that collectively condemns murder, child molesting and theft is generally going to be a better, more unified, and more constructive society. It doesn't take miraculous intervention for human minds to invent and share these principles.

The archaeological evidence is just one example of a continuing chain of discoveries that confirm the factual basis of the Bible, and these discoveries continue to this day, Credibility in hard physical evidence is being more and more established.
Care to provide examples?

As to evil, I think a mass murderer of children would be considered as evil in all cultures, but why ?
Well, that's not necessarily true. Mass slaughter of women and children did occur in ancient times in numerous cultures, mostly as acts of genocide following military campaigns that are attempting to wipe their enemy's culture off the map. Heck, even God himself orders genocide in the Bible, so surely the idea that genocide = evil wasn't an entirely pervasive belief.

What compels us to hold that the killing of children is wrong, evil ?
See above. Apparently, not God, since God specifically sanctions and orders the killing of children.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
And they are a very slim minority that largely exists outside of the awareness of mainstream thought, and most people today in the West will not tolerate it.

You don't seem like it. Translations are notoriously difficult, especially when the material is coming from a long-dead culture.


You're missing the point. It doesn't matter what people believe in, they still experience the same things - some of them without concepts of gods or souls.

This is an example of dismissing what you haven't agreed with, because you have been shown the products of these translations.

Where? It claims that the world is flat and fixed. It states the entire Earth was flooded. The Bible claims that pi = 3. There is no firmament. It calls the moon a light, but the only light of the moon is actually a reflection of sunlight. There are so many blatant factual errors with the Bible, how can we assert that there is truth in it? Obviously there is some truth to it, but it's not exactly a good substitute for a history book.

Truth is absolute. 2+2 will always equal four. The circumference of a circle is always 2piR. These are truths, and they are absolute. Even if by this stretch you present someone thinks they saw a unicorn does not mean they saw a unicorn. The perceptions does not match reality, because it is not reality, because pink unicorns do not exist.
I have not been shown any products of any alleged translations. I have been given speculation and I wishes, not complete translated verses that say anything different from the plethora of translations that exist. If translations are "notoriously difficult" why do they always come out essentially the same ? The Bible does NOT claim the earth is flat and fixed. I don't recall ever reading an exposition of the Greek mathematical concept of pi. If I missed it, please tell me where it is I think you need to reread the first chapter of Genesis, and if you don;t grasp it, I will happily go verse by verse with you so you understand, and you will see that there is much in harmony with current scientific thought
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
I didn't mention belief....
But you could also say that everything came from pudding, and no one could prove you wrong.

Science and scientific conclusions aren't based on "what we can't prove wrong", they're based on "what can reasonably be demonstrated to be true". You assertion is still not justified, neither rationally nor scientifically.


How, exactly?


Humans are social animals, able to communicate and empathise. Cross-cultural values are merely indicators that humans draw morality, at least at a basic level, out of a common desire to share space, increase survival, and cooperate as a community to benefit the whole. Basic reasoning suggests that a society that collectively condemns murder, child molesting and theft is generally going to be a better, more unified, and more constructive society. It doesn't take miraculous intervention for human minds to invent and share these principles.


Care to provide examples?


Well, that's not necessarily true. Mass slaughter of women and children did occur in ancient times in numerous cultures, mostly as acts of genocide following military campaigns that are attempting to wipe their enemy's culture off the map. Heck, even God himself orders genocide in the Bible, so surely the idea that genocide = evil wasn't an entirely pervasive belief.


See above. Apparently, not God, since God specifically sanctions and orders the killing of children.
You completely missed the point. There is a difference between murder and killing. Every culture defines murder, unjustified killing, We may not agree with where they draw the lines, but the lines exist. Today, justified killing and murder exist, and both occur every day. One is totally condemned and results in very serious penalties, the other is accepted
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
You completely missed the point. There is a difference between murder and killing. Every culture defines murder, unjustified killing, We may not agree with where they draw the lines, but the lines exist. Today, justified killing and murder exist, and both occur every day. One is totally condemned and results in very serious penalties, the other is accepted
So you think there is such a thing as a justified mass killing of children?
 
Well, if I lied, and said 500 people saw X, and my statement was widely circulated wouldn't someone somewhere say "that's funny he says those people are around, but nobody has ever spoken to them and heard this outlandish story from them" 3 people seeing something is pretty easy to control, but 500 ? The Gospels were known to have been circulated, and there is plenty of criticism of the new faith in contemporary writings, but as far as I know, there is no one saying these 500 or at least some of them could not be found. As to creation, the big bang theory, as I understand it, proposes that everything there is, matter, energy, light, time and space began when a singularity (unknown) of infinitely compressed something the size of an atom, began for some unknown reason, to rapidly expand creating everything, the universe, the laws of physics, etc., etc. Nothing can ever be known in retrograde past the planck epoch, a point milleseconds after the bang, beyond which in retrograde, all laws of physics break down. So the singularity is proposed, but can never be "seen" or identified, or measured by the laws of physics, so the singularity, if it existed can never be known, So, I could say everything came from nothing, and no one could prove me wrong. Interestingly, the big bang shares much in common with the Biblical account of creation. There appears to be cross cultural prohibitions on murder (not killing), child molesting, certain forms of theft, and others. If good ( at least as far as these go), is present in humanity, where did it come from, and why does it exist ? The archaeological evidence is just one example of a continuing chain of discoveries that confirm the factual basis of the Bible, and these discoveries continue to this day, Credibility in hard physical evidence is being more and more established. As to evil, I think a mass murderer of children would be considered as evil in all cultures, but why ? What compels us to hold that the killing of children is wrong, evil ? I believe there are universal laws of good and bad, and traces of them can be found in all cultures, because humanity was at the beginning very aware of these laws, and although they have been severely degraded, a remnant of them remains. There is much more evidence from the Bible that I would be happy to share with you, as well as the reasons for my faith, but unfortunately I am an old guy, with MS, so typing can be a real chore, so hang with me and I will try to answer each of your questions, whatever they may be, but it will take some time

They may, or they may not. In a time when people didn’t know where the sun went at night and were largely ignorant and therefore gullible, it may stand to reason that not many disputed it. It could also well be that there were plenty of disputes that haven’t been discovered, or that were destroyed. And even if there were no contemporary disputes, there’s also no contemporary affirmations on anything of importance at all. And it may well be that they misinterpreted events that occurred. Could be that the resurrection of Jesus was a scam at the time, could it not? I’m not asking you to agree, but it’s possible no? Because the meatiest parts, the walking dead, the darkness and sounds... Things that would have been recorded in that time and spread like wildfire... There's just nothing at all. If that happened, if anyone observed at that particular point in history with the population of Jerusalem and all the people who visited the city, there would be volumes upon volumes of people all over the world confirming that the dead rose and walked the streets. THAT would lend credibility to the Bible’s claims (for me). But I understand what is there is enough for you, and I respect it and thank you for sharing your evidence as I asked :)

As for creation, first, we can’t say “Nothing can ever be known”. We learn new things all the time, and often enough, things once thought impossible. In fact it's quite frequent that things once thought impossible are discovered to be anything but. It’s better to say “with our current understanding”. But our current understanding also doesn’t require a supernatural source to explain anything, and all signs point exclusively towards nature, and not super nature. There has never been a claim made with regards to a god doing something, that once tested held up as "God did it". It's therefore reasonable with the mountain of such things through history, to be skeptical of this claim being any different. Even if we cannot demonstrate what happened beyond a certain point, that doesn’t lend anything at all to “god did it”. To claim that and to have it accepted, this would have to stand on it’s own merits, not simply because something else isn’t known. It's not a matter of "You can't tell me how therefore God." Just like if someone somehow tomorrow entirely debunked evolution, that does not take them even the smallest step closer towards creationism. They would STILL have to demonstrate that. But no, the Biblical account shares literally nothing in common with even as little as we know about how the universe exists, how planets, stars, etc. form, what we now know about life, etc…. The creation account is another massive notch against the Bible because the Bible got it demonstrably wrong on every part that matters, but that’s a bit off our discussion.

Anyway, as little as we know beyond a certain point in the universe’s past, there’s still no evidence at all towards super nature. Outside of the claims of a book that got a lot demonstrably wrong on the topic, but I do accept and respect that this is enough for you and many others :)

As for cross cultural prohibitions, not necessarily. There are cultures that don’t care one way or another about murder. If two tribal members fight and one ends up killing the other, in some cultures there’s not a single thought given to it. In some, if you kill a member of another tribe for no reason at all, which is still murder by our definition, it’s not only not frowned upon but actually celebrated. Child molesting is another. Plenty of cultures (some not so primitive as tribes even) fully accept and encourage sexual behavior with children, especially once puberty is reached. There are several things we think of as universal across mankind or that are objective morals, which are absolutely not at all. In history, morality and culture is even more diverse and less "universal". Even in fairly recent history.

Archaeological, I’d have to hear your examples to address properly but I’m not aware of anything of note that holds up the claims in the Bible, so if you have some, I’d honestly appreciate them. I’m not arguing to be rude, I would genuinely welcome anything I hadn’t seen before or anything you may have that supports parts of the Bible. I love to learn :)

Mass murderer of children isn’t even considered evil within the Bible. God in the Bible is actually quite fond of killing just about anything, especially children. All you have to do is be who he created you to be knowing you would be that way, and you'll suffer his wrath. And he'll encourage others to murder you as well. And nothing compels us aside from the culture we’re raised in. Again, there are parts of the world and parts of humanity that absolutely don’t view it as evil in certain circumstances while we largely view it as evil in any case. Plenty of cultures would consider killing children for trivial crimes (crimes according to them) while I'd wager almost anyone in the west would deeply be opposed to killing a child no matter what crime they committed. None of these things you've named are universal or stand across mankind, or time. So far, absolutely no objective code of, or source for morality has ever been found, and nothing at all about morality is constant across all of mankind and certainly not throughout history. At all.

As for your evidence, again, please don’t take my criticisms or questions as rude or picking you apart. I love to learn, and enjoy civil discussion :) Even when there are disagreements, both sides can always learn from each other. Don’t worry about time, and feel free to DM or something if it’s easier! Send me anything you like, anytime and I'm glad to discuss it!
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
You completely missed the point. There is a difference between murder and killing. Every culture defines murder, unjustified killing, We may not agree with where they draw the lines, but the lines exist. Today, justified killing and murder exist, and both occur every day. One is totally condemned and results in very serious penalties, the other is accepted
As to scientific method and rationality, it has nothing to offer re the first cause of creation, so, as I understand it, you essentially have a hollow head on the subject, nothing there, a scientific blank, I on the other hand at least have a belief about what occurred. So your hollow head is superior to my belief ? :lease tell me why
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
As to scientific method and rationality, it has nothing to offer re the first cause of creation, so, as I understand it, you essentially have a hollow head on the subject, nothing there, a scientific blank, I on the other hand at least have a belief about what occurred. So your hollow head is superior to my belief ? :lease tell me why
Because not assuming an answer when we don't have one is more honest than assuming you have an answer when you don't. It also leaves you more open to accepting possible answers when they come.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
We are not talking about what I believe, we are taking about societies and cultures defining what constitutes justified and unjustified killings, what they believe
Doesn't that essentially render your argument a tautology, then? By pointing out that societies condemn "the mass murder of children", you're saying "societies considered the mass killing of children they consider to be unjust to be unjust". Of course they consider it unjust if, by definition, you're stating that they themselves consider it unjust. The point is that not all of them felt that the mass slaughter of children was always morally reprehensible - a position, I would like to think, we can now all agree on.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Because not assuming an answer when we don't have one is more honest than assuming you have an answer when you don't. It also leaves you more open to accepting possible answers when they come.
So, a belief about what occurred, is, as I said, inferior to nothing ? A prudent person always evaluates evidence, and if the evidence is compelling, changes their belief.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Doesn't that essentially render your argument a tautology, then? By pointing out that societies condemn "the mass murder of children", you're saying "societies considered the mass killing of children they consider to be unjust to be unjust". Of course they consider it unjust if, by definition, you're stating that they themselves consider it unjust. The point is that not all of them felt that the mass slaughter of children was always morally reprehensible - a position, I would like to think, we can now all agree on.
Agreed, I used the wrong word, killing instead of murder.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
So, a belief about what occurred, is, as I said, inferior to nothing ?
If you have no reasonable basis on which to form a belief, yes. In lieu of evidence, ignorance is preferable to error.

A prudent person always evaluates evidence, and if the evidence is compelling, changes their belief.
But people act in accordance with their beliefs, and if you have formed a belief in lieu of evidence, you are more likely to act on that belief and make further inferences that are based on further misconceptions. We see it all the time on these forums. When people assume things before they really understand the subject, they can often spin a web of false, inaccurate, or even outright harmful beliefs that become increasingly difficult to untangle. It is far better to refrain from belief, or any other assumptions, until evidence arises.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Agreed, I used the wrong word, killing instead of murder.
Okay, so the notion than the mass killing of children is immoral wasn't strictly Universal amongst early civilizations, and most likely can't be said to have been derived exclusively from Biblical teachings. Many societies considered the mass genocide of women and children, in certain circumstances, to be justifiable.
 
Okay, so the notion than the mass killing of children is immoral wasn't strictly Universal amongst early civilizations, and most likely can't be said to have been derived exclusively from Biblical teachings. Many societies considered the mass genocide of women and children, in certain circumstances, to be justifiable.

Yep, and in many cases attached to that, rape as well. "If you can't wipe them out, breed them out". There are so many things we ourselves view as immoral and think universally bad, that are just... absolutely not universally immoral. Especially the further back you go in time.
 
Top