Ban organized religion, says Elton John

[Crazy Flamer]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

People go to hell because they refuse to turn from their sin to God. Both the sin of Homosexuality and the sin of fornication were paid for by Jesus Christ 2000 years ago.

Were all sins paid for by Jesus Christ?

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

You do realize that the passage I quoted was from the New Testament and was written in Greek. If there is a controversy with regards to your Old Testament passage the New Testament definitely clarifies God's intent. Also the Hebrew language hasn't changed. It is suspect that the question comes at a time when there are external pressures for the church and synagogue to conform to the societal view.

That being said; obviously the Bible only holds authority to one segment of society. Even for many Christians traditions and/or their church leadership holds more authority

If it's not in the Hebrew text how can you use the word homosexual?

And how are people supposed to trust the Bible as being reliable when politcaly correct authors add the word homosexual to support their biased view?

"The word "homosexual" was invented by the Austrian-Hungarian writer and "gay rights" advocate K.M. Kertbeny in 1869. He wanted this term to characterize a healthy condition of loving one's own sex. Immediately thereafter, however, the Berlin psychiatrist Carl Westphal named this condition "contrary sexual feeling" and declared it to be a disease. For the next hundred years the entire psychiatric profession - adopting Kertbeny's term, but Westphal's characterization - considered homosexuals to be suffering from mental illness and devised various "cures". Finally, in 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed the diagnosis from its manual. From that moment on, millions of formerly sick homosexual women and men were healthy again - the greatest and fastest mass cure in medical history. (However, this did not win anyone a Nobel prize for medicine).

[Dion]

Calgaryborn:

The passage in the ancient Hebrew is clearly talking about male-male
sex acts. By using the word "homosexuality," the English translation
appears to condemn lesbian activity as well. The latter behavior is
definitely not mentioned in the original Hebrew text of this passage.
In fact, lesbian behavior is not mentioned anywhere in the Hebrew
Scriptures.

Can you refute the above statement?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Crazy Flamer

Were all sins paid for by Jesus Christ?

Whats your point?

Why ask such a question when his response will only warrent more arrogance from you?

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Azure

Cheese...what does 'right wing' have to do with religious belief?

Are you stereotyping again?

Its a Hockey related message board.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Nicole

I agree with you. I'm religious as well and I don't think anyone, religious or non-religious has a right to judge another person for their actions or beliefs. Christians who condemn others to Hell have no right to say that ... I believe there is only one person who can judge anything and that person is Jesus Christ himself (and this is only going to matter to Christians anyway). Now if one does not believe in Him then that is their right and it's highly doubtful that a believer is going to be able to change that persons mind, as it comes down to faith and not everyone puts their faith in God. I don't think anyone should force their beliefs, regardless of what they believe, whether they believe in God or not; by doing so is being very closeminded.

I think the best way to share what you believe is through your actions and by your example, not through preaching .. nobody wants to be preached to. Besides, Nobody is ever going to agree on religion .. it's just better to get along and accept everybody and to be openminded and loving to all people, as I believe we will be judged by our actions and by how we treat others .. regardless of who they are, just as I believe they will be judged for theirs.

The problem is this Nicole...we have a world full of CalgaryBornAgains who suggest their morality is the way. These types of people are the ones Elton John probably had in mind in his referenece to shutting down religion.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Its a Hockey related message board.

Blah...

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Cheese

The problem is this Nicole...we have a world full of CalgaryBornAgains who suggest their morality is the way. These types of people are the ones Elton John probably had in mind in his referenece to shutting down religion.

Well its a good thing Elton John doesn't have the power to 'ban' such people from having their own belief.

[Dion]

Nothing like a bunch of so called Christians who openly admit that the version of the Bible that they follow has been altered by men to allow the re-enforcement of their interpretation of the scripture, lest anyone dare to disagree with their homophobic interpretations.

I guess I misunderstood the whole thing.

Don't Christians claim that the Bible is the word of God. How can that be true if they advocate going ahead and inserting the words of humans when they find the word of God to be less than they want.

Presumptuous bunch aren't they?

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Dion

Nothing like a bunch of so called Christians who openly admit that the version of the Bible that they follow has been altered by men to allow the re-enforcement of their interpretation of the scripture, lest anyone dare to disagree with their homophobic interpretations.

I guess I misunderstood the whole thing.

Don't Christians claim that the Bible is the word of God. How can that be true if they advocate going ahead and inserting the words of humans when they find the word of God to be less than they want.

Presumptuous bunch aren't they?

pfff,

ever hear of the nicene creed?

this book we don't agree with, that book we don't agree with, eh - toss em

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Dion

Don't Christians claim that the Bible is the word of God. How can that be true if they advocate going ahead and inserting the words of humans when they find the word of God to be less than they want.

Presumptuous bunch aren't they?

Something like that.

But to say that the Bible hasn't lost 'something' through the past say...2000 years...would be ignorant.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Dion

If it's not in the Hebrew text how can you use the word homosexual?

The word Homosexual is the standard English word describing sexual relations between two men or two women. It is what Romans chapter one is describing. I can't see how that passage could be misinterpreted. I have very little knowledge of Hebrew but, have found that usually one Hebrew word will be translated into one English phrase of three or four words. Also, the meaning of the Hebrew word is effected by the words around it. Not so much like an English word which can have two completely different definitions depending on usage. But, something a little more subtle. Bottom line: I am neither qualified nor have the resources to agree or disagree with your articles conclusions. All I can say is the New Testament makes it clear what God's opinion is regarding homosexuals. He terms it "vile affections". It is a sin just like adultery and unlawful fornication and many other things.

[Cheese]

Heres a good article on "Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to Society" from the Positive Atheism Network.

Article by Bertrand Russell

Ill copy a small piece on Christianity and sex for its relevance here...
This should be another good topic for our friend BornAgain.
Christianity and Sex The worst feature of the Christian religion, however, is its attitude toward sex -- an attitude so morbid and so unnatural that it can be understood only when taken in relation to the sickness of the civilized world at the time the Roman Empire was decaying. We sometimes hear talk to the effect that Christianity improved the status of women. This is one of the grossest perversions of history that it is possible to make. Women cannot enjoy a tolerable position in society where it is considered of the utmost importance that they should not infringe a very rigid moral code. Monks have always regarded Woman primarily as the temptress; they have thought of her mainly as the inspirer of impure lusts. The teaching of the church has been, and still is, that virginity is best, but that for those who find this impossible marriage is permissible. "It is better to marry than to burn," as St. Paul puts it. By making marriage indissoluble, and by stamping out all knowledge of the ars amandi, the church did what it could to secure that the only form of sex which it permitted should involve very little pleasure and a great deal of pain. The opposition to birth control has, in fact, the same motive: if a woman has a child a year until she dies worn out, it is not to be supposed that she will derive much pleasure from her married life; therefore birth control must be discouraged.
The conception of Sin which is bound up with Christian ethics is one that does an extraordinary amount of harm, since it affords people an outlet for their sadism which they believe to be legitimate, and even noble. Take, for example, the question of the prevention of syphilis. It is known that, by precautions taken in advance, the danger of contracting this disease can be made negligible. Christians, however, object to the dissemination of knowledge of this fact, since they hold it good that sinners should be punished. They hold this so good that they are even willing that punishment should extend to the wives and children of sinners. There are in the world at the present moment many thousands of children suffering from congenital syphilis who would never have been born but for the desire of Christians to see sinners punished. I cannot understand how doctrines leading us to this fiendish cruelty can be considered to have any good effects upon morals.

[Kobasew fan]

Originally Posted by Cheese

What say our RW fellowshippers on stem cell research?

Good in the eyes of God...or all those who study it will go to Hell?
Is there any Bible passages or references to the pros and cons of stem cell research?

I have no problems with stem cell research provided you don't kill a life to obtain the stem cells. So when they can find a way to do this I won't have a problem with it, however, until this time I would say I'm against it. I'm along the thinking embryo's are a life.

By taking stem cells from embryo's is really the equivalent of just starting a life in order to steal parts from it. I don't see how this is humane.

[Cheese]

Does anyone here know which congregation, mainly composed of family members, have organized thousands of pickets at various locations both in and outside of the U.S.A., in the last 10 years, preaching their hateful drivel against homosexuals and virtually anyone who disagrees with their insane religious beliefs or actions. During a demonstration, they display signs containing "GOD HATES FAGS", "THANK GOD FOR AIDS", "FAGS DIE, GOD LAUGHS", "AIDS CURES FAGS", "FAGS BURN IN HELL", "FAGS DOOM NATIONS", "GOD GAVE FAGS UP", "THANK GOD FOR 9/11"?

Westboro Baptist Church.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The word Homosexual is the standard English word describing sexual relations between two men or two women. It is what Romans chapter one is describing. I can't see how that passage could be misinterpreted. I have very little knowledge of Hebrew but, have found that usually one Hebrew word will be translated into one English phrase of three or four words. Also, the meaning of the Hebrew word is effected by the words around it. Not so much like an English word which can have two completely different definitions depending on usage. But, something a little more subtle. Bottom line: I am neither qualified nor have the resources to agree or disagree with your articles conclusions. All I can say is the New Testament makes it clear what God's opinion is regarding homosexuals. He terms it "vile affections". It is a sin just like adultery and unlawful fornication and many other things.

You can't use the word homosexual.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Dion

Nothing like a bunch of so called Christians who openly admit that the version of the Bible that they follow has been altered by men to allow the re-enforcement of their interpretation of the scripture, lest anyone dare to disagree with their homophobic interpretations.

I guess I misunderstood the whole thing.

Don't Christians claim that the Bible is the word of God. How can that be true if they advocate going ahead and inserting the words of humans when they find the word of God to be less than they want.

Presumptuous bunch aren't they?

I think your being presumptuous. I use the King James version exclusively. Homosexuality wasn't even an issue when it was translated. It was actually more of an issue in the New Testament times. You have pointed out that that word(homosexualality) didn't even exist in the 16th century. You have not shown any evidence that this translation was altered because of a political agenda.

[Crazy Flamer]

Originally Posted by Azure

Whats your point?

Why ask such a question when his response will only warrent more arrogance from you?

Speaking of arrogance, thanks for jumping in. I appriciate the ARROGANT response.

Instead of attacking others, would you care to say something intelligent to add to the debate?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Crazy Flamer

Speaking of arrogance, thanks for jumping in. I appriciate the ARROGANT response.

Instead of attacking others, would you care to say something intelligent to add to the debate?

Because you're only asking questions like that so you can attack Calgaryborn..or his belief.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Kobasew fan

I have no problems with stem cell research provided you don't kill a life to obtain the stem cells. So when they can find a way to do this I won't have a problem with it, however, until this time I would say I'm against it. I'm along the thinking embryo's are a life.

By taking stem cells from embryo's is really the equivalent of just starting a life in order to steal parts from it. I don't see how this is humane.

What if it is an aborted fetus?