Ban organized religion, says Elton John

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I've seen this question before and thought it was too silly to answer. It would be like me asking you If someones personal experience with answered prayer or other miraculous encounter with God was a lie. If you were Cheese you might say "Yes and he's stupid" or something equally profound. But if you aren't a positive atheist you might think that perhaps environmental conditions brought my friend to this experience. You wouldn't doubt his truthfulness but, rather the cause of the experience. Could you say conclusively that my friend never had an experience with God? No but, you might rightly or wrongly believe that the experience was caused by environmental conditions my friend doesn't realize.

I believe your friend because of environmental conditions believes what he believes and is attracted to what he is attracted to. To call him a liar or to say with 100% certainly that he is mistaken would be presumptuous.
I'm not going to do that.

Now Mr BornAgain...have I EVER called you stupid? Please dont put words where they dont belong.

BTW Im just loving your use of Positive Atheism now....the whole schtick on "environmental conditions" is a fantastic analogy...did you learn that in school? When your kids see two homosexual men holding hands and kissing what do you tell them...or do you immediately cover their eyes so they dont see the abomination? I wonder what you would do if your son came to you in a few years and said...Dad Im Gay.....LOLOL. Id love to take that picture. Somehow I think IF your son was he'dhide it from you forever....hed be afraid to tell you for fear of eternal damnation.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I've seen this question before and thought it was too silly to answer. It would be like me asking you If someones personal experience with answered prayer or other miraculous encounter with God was a lie. If you were Cheese you might say "Yes and he's stupid" or something equally profound. But if you aren't a positive atheist you might think that perhaps environmental conditions brought my friend to this experience. You wouldn't doubt his truthfulness but, rather the cause of the experience. Could you say conclusively that my friend never had an experience with God? No but, you might rightly or wrongly believe that the experience was caused by environmental conditions my friend doesn't realize.

I believe your friend because of environmental conditions believes what he believes and is attracted to what he is attracted to. To call him a liar or to say with 100% certainly that he is mistaken would be presumptuous.
I'm not going to do that.

You are going to have to qualify that a lot further. Perhaps you can clarify what exactly caused my friend to not be attracted to women? I'd just love to hear the analysis behind that.

So does that mean Dick Cheney or other Christian parents of homosexuals are 'bad parents' because they allowed their child to be overcome with 'environmental conditions'.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Dion

Organised religion paints gays and lesbians with the same brush. The hatred and bigotry that spewes from religion is disghusting. The latest being the Canada Post incident in Vancouver where posties refused to deliver what they preceived to be hate mail. It's no coincidence that when gays and lesbians came out of the closet to proclaim who they are so did the bigotry from organised religion.

Yes there are some that aceept gays and lesbians but they are the very very small minority.

List one quote in the Bible that "spews hatered and bigotry" toward gays and lesbian.

I will help you out - THERE ISNT ONE.

Read the book before you mouth off on something you dont know. People who read the book will notice that nothing is directly said about gays or lesbians.

There are only 2 things that might be considered hate toward G&L - the first and most obvious is the reasoning for the destruction of Sodom and Gamora.

The second thing that might be conscrewed as hate is the religious defenition of marriage - the bible was the first linguistic text to associate the word marriage as defined as the union of a man and woman before god.

Just because the state in every country uses its defenition for tax purposes dont go hell bent against religion.

The state can change its laws to state union of man woman, man man, woman woman, man X, woman X if it wanted to but the lafous in the world want to condem the Bible's defenition of marriage because most goverments are too ball-less to do anything about it. Dont come to me and say that a word coined by the bible should change cause Elton John and Doogie want to get together and romp on Miami Beach.

Dont listen to anyone who believes the Church is any closer to God then the whore across the streen because they arent (read), evanjelical windbags and the vatican have done more harm to Religion - marriage, abortion issues etc. Read the book in the context of the time and make your own decision.

I believe in word of the Bible and I attempt to live my life accordingly. I also believe that a lifetime union before God (coined marriage) is a union between a man and a woman - period no exceptions.

That doesnt mean I dont think that other unions shouldnt get the appropriate state tax breaks etc but I will never agree to change the defenition of the word marriage because political winbags are too ball less and leftous are to dickish.

Religion should not have to change its defenition because a few people are offended by it.

MYK

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Religion should not have to change its defenition because a few people are offended by it.

MYK

It doesn't have to.

Funny thing though that the definition of the word has changed many times and it never had anything to do with homosexuals or "leftous".

[Crazy Flamer]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

List one quote in the Bible that "spews hatered and bigotry" toward gays and lesbian.

I will help you out - THERE ISNT ONE.

Read the book before you mouth off on something you dont know. People who read the book will notice that nothing is directly said about gays or lesbians.

Just because the state in every country uses its defenition for tax purposes dont go hell bent against religion.

The state can change its laws to state union of man woman, man man, woman woman, man X, woman X if it wanted to but the lafous in the world want to condem the Bible's defenition of marriage because most goverments are too ball-less to do anything about it. Dont come to me and say that a word coined by the bible should change cause Elton John and Doogie want to get together and romp on Miami Beach.

Dont listen to anyone who believes the Church is any closer to God then the whore across the streen because they arent (read), evanjelical windbags and the vatican have done more harm to Religion - marriage, abortion issues etc. Read the book in the context of the time and make your own decision.

I believe in word of the Bible and I attempt to live my life accordingly. I also believe that a lifetime union before God (coined marriage) is a union between a man and a woman - period no exceptions.

That doesnt mean I dont think that other unions shouldnt get the appropriate state tax breaks etc but I will never agree to change the defenition of the word marriage because political winbags are too ball less and leftous are to dickish.

Religion should not have to change its defenition because a few people are offended by it.

MYK

First of all, he never said the Bible spewed hatred and bigotry, he said religion did. but just in case you need some quotes, here's one for starters :

"If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

And you base your belifes in a book that was written 1500-2000 years ago? A book that inculdes not only the worf og God as a basis for its teaching but many of the societal norms of the time as well. many of those societal norms have drastically changed!

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Religion should not have to change its defenition because a few people are offended by it.

MYK

Religious definition has changed many times to suit the times/themes. When you look back a few hundred years ago people who were offended by the Bible kept their mouths shut or faced the possibility of death. People are no longer afraid to speak out...I think Christians are finally getting the same spoonful that has been fed to generations of secularists. Tastes sour doesnt it?

[Dion]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

List one quote in the Bible that "spews hatered and bigotry" toward gays and lesbian.

I will help you out - THERE ISNT ONE.

Read the book before you mouth off on something you dont know. People who read the book will notice that nothing is directly said about gays or lesbians.
MYK

I will help you - GO SEE AN OPTOMETRIST.

I said organised religion spews hatred and bigotry. You should also read my last post to Calgaryborn where I said I was done discussing this issue.

Hope they are able to fit you with proper lenses.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

The second thing that might be conscrewed as hate is the religious defenition of marriage - the bible was the first linguistic text to associate the word marriage as defined as the union of a man and woman before god.

I'm curious to know where the bible defines marriage in those terms (particularly, the 'before god' part). For the first 500 years or so of the church's existance, the church did not even perform marriages, and only in about 1200 AD did the Catholic Church define marriage as a sacred institution of the church. And Martin Luther later declared that marriage was a worldly thing that belongs to the world of government.
Maybe there is a passage in the bible that specifically states that marriage is between man and woman before god... I won't pretend that my knowledge of scripture is anywhere close to yours. But if the bible does state such, why did so many important Christian thinkers not see it that way?

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I never denied that the Hebrew doesn't mention the full range of homosexual acts. My point is the Romans passage leaves no question of God's opinion.



Your welcome.

The Bible and Homosexuality...just for CBA!
from the Ontario Center for Religious Tolerance


The words “homosexual” and “homosexuality” do not appear in the Bible—at least they are absent from the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. The authors of the Bible did not understand sexual orientation; this concept was only developed in the late 19th century. The writers had little or no comprehension of same-sex committed relationships. Their languages had no words for these concepts. Rather, they assumed that everyone was heterosexual, but that some heterosexuals engaged in sex with persons of the same gender. Thus, when you see one of these terms in an English translation of the Bible, it is important to dig deeper and find what the original Hebrew or Greek text really means.

In Biblical times, same-gender sexual interactions could take many forms. Some were:

1. kings of conquered tribes were sometimes raped by the invading army as the ultimate symbol of defeat and humiliation. Homosexual rape was also a way of humiliating visitors and strangers. These were acts of power and domination and had nothing in common with consentual sex by gays and lesbians.
2. some non-Jewish tribes in the area had male prostitutes in their temples who ritually engaged in same-sex activities; this horrified the ancient Israelites. Temple prostitution is no longer found in most areas of the world.
3. it was common within the Roman Empire for male adults to keep boy prostitutes for the purpose of sexual activity. The boys were often slaves. In modern times, this is considered child abuse, a criminal offense.
4. it is reasonable to assume that many loving gay and lesbian relationships existed in Biblical times, but these would normally have been conducted in secret.

Only the last type would have any similarity to today’s gay and lesbian consentual, committed, loving relationships.



People differ greatly in their view of the Bible:

• Generally speaking, Fundamentalists and other Evangelical Christians believe that:
  • the Bible, as originally written, is inerrent (infallible) and that God prevented the authors from making even a single error
  • every verse is useful in their understanding of God’s intentions
  • one should initially attempt to interpret each passage according to its literal meaning
  Many conservative Christians believe that certain translations are essentially free of error; e.g. the King James Version and the New International Version. Thus, when they read some of the passages that clearly and unmistakably condemn homosexuality, they are inclined to trust the translators and conclude that God hates homosexuality. Unfortunately, many groups of translators have been heavily biased against certain people, including Witches, gays and lesbians; many have tended to warp their translations accordingly.
• More liberal Christians tend to look upon the Bible as containing many translation errors, whose verses should not necessarily all be taken at their face value. Sections which accept and regulate slavery, limit the rights of women and condemn homosexuality are some examples.

[eazyduzzit]

I think this is a ridiculous statement - Ban religion because it discriminates against Gays. Lots of organizations discriminate against all kinds of people, groups, political parties and religions. It's just part of life and it's part of free speech and you can't simply go around banning them all.

For a good chunk of people, Religion isn't about the stories and testaments in the Bible, Quran or any other holy books or about some of the crazy things they have to say. It's about a sense of hope and a sense of community. Being together and knowing you have a group of people looking out for you as well as knowing you have somewhere to turn in times of need.

I'm not going to sit here and deny religion has not been the cause of a lot of problems in history, but what i am going to say is religion has also done a lot of positives in history and nobody can deny that.

The church teaches loving eachother, being nice and helping people. How this can be a negative thing i do not know. Religion gives people a sense of hope and a tight knit community. Churches do so many good things such as send people to university, bring people in from the cold, donate food and numorous other things. It creates loving and giving people. Sure some of the things said in the Bible and other holy books are out dated and might very well "discriminate" but there is no doubt in my mind this world would be a much worse place without it.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by octothorp

But if the bible does state such, why did so many important Christian thinkers not see it that way?

Because you're not supposed to enforce your view on other people?

Its not my business who you marry. Again...a complete seperation of church and state.

[photon]

Originally Posted by eazyduzzit

The church teaches loving eachother, being nice and helping people. How this can be a negative thing i do not know. Religion gives people a sense of hope and a tight knit community. Churches do so many good things such as send people to university, bring people in from the cold, donate food and numorous other things. It creates loving and giving people. Sure some of the things said in the Bible and other holy books are out dated and might very well "discriminate" but there is no doubt in my mind this world would be a much worse place without it.

People do those things outside of church as well.. it's the people that are kind and generous. Are these people that way because the church makes them that way? Or are they attracted to church because of their nature already? Maybe some of both?

People like Dawkins would argue that you are incorrect; that religion as a whole has had a net negative impact on society. I wouldn't venture to take one side or the other; trying to measure the good vs. bad of organizations spanning thousands of years and billions of lives is pretty much impossible. EDIT: Seems impossible rather.

Though I will say in my personal experience I have friends that would be classified as fundamentalists, and a few of them are quite intolerant, to the point of borderline racism and bigotry sometimes. And I know that their views on homosexuals are preached from the pulpit.

[kermitology]

This was an interesting read, took up about and hour of my afternoon and I didn't even manage to read everything in depth.

I think I'll wade in here though..

This kind of an attitude is just as intolerant as one from a religious point of view. Banning organized religion isn't the problem here, it's a matter of complete separation of church and state. I'm a sound agnostic who is completely comfortable with my views on the universe, and as far as I'm concerned, I'll live my life in a way that I deem to be morally sound (religion is of course only a moral compass) according to my own beliefs.

I'd love to go on a tirade about my thoughts on organized religion, but I don't really think it's my place. People are allowed to think what they want, and I'm allowed to think that you're illogical for thinking that way, but hey, we're all different right?

I don't understand why religious groups get into such a tizzy over this though. Clearly if you're a homosexual who is a Christian, and you believe in all the scriptures and blah blah blah, then you will be judged based upon your actions on this Earth. And being that you subscribe to the Christian faith, performing actions of Sodomy are likely going to make you end up suffering eternal damnation.

BUT... and this is a big one. If you don't subscribe to these beliefs, then who are Christians to stop you from living your life? Considering the current definition of marriage hardly has anything to do with church anymore (ban divorce people) it shouldn't be the business of the church to be upset about it as long as they aren't forced to perform the marriage of two people who contravene their God.

Just a question for the Christian folk here.. How is it defined by God that sex within the confines of HOLY marriage is not a sin? Isn't all sex a sin? Wouldn't that be the idea behind original sin? That the act of sex is sinful and that the child is the result of that original sin, but that they have not had the opportunity to redeem themselves in the eyes of God for that sin, and spend their lives doing so? Can someone clarify that for me?

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by photon

People do those things outside of church as well.. it's the people that are kind and generous. Are these people that way because the church makes them that way? Or are they attracted to church because of their nature already? Maybe some of both?

People like Dawkins would argue that you are incorrect; that religion as a whole has had a net negative impact on society. I wouldn't venture to take one side or the other; trying to measure the good vs. bad of organizations spanning thousands of years and billions of lives is pretty much impossible. EDIT: Seems impossible rather.

Though I will say in my personal experience I have friends that would be classified as fundamentalists, and a few of them are quite intolerant, to the point of borderline racism and bigotry sometimes. And I know that their views on homosexuals are preached from the pulpit.

Exactly as I would have said it Photon...man is inherantly good, he doesnt need an institution to do good things.
However in saying that I do applaud those who do good within a theist organization...for the sake of simply being good...not to promote or ensure those they are being good to, join their brethern.

[eazyduzzit]

What about the sense of hope it gives people? To keep fighting in times of disease and to hold on in times of pain. I myself have witnessed both, how religion has made people i know stronger. Not to mention, "Banning organized religion" would result in a loss of billions of dollars to charity and other areas where the church does so much good. So you can't sit here and say people are full of good will anyway because a good chunk of "good will" comes from religion it's self. If it's suddenly gone, there would be no one to pick up the slack on what good it does behind all this homosexual nonesense. I can tell you right now, nobody would pick up this financial slack if there was no religion just as their would be a far less number of people doing these deeds.

Just because a few homosexuals and athiests don't like it's teachings, that dosen't mean in any way, shape, or form that it would be banned. Church and State - seperated - is maybe a topic of debate, but banned? Get out of town.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Exactly as I would have said it Photon...man is inherantly good, he doesnt need an institution to do good things.
However in saying that I do applaud those who do good within a theist organization...for the sake of simply being good...not to promote or ensure those they are being good to, join their brethern.

I don't think man is inherantly good. I think humans are inherantly selfish, self-fufilling, and when it comes down to the betterment of society or to further his or herself's personal interests, the latter will always prevail. With that said, not everybody is inherantly bad either. But somewhere in the middle. There are extremes on either side, Ghandi and Mother Theresa vs. Hitler and Stalin. But if it weren't for things such as religion or laws and society rested solely on the inherant traits of humans, we would all be screwed. I used to believe in the idealism of inhearantly good people... then reality slapped me.

On topic, I think that if Elton John thinks that organized religion should be banned, he should feel the same way about same-sex rights. As far as I am concerned, freedom to practice religion and freedom from sexual orientation prejudice are on the same playing field.

I get that organized religion often does not support homosexuality, but calling for the banishment of all organized religion just puts him in the same category of the religious right that are so vehemently against same-sex marriage etc. Extremism is not the way to go...

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by eazyduzzit

What about the sense of hope it gives people? To keep fighting in times of disease and to hold on in times of pain. I myself have witnessed both, how religion has made people i know stronger. Not to mention, "Banning organized religion" would result in a loss of billions of dollars to charity and other areas where the church does so much good. So you can't sit here and say people are full of good will anyway because a good chunk of "good will" comes from religion it's self. If it's suddenly gone, there would be no one to pick up the slack on what good it does behind all this homosexual nonesense. I can tell you right now, nobody would pick up this financial slack if there was no religion just as their would be a far less number of people doing these deeds.

Just because a few homosexuals and athiests don't like it's teachings, that dosen't mean in any way, shape, or form that it would be banned. Church and State - seperated - is maybe a topic of debate, but banned? Get out of town.

I am 100% positive that without religion, secular organizations would take up the slack of support. Its simply foolish to believe that support for the sick and dieing rests solely on the shoulders of men of the cloth. Thats the fabrication they have melded for thousands of years.
Churches prey on the fear of death.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Azure

Seems to me..you openly disagree with everything religion has to offer. Religion this..religion that.

Faith is a big part of religion...and probably something that allows people to have religious morals. Included in those morals is the belief that homosexuality is wrong. Something wrong with that?

I'm no biblical scholar but it seems to me that tolerance is a foundation of Christianity.

It's surprising (maybe not) that the more 'fundamental' believers seem to be the least tolerant.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

I'm no biblical scholar but it seems to me that tolerance is a foundation of Christianity.

It's surprising (maybe not) that the more 'fundamental' believers seem to be the least tolerant.

Foundation?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

I don't think man is inherantly good. I think humans are inherantly selfish, self-fufilling, and when it comes down to the betterment of society or to further his or herself's personal interests, the latter will always prevail. With that said, not everybody is inherantly bad either. But somewhere in the middle. There are extremes on either side, Ghandi and Mother Theresa vs. Hitler and Stalin. But if it weren't for things such as religion or laws and society rested solely on the inherant traits of humans, we would all be screwed. I used to believe in the idealism of inhearantly good people... then reality slapped me.

On topic, I think that if Elton John thinks that organized religion should be banned, he should feel the same way about same-sex rights. As far as I am concerned, freedom to practice religion and freedom from sexual orientation prejudice are on the same playing field.

I get that organized religion often does not support homosexuality, but calling for the banishment of all organized religion just puts him in the same category of the religious right that are so vehemently against same-sex marriage etc. Extremism is not the way to go...

Well said..well said.