A'Villan Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 24 minutes ago, limpid said: I assume you are talking about the Bible. I have to guess since the question you replied to was about energy, not a thing with "passages". Please pick your best example. Well the idea of energy being homophobic insinuates God is homophobic, which I can deduce would come from the notion that the bible instructs people to be such. There were a few passages which in my opinion, explicitly state that the sharing of a bed between two men is forbidden. However I have rescinded my view from concrete. There is nothing that can undo the practice and tradition that has ensued from the understanding that people have of what's written in the bible. I will source the pieces of writing I refer to for you. I will get back to you within a few hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted June 6, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted June 6, 2019 I'm fairly sure that an omnipotent being that made everything would be able to, at the very least, ensure his guidebook on making him happy would be cut and dry on what is and isn't going to make him happy. If he was ok with gay people he could have his book leave nothing to interpretation. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted June 6, 2019 Author VT Supporter Share Posted June 6, 2019 1 hour ago, A'Villan said: We do, and so we should, don't you think? Maybe I've misunderstood, but we reap what we sow. As with anything in life, there are repercussions. The recurrence of undesirable outcomes is dependent on our ability to learn. An understanding for what the resulting consequences are, and whether they are beneficial or detrimental is healthy, isn't it? What you are talking about is something very different from the blind obedience that the Abrahamic religions have always demanded (fear the lord). And I still don't see the point of worship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A'Villan Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 33 minutes ago, mjmooney said: What you are talking about is something very different from the blind obedience that the Abrahamic religions have always demanded (fear the lord). And I still don't see the point of worship. Fair enough. They also say love the lord and thy neighbor. But I'm not here to deny the history of people acting on behalf of a religion and in the name of God with tragic ramifications. On the point of worship, from the angle you are coming from regarding religion, I don't blame you. Blind obedience has no accountability, and therefore is meaningless. My deepest respect and adoration would never go to something I associate with being responsible for atrocity and ignorance on a mass scale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A'Villan Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 @limpid You will have to click the link and read (15minutes) the article if you want to understand what I was referring to. Quote The word “homosexuality” didn’t even show up in English translations of the Bible until 1946, so why do we say the Bible condemns it? Quote Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them. https://medium.com/@adamnicholasphillips/the-bible-does-not-condemn-homosexuality-seriously-it-doesn-t-13ae949d6619 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted June 6, 2019 Moderator Share Posted June 6, 2019 Quote The word “homosexuality” didn’t even show up in English translations of the Bible until 1946, so why do we say the Bible condemns it? Sorry but even the headline insulted my intelligence The word didn't exist until the 19th Century On your link the explanation given for Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13 Quote “This is not a verse about homosexual love, or being gay. This command is there with all kinds of connotations of adultery, promiscuity, and idol worship from the surrounding nations.” It asks us to take this ina particular context. It doesn't matter what context you take it in, it absolutely does not encompass everything as listed in the above quote. So, sorry, the person who wrote it is having very generous thoughts but is talking absolute twaddle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amsterdam_Neil_D Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 22 minutes ago, A'Villan said: They also say love the lord and thy neighbor. The bible is ace, "love thy neighbor". Look's simple enough, but it cant mean neighbouring countries as they all fight, what about neighbouring communities that believe in something close but not quite the same as the other community, not working so far. Ok, what about Geoff the neighbour, the one with the hedge, nope, bedroom next door, hmm, nope. So I think it means, they have to be in the same room or something. "love the lord and ya mrs or fella only." Easy enough, I just don't think they all read it properly before release, seems rushed. Lazy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A'Villan Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 44 minutes ago, Amsterdam_Neil_D said: The bible is ace, "love thy neighbor". Look's simple enough, but it cant mean neighbouring countries as they all fight, what about neighbouring communities that believe in something close but not quite the same as the other community, not working so far. Ok, what about Geoff the neighbour, the one with the hedge, nope, bedroom next door, hmm, nope. So I think it means, they have to be in the same room or something. "love the lord and ya mrs or fella only." Easy enough, I just don't think they all read it properly before release, seems rushed. Lazy. I think it was intended for all people. Neighboring countries and communities, Geoff and his hedge, whoever, can operate with respect and decency for one another, and the land. The avenues for compromise and negotiation become limited when one side is placed under duress by the other or approached with animosity and ill-will. Take the very spiritual Lakota people into consideration. Lakota philosophy was characterized by their emphasis on ideals and values such as community, affinity, cooperation, strength, praying, respect, caring and compassion, honesty and truth, generosity, humility, and wisdom. Lakota meaning "an alliance of people." They held rituals to remind one another that everyone is related. In Lakota warrior culture, the Lakotas also fought wars with other tribes. But Indian tribes treated war differently than European countries did. They didn't fight over territory but instead to prove their courage, and so Plains Indian war parties rarely fought to the death or destroyed each other's villages. Instead, their war customs included counting coup (touching an opponent in battle without harming him), stealing an enemy's weapon or horse, or forcing the other tribe's warriors to retreat. The Lakota did not believe in torturing their captives either. Our leaders promote such culturally inclusive ideals such as eugenics movements, genocide, slavery, corporate sponsored colonisation, fascism, racism, social inequality etc. It's no wonder so many people are spiritually bankrupt. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A'Villan Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 2 hours ago, bickster said: Sorry but even the headline insulted my intelligence The word didn't exist until the 19th Century On your link the explanation given for Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13 It asks us to take this ina particular context. It doesn't matter what context you take it in, it absolutely does not encompass everything as listed in the above quote. So, sorry, the person who wrote it is having very generous thoughts but is talking absolute twaddle I will have to read it again to respond properly, as it is I don't entirely understand your post as you meant it except for the last line. It's been years since I read it. I probably read it with my focus half on the content and half in my imagination at the time anyway. I remember it as making it plausible that there is no inherent prejudice towards homosexuals and that things had been misinterpreted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villakram Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 bloody hell, some of the stuff posted by "believers"... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 8 hours ago, A'Villan said: I suppose I see it as religious because when being introspective and self-aware we are dealing with the acknowledgement of existence and the meaning we assign to it. Belief, ethics and philosophy might be abstract but they determine our decisions, direct our actions, shaping the construct of reality accordingly. We are the fabric of the universe. I say we are God's children because we have the power to create and give life, as well as to take it. To make the intangible become material. The power to manifest reality. So in relation to my original comment that you quoted, the introspection mentioned would then give life to new understanding and alter the course of one's being. Creation. I hope that makes sense for you. It doesn't make sense that you regard things such as introspection and searching for self-awareness as (only) religious. It doesn't make sense that you appear to necessarily regard existentialist contemplation as religious. It doesn't make sense that you regard human beings (I'm assuming that's what the 'we' represents) as the 'fabric of the universe'. If your answer to my question is that you see all of what you've posted as necessarily religious so that all those who may search for self-awareness through introspection, who exist (create and take life), who are 'we' merely reinforce a definition of religious that you hold then I think this is bollocks and exclusive bollocks at that. But then that's where religion leads people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 16 hours ago, A'Villan said: Not entirely sure I agree. There's physiological consequences for love and hate. Universal truth isn't measured in mass appeal. I suppose this is exactly why I mentioned the need to be in touch with one's inner world. When the finger gets pointed at you, the only pressure to succumb to is that which you place on yourself. That way beliefs are not confused and convoluted by and according to the dogma set out by societal duress. I will check out that series. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I'm sticking with my belief that good and right are flexible and fashionable. For most of history people wuld have thought it was perfectly 'right' to kill the neighbouring tribe to give your own tribe the advantage. The Danes or he Saxons or whoever wouldn't have had inner turmoil for cracking some skulls when they arrived. The Normans weren't over bothered about taking land in england etc.. Similarly, the victorians would happily kill a few locals around the world without much of a thought about it, as would the chinese or the japanese or the aztecs. We can't impose our current morals on history, or on the future. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A'Villan Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 9 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: I'm sticking with my belief that good and right are flexible and fashionable. For most of history people wuld have thought it was perfectly 'right' to kill the neighbouring tribe to give your own tribe the advantage. The Danes or he Saxons or whoever wouldn't have had inner turmoil for cracking some skulls when they arrived. The Normans weren't over bothered about taking land in england etc.. Similarly, the victorians would happily kill a few locals around the world without much of a thought about it, as would the chinese or the japanese or the aztecs. We can't impose our current morals on history, or on the future. If I am coming across as moralistic, then I am not getting my points across well enough. You don't need to go back to tribal warfare for a time when killing for advantage was the norm. It's as bad as it's ever been right now. Whether a warrior feels an inner turmoil, remorse or guilt for their actions, or not, they would still innately know they have taken a life that has a bond to others and belongs. When I say getting in touch with one's inner world, I don't necessarily mean in an empathic way, just that there's an awareness of self and an element of self determination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A'Villan Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 3 hours ago, snowychap said: It doesn't make sense that you regard things such as introspection and searching for self-awareness as (only) religious. It doesn't make sense that you appear to necessarily regard existentialist contemplation as religious. It doesn't make sense that you regard human beings (I'm assuming that's what the 'we' represents) as the 'fabric of the universe'. If your answer to my question is that you see all of what you've posted as necessarily religious so that all those who may search for self-awareness through introspection, who exist (create and take life), who are 'we' merely reinforce a definition of religious that you hold then I think this is bollocks and exclusive bollocks at that. But then that's where religion leads people. How are we (yes, humans) not the fabric of the universe? We're all made up of atoms and elements, you, me, the black hole discovered in Uranus (yes I can be that immature). As for introspection, self-awareness and contemplation being only religious, my intention wasn't to pontificate and preach, and in any case I'm not sure we're on the same page. I am simply here to learn and listen. I share what I can to the best of my understanding. I think the best answer I can muster for you is, no, I don't see those aspects of the mind as necessarily religious, they are what they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villan_of_oz Posted June 6, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted June 6, 2019 People don't believe in climate change which is clearly visible, but a bunch of nonsense written by power hungry men thousands of years ago..... PS I'd rather spend my time talking with a gay person, than someone who follows the bible! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VILLAMARV Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 9 minutes ago, Villan_of_oz said: I'd rather spend my time talking with a gay person, than someone who follows the bible! 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugeley Villa Posted June 7, 2019 Share Posted June 7, 2019 9 hours ago, Villan_of_oz said: People don't believe in climate change which is clearly visible, but a bunch of nonsense written by power hungry men thousands of years ago..... PS I'd rather spend my time talking with a gay person, than someone who follows the bible! Gay is not that bad is it, surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted June 7, 2019 Author VT Supporter Share Posted June 7, 2019 10 hours ago, Villan_of_oz said: I'd rather spend my time talking with a gay person, than someone who follows the bible! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted June 7, 2019 Moderator Share Posted June 7, 2019 10 minutes ago, mjmooney said: Nice bloke it has to be said. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villan_of_oz Posted June 7, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted June 7, 2019 59 minutes ago, Rugeley Villa said: Gay is not that bad is it, surely? What do you mean.... That is what I'm saying, gay isn't bad at all. It's different but not 'bad'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts