Homosexuality is an abomination to god?

[coffeeFreak]

["sunshine11"]Most Christians have never read the Bible as a BOOK, you know from the beginning to the end, so they haven't a clue what the story is except what the minister/priest tells them by sewing together a disparate collection of verses all taken out of context and creating a religious spin.

The Bible is not just one book, but an entire library, with stories, songs, poetry, letters and history, as well as literature that might more obviously qualify as 'religious'.
The Christian Bible has two sections, the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament is the original Hebrew Bible, the sacred scriptures of the Jewish faith, written at different times between about 1200 and 165 BC. The New Testament books were written by Christians in the first century AD.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/texts/bible.shtml

[sunshine11]

This post was removed by the author since it did not meet posting rules (contained all caps) as evidenced below
NOT A BOOK?
WEEDED
OBSOLETE,
IRRELEVANT
WEEDING.

[fluffy]

...then as is regularly done in a library, large amounts are WEEDED out as OBSOLETE, IRRELEVANT and too old. There goes a good deal of it then, and it is agreed what is called the Bible is in serious need of WEEDING.

I'm not quite sure who agreed to what here, but I doubt you'll ever see something as historically relevant as the bible get "weeded out". Keeping it in it's original (although in this case the term "original" is subject to much discussion in itself) condition provides important insight into the period in which it was authored. As with any book, it is the readers' responsibility to decide for themselves just how significant a role the content will play in their lives.

[steven lloyd]

I'm not quite sure who agreed to what here, but I doubt you'll ever see something as historically relevant as the bible get "weeded out". Keeping it in it's original (although in this case the term "original" is subject to much discussion in itself) condition provides important insight into the period in which it was authored. As with any book, it is the readers' responsibility to decide for themselves just how significant a role the content will play in their lives.

Agreed. As you’ve properly pointed out here is much insight into an understanding of the times contained within the Bible. The problem lies not only with each reader taking responsibility to decide for themselves just how significant a role the content will play in their lives, but to interpret the writings within their historical context. One example I’ve referred to before is the quote of “sparing the rod and spoiling the child” to justify corporeal punishment being used on children. In historical context one realizes that most people at that time and place were sheep herders who used long curved rods to guide their herds. Thus, the true meaning of the quote refers to spoiling the child by not providing guidance.

Another thing many people fail to acknowledge (in spite of the fact it is clearly stated in the preface of the New English Bible) is that much of the stories in the Old Testament were finally written after first being passed down from generation to generation through oral tradition. Far for the actual “word of God”, these are the words of men that illustrate their understanding of God at that time. Between the Old and New Testament we can see how that understanding evolved – or do some people really think it was God who evolved? Homosexuality is not an abomination to God. Homosexuality was/is an abomination to some people – a number that grows less as we evolve and slowly become less ignorant.

[SmokeOnTheWater]

Far for the actual “word of God”, these are the words of men that illustrate their understanding of God at that time. Between the Old and New Testament we can see how that understanding evolved – or do some people really think it was God who evolved? Homosexuality is not an abomination to God. Homosexuality was/is an abomination to some people – a number that grows less as we evolve and slowly become less ignorant.

Exactly .. how can God abominate his own creation ? The Bible was not written by God but by mere mortals.

[cliffy1]

Exactly .. how can God abominate his own creation ? The Bible was not written by God but by mere mortals.

Ah, but... they will argue, those mortals were divinely inspired. Logic will never dislodge blind faith. Like the murderer or rapist who justifies his actions in order to live with himself, those of blind faith will justify their belief in the unjustifiable and unbelievable.

It makes me wonder why some are capable of critical thought while others are not. Is there an extra gene or a missing one?

[fluffy]

It makes me wonder why some are capable of critical thought while others are not. Is there an extra gene or a missing one?

This discussion is a hot property these days, with a theory being proposed that we are in fact, genetically hardwired for spiritual belief. Research is showing that religious and spiritual thoughts have a particular effect on a select few genes in human DNA that control the release of a select few chemicals in the brain. The same effect is generated by meditation. Do a google search on "God gene" or "VMAT2".

[SmokeOnTheWater]

with a theory being proposed that we are in fact, genetically hardwired for spiritual belief.

That makes sense. You know what they say .. " you are the spiritual being you have been waiting for ".

[steven lloyd]

This discussion is a hot property these days, with a theory being proposed that we are in fact, genetically hardwired for spiritual belief. Research is showing that religious and spiritual thoughts have a particular effect on a select few genes in human DNA that control the release of a select few chemicals in the brain. The same effect is generated by meditation. Do a google search on "God gene" or "VMAT2".

However, a predisposition to entertain and even embrace spiritual notions should not be automatically associated with an inability to engage in critical thought. Let’s not confuse spiritual exploration with the rigid interpretation of writings that are thousands of years old. In fact, the greater the capacity a person has for critical thought the more willing he/she is to acknowledge there might be something else going on here and to openly engage in some exploratory tactics (such as prayer and meditation, for example).

[WhatThe]

I watched The Life of Pi last night. Interesting movie and worth watching for the entertainment value. What I found interesting was the end. Spoiler alert, if you havent watched it skip past this post.



























Pi said, "I've told you two stories, which one do you prefer?"
Writer, "The first." refering to the fanatastical version and not the story told to authorities.
Pi, "And so it goes with God".

Me, "And so it goes with people who are afraid of the unknown".
I've felt for a long time that our homind ancestors would always view natural occurances as signs of gods. The more sophisticated we became the more reasons we needed to reconcile our place in the world and to seek comfort from the unknown. For some the unknown is frightening and for others a wanted deep need to believe they will see loved ones again fall into the above position while others yet feel this existance is all we get and are more fascinated by the unknown than afraid.

[Nebula]

In fact, the greater the capacity a person has for critical thought the more willing he/she is to acknowledge there might be something else going on here and to openly engage in some exploratory tactics (such as prayer and meditation, for example).

Some would argue the exact opposite, that critical thought leads to the acknowledgement that there is nothing going on here.

[steven lloyd]

Some would argue the exact opposite, that critical thought leads to the acknowledgement that there is nothing going on here.

Maybe - but it could also be argued that once such a conclusion has been reached, thought has stopped.

[fluffy]

True Steven. The little reading I have done on the subject tends to lean toward activity in particular parts of the brain (stimulated by thoughts of a particular nature) giving rise to increases in positive emotions and creativity as well as feelings of serenity and even ecstasy, and suppression of negative emotions.

Wasn't it Karl Marx who said something about religion being the opiate of the masses? He may have been on to something.

[steven lloyd]

I found something you quoted earlier in another thread that I really liked and wanted to report it here:

I think I've always had a feeling that there is something tying this whole mess together on a level other than physical, but I never could get along with the concept of some sort of cosmic consciousness at the helm so to speak. I was more comfortable with how some wise old guy once described it as "It surrounds us, it penetrates us, it binds the universe together." Call it what you want, but "God" is real easy to spell and it only has one syllable.

[fluffy]

Hehe, caught me with my Obiwan showing. Once a geek...