hypocracy of christianity

[bunsen burner]

A noted a good post on another thread by Weaver that exposed the hypocracy of the Christian Bible, Christianity in general, and followers of the Christian faith. I thought it was good enough for a thread of its own.

The Bible claims that homosexuality is wrong and also claims that people who wear glasses are wrong.

There's no shortage of people who believe homosexuality is wrong, dirty, and natural because 'the Bible says', but I don't believe there are many Christians who believe that people who wear glasses are wrong.

Can some of you God-fearing Christians clear this discrepency up for us please? Notenoughteams? EKA? Frodo?

 

[Dr Sbagman]

Well technically I'm christian.

Surely the bible's opposition to homosexuality (also Judaism and Islam is against it) is down to the need to populate. Population equalled power, and homosexuals weren't contributing to this, so it's not terribly surprising.

But religion needs to come to terms with this political motive in the bible, and deal with homosexuality. Things such as this keep me away from the church.

 

[dan warna]

Christianity isn't at fault, its the freak power hungry lunatics who blame or attribute their actions to their deity instead of taking responsibility for their actions or decisions...

this is gods work, allah has told me to, we do this in the name of <insert deity> .

I don't give a rats if a person is gay/bi/hetero/ etc as long as they are good company, don't break the law, treat people with respect etc.

as for the church being anti gay, it SHOULD be anti paedophilia, which is illegal and is a crime against humanity.

If they focused on weeding out the child molesters instead of protecting them, they may have a bit more credibility when they talk about morality and values, instead of protecting and hiding them.

 

[otaku]

most christian's morals are suspect anyway.

How can you be truely moralistic if you have to be coerced into doing what is "right"?

 

[Contra Mundum]

The prohibition on homosexuality occurs in Leviticus in the Old Testament - that is also the part of the old testament that establishes the Jewish eating taboos against pork and shell fish etc - etc,

These prohibitions must be seen as inconsistent with the new teachings of Christ as explained in the New Testament. Christ said the greatest commandment was love your neighbour as yourself - how you can do that and still denounce gays is beyond me.

My point is that the hypocracy is not in the books itself but in the practice of those that call themselves Christians. Fundamentalist Christians think the whole of the Bible is literally true, cannot accept an inconsitency between old and new testament theology - that is the reason they persist in this bull**** idea that being homosexual is sinful and wrong

 

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by Dr Sbagman
Well technically I'm christian.

I'm more referring to practising christians (as I'm sure you're aware).

Surely the bible's opposition to homosexuality (also Judaism and Islam is against it) is down to the need to populate. Population equalled power, and homosexuals weren't contributing to this, so it's not terribly surprising.

It might well have been for this reason as most things in the Bible were to manipulate the masses. What bothers me is that in 2004 there are people who still think homosexuality is wrong for no other reason than 'because the bible says so'.

Being a homosexual makes little difference to the birth rate and people in today's day and age should be able to work that out. I guess if you are one of those who doesn't question the Bible, then you're never even going to consider any alternatives.

But religion needs to come to terms with this political motive in the bible, and deal with homosexuality. Things such as this keep me away from the church.

true.

 

[dan warna]

Otaku

but are not laws a form of coercion? the threat of criminal prosecution.

If there was no chance of punishment would we have institutions like shops, trade, market places, banks etc.

Morality is coercion, but so is the criminal code, but it is only through mutual agreement of a set of guidance or rules or legislation does a community work.

Christian morality, at its core, is a substantial body of work and a reasonable basis for legislation.

in fact most of the ten commandmants and subordinate 'laws' are in our legislation or morale code, or civil code (ie though shalt not shag thy neighbours wifes ass, while slightly misquoted , is about theft, and the fact if there is a divorce then the civil penalties are quite substantial on joint assets, that and the fact women were considered part of the asset base of a male)

 

[bunsen burner]

Are there any practicing Christians brave enough to enter this lion's den? Notenoughteams? EKA? Frodo?

 

[Contra Mundum]

Originally posted by bunsen burner
Are there any practicing Christians brave enough to enter this lion's den? Notenoughteams? EKA? Frodo?

I have posted and I would call myself as trying to be a Christian

 

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by dan warna
Christian morality, at its core, is a substantial body of work and a reasonable basis for legislation.

Our laws most likely used the Bible as a base originally, but now the Bible has no relevance whatsoever. Many of our laws are a reflection of the Bible but the reason why we have these laws is not because 'the bible says so'. Murder is a crime in todays society because it's unfair to kill someone else, rather than because 'the Bible says so'. We may have originally got this idea from the Bible, but in 2004 to use the Bible as a supreme guide is quite wrong.

 

[otaku]

Originally posted by dan warna
Otaku

but are not laws a form of coercion? the threat of criminal prosecution.

If there was no chance of punishment would we have institutions like shops, trade, market places, banks etc.

Morality is coercion, but so is the criminal code, but it is only through mutual agreement of a set of guidance or rules or legislation does a community work.

Christian morality, at its core, is a substantial body of work and a reasonable basis for legislation.

in fact most of the ten commandmants and subordinate 'laws' are in our legislation or morale code, or civil code (ie though shalt not shag thy neighbours wifes ass, while slightly misquoted , is about theft, and the fact if there is a divorce then the civil penalties are quite substantial on joint assets, that and the fact women were considered part of the asset base of a male)

laws are indeed a form of coersion. However, you can be lawful, without being moral.

Equating the two is no argument here. To be truely moral, you have to willing to do what you feel is correct with no form of coersion.

 

[dan warna]

Originally posted by bunsen burner
Our laws most likely used the Bible as a base originally, but now the Bible has no relevance whatsoever. Many of our laws are a reflection of the Bible but the reason why we have these laws is not because 'the bible says so'. Murder is a crime in todays society because it's unfair to kill someone else, rather than because 'the Bible says so'. We may have originally got this idea from the Bible, but in 2004 to use the Bible as a supreme guide is quite wrong.

look bunny on this issue I agree, but the bible for the most part is a fairly good reference test for decent morality.

there is a lot of stupid stuff in their like 'though shalt not suffer this person or that person to live' and "though shalt skewer in the guts with a blunt object he so ever who works on the sabbath" etc, but it is a text that was written for most about between 4000 and 1900 years ago and edited a fair bit over the last 500 or so.

the issue is not so much the bible as a historical or reference or even a document for worship, its the hypocracy of those who choose to interpret as they do.

Those who chose to interpret the bible to achieve their own malicious and cruel or even criminal agendas are no different from the freaks who use the koran or the torah or any other reference book to justify stupid behaviour.

the fault lies not with the bible but those who chose to use it as a weapon

 

[otaku]

Originally posted by dan warna
the fault lies not with the bible but those who chose to use it as a weapon

but the bible itself is inconsistant. And for a "work of god" it is pretty bloody shoddy.

 

[dan warna]

Originally posted by otaku
laws are indeed a form of coersion. However, you can be lawful, without being moral.

Equating the two is no argument here. To be truely moral, you have to willing to do what you feel is correct with no form of coersion.

I didn't state all law is a coercion, but may be perceived as coercive for those who have a morale code external to the what we would consider the law. Ie I don't believe that I could murder, however I have no ethical or moralistic boundaries against certain traffic laws, or certain 'ethics' such as say pre marital relationships or the like.

but person A believes that action A is moral and within the law, person B does not believe that action A is moral although within the law.

morality has a social context a cultural context as well as a legal context.

what is right in one context is considered an obscenity or at least cringeworthy in another. I know folks who would never consider breaking certain religious moral codes and they believe that they are absolutely correct and righteous bringing into play the social and environmental context of the individual.

I could waffle on but my brain is hurting.

Your aligning morality with altruism.

 

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by dan warna
the fault lies not with the bible but those who chose to use it as a weapon

Quite true, but not quite what I'm getting at. The people I'm targeting haven't done anything wrong that affects other people. They are free to believe what they want to believe, but I just want to ask them why? I want to know why some people have complete faith in the Bible when it is clearly evident the Bible has a lot of inconsistencies. I also want some of these people to explain why they use the 'because the bible says so' reasoning for some things but not others.

 

[TheBloods]

Originally posted by bunsen burner
Our laws most likely used the Bible as a base originally, but now the Bible has no relevance whatsoever. Many of our laws are a reflection of the Bible but the reason why we have these laws is not because 'the bible says so'. Murder is a crime in todays society because it's unfair to kill someone else, rather than because 'the Bible says so'. We may have originally got this idea from the Bible, but in 2004 to use the Bible as a supreme guide is quite wrong.

Some Christians claim that without the Bible we would not have laws. However that is rubbish. Hammurabi was a famous lawmaker and didn't need to the bible. The Chinese had laws and never needed the bible. The Romans and Greeks had laws without relying on the bible.

I also agree that using the Bible as a guide in the modern world is fairly pointless.

 

[otaku]

Originally posted by dan warna
I didn't state all law is a coercion, but may be perceived as coercive for those who have a morale code external to the what we would consider the law. Ie I don't believe that I could murder, however I have no ethical or moralistic boundaries against certain traffic laws, or certain 'ethics' such as say pre marital relationships or the like.

exactly what i am saying. You can be lawful, without being moral.

but person A believes that action A is moral and within the law, person B does not believe that action A is moral although within the law.

morality has a social context a cultural context as well as a legal context.

what is right in one context is considered an obscenity or at least cringeworthy in another. I know folks who would never consider breaking certain religious moral codes and they believe that they are absolutely correct and righteous bringing into play the social and environmental context of the individual.

I could waffle on but my brain is hurting.

Your aligning morality with altruism.

no, morality is the (depending on which view you chose) "exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior"

Altruism is the "Unselfish concern for the welfare of others".

Now, you cannot be showing goodness of character when someone is holding a gun to your head.

you are being coerced into doing dsomething. It is an amoral situation.

Therefore, if you look at Christian morals, most christians could be characterised as being amoral, as much as they will deny it.

 

[dan warna]

Originally posted by bunsen burner
Quite true, but not quite what I'm getting at. The people I'm targeting haven't done anything wrong that affects other people. They are free to believe what they want to believe, but I just want to ask them why? I want to know why some people have complete faith in the Bible when it is clearly evident the Bible has a lot of inconsistencies. I also want some of these people to explain why they use the 'because the bible says so' reasoning for some things but not others.

many reasons, some include:
they don't have to take responsibility for their actions
they take comfort from religion
they take comfort from the companionship from within religion
they are indoctrinated from childhood
religion forms the primary context of the social structure

etc etc.

religion is far more complex that faith.

often people come back to religion when they require familiarity, social contact, stability etc after a period of so called disillusionment (enjoying life?) or after an emotional break up or event etc...

not saying its right, its just cultural/environmental effects.

 

[1jasonoz]

Originally posted by otaku
but the bible itself is inconsistant. And for a "work of god" it is pretty bloody shoddy.

The problem with the bible, the so-called book of god; is that it has been re-written continuasly over the centuries by differant groups to make it more, for want of a better term, more relevant to the current times. This then has let person prejudiaces change the ficitional story to suit them.

I Treat the bible as it should be, an early example of a Harry Potter book(or any other ficitional book that talks about demons, spirits etc)

 

[otaku]

Originally posted by 1jasonoz
The problem with the bible, the so-called book of god; is that it has been re-written continuasly over the centuries by differant groups to make it more, for want of a better term, more relevant to the current times. This then has let person prejudiaces change the ficitional story to suit them.

I Treat the bible as it should be, an early example of a Harry Potter book(or any other ficitional book that talks about demons, spirits etc)

exactly as it should be treated.

 

[toulairene]

Originally posted by bunsen burner
Are there any practicing Christians brave enough to enter this lion's den? Notenoughteams? EKA? Frodo?

Im a practicing question, sorry im not going to bother.

 

[toulairene]

excuse the spelling mistake, i mean im a practising christian not (question), and yeah im not touching this issue.

 

[otaku]

Originally posted by toulairene
Im a practicing question, sorry im not going to bother.

if you are going to post, surely you have an opinion, or were you just boosting your post count?

 

[toulairene]

Originally posted by otaku
if you are going to post, surely you have an opinion, or were you just boosting your post count?

i do have an opinion, but i think its best left out of this thread. Mainly cos i can see where this is heading, i will let you guys feast on someone else.

 

[Bombers 2003]

Originally posted by toulairene
Im a practicing question, sorry im not going to bother.

If You're a qustion,what's the Answer?.