Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 92

Thread: Bibles view on Homosexuality

  1. #76
    Right in the happy button IWilKikU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Waynesboro, Virginia. The beautiful Shenandoah Valley
    Posts
    1,304
    So are we done talking about the Bible's view on homosexuality?
    ...Also baby duck hat would be good for parties.

  2. #77
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    15 miles or so north of the city of london
    Posts
    2,234
    The holocaust discussion is a bit off topic, but I'd like to say the following:

    The point about the Holocaust, is the sheer scale, the intent, and the compliance with which it happened. Is it possible that any other race was persecuted like this? Not only the numbers (6 or so million), but also the percentage of deaths during the war years of the Jewish race must be staggering. That is why it is considered to be a Jewish experience. That is why the Holocaust is known as THE HOLOCAUST.

    Sure, many gypsies, homosexuals, political subversives etc died during the holocaust. But this cannot be compared in the same way to what happened to the Jews.
    Faith is believing what you know ain't so - Mark Twain

    The preachers deal with men of straw, as they are men of straw themselves - Henry David Thoreau

    The way to see faith is to shut the eye of reason - Benjamin Franklin

    The teaching of the church, theoretically astute, is a lie in practice and a compound of vulgar superstitions and sorcery - Leo Tolstoy

  3. #78
    Right in the happy button IWilKikU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Waynesboro, Virginia. The beautiful Shenandoah Valley
    Posts
    1,304
    Here's another 'holocaust' and it's reception.
    http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...12/wdres12.xml
    ...Also baby duck hat would be good for parties.

  4. #79
    precious... subterranean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    København for the present
    Posts
    6,516
    Blog Entries
    34
    [QUOTE=Stanislaw]
    Quote Originally Posted by baddad

    Molting, melting whatevah!
    Yes Stan...what exactly is that anyway?????


    "there are people in the world so hungry that God can not appear to them except in the form of bread"

    Mahatma Gandhi

  5. #80
    Registered User Amra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    278

    :)

    "I think Islam has different culture, which Mohammad built. He managed to established himself as a holly prophet, last to come but sit in number one rank of all God's prophets. Also, the middle east (where this belief rooted and expand) got different culture and condition..There's no industrial revolution there, no Reinassance (sp), etc.

    When this one time the Time magazine put a carton sketch of young Mohammad, many muslims people in my country bought it, they were so curios cause none ever know what he looks like, and yet they also felt furious at the same time that a magazine have the guts to do that since the prophet is considered almost as holy as God...and who can draw God's face????"

    I found so many things that are simply not true in this post that I had to reply. MOhammed a.s never established himself as holy. That is the main teaching of Islam; namely, that no one is holy nor deserves to be worshiped in any way except God. There are many narrations confirming that fact. One famous is when there was a battle, someone saw Mohammed a.s fall of his horse, and that person assumed that the Prophet had died. The person spread the news and people started to cry and panick. Then, Mohammed's companion Ebu Bekr addressed them saying that "Those of you who worshiped Mohammed; he is dead; those of who you who worship Allah s.v.t; He is the Living and Eternal". So, that reinforced the significance of understanding that the Prophet is only a human being; one who is close to God because of his obedience and faith, but not holy in any way. The muslim culture forbids sketches of him or anyone associated with him because we don't know how they looked like, and because of the fear that people will start to worship those images, as was the case many times in different religions. It is not allowed to degrade or ridicule the Prophet or his family, and that has to do with respect on has for him. I always wondered what the gain is in being able to ridicule authority and if that has anything to do with the concept of free speach? Do people change anything if they have Jay Leno ridicule president Bush, while he attacks nations all over the place and increases the deficit every day? What do I really have from being able to laugh publicly at him? Is that a real right or simply a masquarade for people that gives them the ilusion that they do have influence, when in fact no one even considers their voice? Freedom of speach is not being able to ridicule the authority, it is about being able to actually change things.. I am very satisfied that the muslim countries have not let it come to that where every fool would be able to make fun of the Prophet and the teachings of the religion, like I have seen people do to Jesus and Christianity in the western societies. I have nothing against reasonable critisizm but ridiculing and insulting something that many people live by is disrespectful and primitive. There has to be a limit to everything, even to free speach..and as we know..no right is absolute..and thank God for that.

  6. #81
    precious... subterranean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    København for the present
    Posts
    6,516
    Blog Entries
    34
    Thanks for the clarification Amra.

    By the way, do you think those beautiful artwork in many churches/temple in the world were made with the intention that people would worship images? Futher, do you think those images degrade or ridicule the persons described, and show less respects towards them?
    And one other thing, if NO one knows what they look like (i suppose you were reffering to the prophet and his fellows), so how can people be sure that they are for real and not just legends??


    "there are people in the world so hungry that God can not appear to them except in the form of bread"

    Mahatma Gandhi

  7. #82
    The Yodfather Stanislaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The little Italy of Dagobah
    Posts
    4,394
    Blog Entries
    1
    The Jewish people did lose a great amount during this time, however, other holocausts should not be belittled because of one event, during 1933 - 1945 Many peoples were persecuted.

    And just to clear up one point, though Rwanda only lost C. 800,000 people, that was in the course of little more than a week or two. statistically, hitler could've learned from the rwandans.

    Also it was done mostly with machetes, and farming implements.

    Quote Originally Posted by atiguhya padma
    The holocaust discussion is a bit off topic, but I'd like to say the following:

    The point about the Holocaust, is the sheer scale, the intent, and the compliance with which it happened. Is it possible that any other race was persecuted like this? Not only the numbers (6 or so million), but also the percentage of deaths during the war years of the Jewish race must be staggering. That is why it is considered to be a Jewish experience. That is why the Holocaust is known as THE HOLOCAUST.

    Sure, many gypsies, homosexuals, political subversives etc died during the holocaust. But this cannot be compared in the same way to what happened to the Jews.

    ---------------
    Stanislaw Lem
    1921 - 2006, Rest In Peace.
    "Faith is, at one and the same time, absolutely necessary and altogether impossible"

  8. #83
    The Yodfather Stanislaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The little Italy of Dagobah
    Posts
    4,394
    Blog Entries
    1
    [QUOTE=subterranean]
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanislaw

    Yes Stan...what exactly is that anyway?????

    Well, it is Pizza the Hutt, from Mel Brooks Spaceballs.

    ---------------
    Stanislaw Lem
    1921 - 2006, Rest In Peace.
    "Faith is, at one and the same time, absolutely necessary and altogether impossible"

  9. #84
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    309

    blasphemy etc - reply to AP

    AP, I agree with your post that freedom of speech is a good thing. Probably I am at odds with many other christians when I say a blasphemy law would be a bad thing, this is what I believe. Everyone should be free to question and criticise another's religion, although no one should be allowed to persecute anyone for holding to their particular religion. I am not sure where the dividing line should be, maybe you have some ideas?

    I do not agree that the reason we have free speech in the West is because of 'us dissenters'. The dissenters against the persecuting church and state of the past were actually christians - those so called heretics burned at the stake, their mission being to have the bible translated into English and made available for everyone to read. The church of the past has a lot to answer for and as you say, those reactions were totally despicable.

    It is indeed becoming harder to say what you want about Jesus in this climate of multiculturism. Not very long ago Birmingham City Council renamed Christmas 'Winterval' out of consideration for its large Asian poplulation that might have been offended by the mention of Christ in Christmas. Is this contrary to the concept of freedom of speech? I think that it is.

    However in this same town last year, the Sikh community forced a theatre to discontinue a show called 'Behzti,' by a demonstration that became a riot. Behzti portrayed rape and violence within a Sikh temple and was generally inflamatory against Sikhism. This is definately contrary to the concept of freedom of speech, but none the less, the sikh's objective was successful. I wonder if Iwilkiku would be so enthusiastic to go and see this play as he would be to see the other one portraying a 'gay' Jesus - and if not, why not?

    More recently when the BBC showed 'Jerry Springer:The Opera' and this resulted in one of the BBC directors being harassed out of his home after a Christian website advertised his private address and telephone number. The report that I read at the time..and which I can't find on the internet, said that he had received death threats from militant christians. This too is contrary to the concept of freedom of speech - and I think to the concept of Christianity as taught by Jesus.

    What really angers me is that whereas it is usually ok to denigrate Jesus and Christianity, there is an outcry when other religions are given the same treatment and there is no even handedness from the authorities. The Behzti play was unusual in that it was allowed to be performed in the first place and I think that this is probably an exception to the rule. But it was eventually closed down anyway in order to ensure the safety of the audience and staff at the theatre.

    'The Opera' also was an exception to the rule because normally Christian demonstrations are passive but in this case degenerated, like the Sihk's protests, into militancy. I think this militancy is contrary to Christianity and to the teachings of Jesus - and that because Christians are normally passive, that they are much more likely to have their religion derided in the arts and media.

    It isn't true AP that the burning and torture of 'witches' and heretics was in inspired by the bible's teachings. It was inspired by the usual human traits that dominate mankind - greed for money and power and the need to have subordinates, albeit within the church. No one following Christ would advocate or support inflicting such cruelty on their fellow men and this is the meaning of the word Christian - a follower of Christ. These people even though they may have been called bishops etc, were definately not Christians by the New Testament's definition of the word.

    Miranda






    Quote Originally Posted by atiguhya padma
    Miranda,

    It should be OK to say any old thing about Mohammed too. Unfortunately, in many parts of the world, doing so can be seriously damaging to your health. Would you prefer to see the same kinds of reaction in the Christian world to those who voice their opinion on Jesus, as was shown to Salman Rushdie after he wrote the Satanic Verses? Quite honestly, the only reason we can say mostly any old thing about Jesus in the West, is because us dissenters have had the courage to stand up for reason and freedom against a persecuting church and state in the past. We've been through the burning of heretics and the drowning of witches, and we can now see that those reactions were totally despicable, even though they were inspired by the bible's teachings. The freedom we have today in the West was hard won by those who fought against religious fanaticism. We still have a long way to go to make it safe to say what you want about Mohammed. And it is even becoming more difficult to say what you want about Jesus.

  10. #85
    precious... subterranean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    København for the present
    Posts
    6,516
    Blog Entries
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by Miranda
    I do not agree that the reason we have free speech in the West is because of 'us dissenters'. The dissenters against the persecuting church and state of the past were actually christians - those so called heretics burned at the stake, their mission being to have the bible translated into English and made available for everyone to read. The church of the past has a lot to answer for and as you say, those reactions were totally despicable.
    Miranda
    Agree...Luther's effort is also an example. I don't know, in Indonesia you can't say anything bad about any particular religions..it is against the law and could lead to riots...Which can be politicized (SP) easily. I also think that those witches burning were somewhat happened cause of the role of religious authorities...which shamellesly(sp) thought that they were better than those witches..and twisted the teaching instead..I mean didn't Jesus sit and eat with whores and tax collector?


    "there are people in the world so hungry that God can not appear to them except in the form of bread"

    Mahatma Gandhi

  11. #86
    Registered User Amra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    278

    :)

    "Thanks for the clarification Amra.

    By the way, do you think those beautiful artwork in many churches/temple in the world were made with the intention that people would worship images? Futher, do you think those images degrade or ridicule the persons described, and show less respects towards them?
    And one other thing, if NO one knows what they look like (i suppose you were reffering to the prophet and his fellows), so how can people be sure that they are for real and not just legends??"

    I don't think it was initially made with the intention that people should worship them, but with time, they became objects of worship. It always startles me that people have generally accepted Jesus to be a white male, with blue eyes and blondish hair, when in fact, he could not have looked anything like that. Mary is also portrayed in a similar way. How can people ascribe them these physical attributes and accept them as being the truth, when they only show the dominance of the white male during that time, who wanted even God to look like him? It's absurd. When I said it was disrespectful to show images of the Prophet and his family, I meant when people degrade them and make plays to ridicule them. Showing only images of them is not disrespectful, and that is not the reason it is forbidden. However, it is a certain way of opening the door to worship of someone besides God. That is the main reason behind that prohibition. The disrespect grows out of that, because people have no limits. So, if you open that door, and let people draw images of God and the angels, than for sure, you will have someone take advantage of that "freedom" to express their own(however distasteful) opinions in regards to that matter, and then one will have no argument against that.
    Also, one doesn't derive the truth about the Prophet's life and his message by showing images of him, but by many other, steadfast facts we have and believe in. Besides, there are numerous hadith telling us how the Prophet p.b.u.h looked like, and the images are not necessary to know that. They would simply open ways to things that are danagerous and unnecessary. They open ways to worship of someone else but God, and they open ways for people to use that freedom and, if they wish, ridicule and degrade those images in any way they choose to.
    Last edited by Amra; 04-17-2005 at 01:10 PM.

  12. #87
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    309
    Sub, Thank you for your post and the reminder of how valuable our freedom of speech is. We have to be careful on this thread because it is against the forum rules to discuss politics and if this discussion goes that way, it will be locked. But freedom of speech in relation to religion I think is allowed. The people branded as witches were often just old women - anyone could be branded as a witch in those days and then burned, all in the name of religion - but only in the name of religion and certainly not in keeping with the teachings of Christ. Yes, Jesus did associate with publicans, sinners and prostitutes and the outcasts of society and these accepted him, while the so called spiritual leaders of the time rejected him.

    Sorry this is completely off topic Iwilkiku and nothing to do with homosexuality. The discussion seems to have taken off in different directions...

    Miranda

  13. #88
    precious... subterranean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    København for the present
    Posts
    6,516
    Blog Entries
    34
    Posted by Amra
    I don't think it was initially made with the intention that people should worship them, but with time, they became objects of worship. It always startles me that people have generally accepted Jesus to be a white male, with blue eyes and blondish hair, when in fact, he could not have looked anything like that. Mary is also portrayed in a similar way. How can people ascribe them these physical attributes and accept them as being the truth, when they only show the dominance of the white male during that time, who wanted even God to look like him? It's absurd.
    Well, the Jesus picture in my house doesn't show a blond man with blue eyes. It shows a man with long brown hair and eyes, like typical adult Jewish man. Also, I once see this poster (in a documentary movie or something like that) in a black man's house, saying "Jesus is a Black Man", with a Jesus figure describe as a black man. To say it in the extreme way, if horses have god of their own, then they would have describe their god as horse as well...So I don't agree with your opinion of white male dominance. And futher these diversities are merely people expressions from various nations/ethnic groups, and again doesn't mean as a disgrace towards Jesus himself. Many people also said that the Buddhists worships statues, since they often pray and bows down infrot of the Buddha's status. But personally, I see it beyond that..people sometimes pray with looking above towards the sky or kissing the ground, whatever...They are merely just expressions or variance of how to worship god..Apologize, if you think you are better than them, then I don't understand with all those religious acts and ceremonies that the Muslims do in Meccah..I mean, I often heard people saying that a person who died there is lucky coz he/she went straight to heaven, since s/he died in the holy land of God.....

    When I said it was disrespectful to show images of the Prophet and his family, I meant when people degrade them and make plays to ridicule them. Showing only images of them is not disrespectful, and that is not the reason it is forbidden. However, it is a certain way of opening the door to worship of someone besides God. That is the main reason behind that prohibition.
    Well, for Christians, Jesus is God Himself, so in other words, Christians are not creating another image to worship other than God himself..

    The disrespect grows out of that, because people have no limits. So, if you open that door, and let people draw images of God and the angels, than for sure, you will have someone take advantage of that "freedom" to express their own(however distasteful) opinions in regards to that matter, and then one will have no argument against that.
    Personally I think, religious freedom is as important as skin colors. I know that in some established religions, there are authorities who control the "yes" and "no" related to their religions, which in some cases are based on human calculations and thoughts. That's why I'm not really in to religions anymore...

    Besides, there are numerous hadith telling us how the Prophet p.b.u.h looked like, and the images are not necessary to know that. They would simply open ways to things that are danagerous and unnecessary. They open ways to worship of someone else but God, and they open ways for people to use that freedom and, if they wish, ridicule and degrade those images in any way they choose to.
    Excuse me, if I'm not mistaken, the Hadith was written by the prophet himself right?! So he himself describe his own figure and told people to take it as it is...

    Please excuse me if I have written something inapporipriate or wrong...I'm here to learn...


    "there are people in the world so hungry that God can not appear to them except in the form of bread"

    Mahatma Gandhi

  14. #89
    Registered User Amra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    278

    :)

    "To say it in the extreme way, if horses have god of their own, then they would have describe their god as horse as well..."

    Well, that is exactly where my problem with images starts. Who gives human beings the power to limit God to images we can conceive? If it is difficult for us to imagine God, is it justified to show images of Him, just to satisfy our curiousity? As for Jesus being God, that is a totally different issue, and as a muslim, of course, I do not agree with that. It seems rather that people have elevated Jesus to that level, by the same process other religions have elevated the statues that were initially used as manifastations of the Supreme Being, to that being itself. Jesus was a prophet, he passed on God's message, like any other prophet before him, he never told people to worship him, nor did he tell them to show images of him and worship those. That all came afterwards with human curiosity and imagination.

    "Many people also said that the Buddhists worships statues, since they often pray and bows down infrot of the Buddha's status. But personally, I see it beyond that..people sometimes pray with looking above towards the sky or kissing the ground, whatever...They are merely just expressions or variance of how to worship god.."

    Worship is not simply a physical performance; it goes far beyond that. If people simply bow in front of someone, that doesn't necessarily mean they are practicing an act of worship. If a Budhist thinks that the statue can do something for him, that it has power, that it can influence his life, and BECAUSE of that, he bows to it, than that is considered worship. Muslims do not bow to anyone but God, because of that belief. By the way, muslims do nt kiss the ground, they put their foreheads on the ground, because it is the ultimate way to show obedience and submission to God. Our greatest asset as human beings is the power to think and to make decisions based on reason, and submitting that reason to God is the ultimate way to worship Him.

    "Apologize, if you think you are better than them, then I don't understand with all those religious acts and ceremonies that the Muslims do in Meccah..I mean, I often heard people saying that a person who died there is lucky coz he/she went straight to heaven, since s/he died in the holy land of God..."

    Islam teaches us that human beings are categorized by their obedience to God; meaning that those who are most obedient are the best. That is how I look at it also. I don't know what exactly you do not understand about the ceremonies in Meccah, so I don't know how to answer that question.


    "Excuse me, if I'm not mistaken, the Hadith was written by the prophet himself right?! So he himself describe his own figure and told people to take it as it is..."

    Hadith are sayings, teachings, and deeds of the Prophet Mohammed, that were narrated by his followers and compiled in various books. So, it doesn't necessarily mean that every hadith is a saying of the Prophet himself, but it could be a narration of one of his followers as to what Prophet Mohammed did, or didn't do. So if his wife Aisha r.a. says that Prophet Mohammed prayed in a certain way, that is also considered a hadith, because she is considered a trustworthy person. In regards to the look of Prophet MOhammed a.s. , there are hadith by his followers describing his appearance.

  15. #90
    Miss Darcy - "...homosexuality makes me squirm..." - glad your enjoying it.

    That piece of writing was beyond satire! I am still not sure if your not a satirical Guerilla. Surely noone can be that clueless?

    Oh, reading an old page....hang on, I'll catch up!

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Homosexuality
    By Dennis in forum Twelfth Night
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-05-2007, 10:00 AM
  2. A non sugar-free view of French Rev.
    By Alo in forum A Tale of Two Cities
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-24-2005, 06:07 PM
  3. I need help on a point of view on a book!!
    By LaurBooT15 in forum General Literature
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 12-20-2004, 09:04 PM
  4. Replies: 36
    Last Post: 11-07-2004, 10:15 AM
  5. Does anyone have A view from the bridge?
    By Helga in forum General Literature
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-01-2004, 12:35 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •