FRIHOSTFORUMSFAQTOSBLOGSDIRECTORY
You are invited to Log in or Register a Frihost Account!

Have you read the Bible?

 


KatanaSky
I know many of us have probably followed along while in church, and some may have even picked up just to read it - but have any of you read the whole book?

I bought the New International Version (NIV Backpack Bible) the other day, and I started reading it. I've heard that you should try to read the New Testament before the Old Testament as it relates more to today's times. Not quite sure how accurate that is, but that's what I've started to do ..beginning with Matthew.

I can't say that I'm religious - I don't go to church on the weekly basis, I don't pray every night (though perhaps I should) I don't know. ...but I've always thought that it's important to believe in something. ...but let me not get too into my somewhat religious/spiritual (if you can call it that) side of things.

I just wanted to see what the hype is all about. The Bible is known for being the most published book in history. There are those that refuse to talk about anything that relates to the book, there are people that seem to always reference and back up their points by using the Bible to support their opinion, and I think there are the rest of us who either don't care or just haven't taken a moment to pick it up and actually read it.

I guess I'm just tired of being ignorant in a sense, I don't really know anything about my religion (I was born a Catholic), religion in general, etc... other than from the little overview they teach us in school, what I've seen in movies/tv shows, and conversations that others have had that I've never been able to relate to.

I guess picking up this book is my way of taking the first step to getting some sort of understanding.
Keran
I'm a Catholic too, I don't go to church every sunday, though I pray every day. The reason for that is because I don't believe in church itself (because I think it's a bunch of cra*), I do however believe in God. I've always believed in Him, not some priest in fancy dress screaming at an holy altar (which is holy just because someone said so :/ ) human race just got this whole God thing way too over-commercialized.... But I'm getting off topic here...

Anyway I think the Bible, from what I've heard and read a few fragments, is quite nicely written, it has all the moral codes and such, but nevertheless I think it's just a way for the church to control our lives. But I guess it's necessary to maintain order, as once someone (some guy from XVIIth century I think) said "Even if there's no God, we would have to make one up, for the sake of humanity"

btw. my 300th post ^^
MaxStirner
Having attended an Episcopal primary and secondary school (including compulsory Bible classes and service attendance) I suppose I'm as well acquainted with this book as the next person. It is certainly worth reading, though it's importance to western culture is, in my opinion, rather due to the influence it has had in shaping our history and values and not so much any possible literary quality. In any case, it utterly failed its purpose in my case.

P.S.
Keran wrote:
... some guy from XVIIth century I think) said "Even if there's no God, we would have to make one up, for the sake of humanity" ...

"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." Voltaire, Francois Marie Arouet (1694-1778), French philosopher, author.... (from Bartleby.com)
arquivo
good question...

When i was young i never wish to read, and im catolic... today im not too young and i started to think about read some... im sure, in few years i will really start...
That happens because we look for answers for ourself, and the questions change with the time and your age...
loyal
KatanaSky wrote:
I know many of us have probably followed along while in church, and some may have even picked up just to read it - but have any of you read the whole book?

I bought the New International Version (NIV Backpack Bible) the other day, and I started reading it. I've heard that you should try to read the New Testament before the Old Testament as it relates more to today's times. Not quite sure how accurate that is, but that's what I've started to do ..beginning with Matthew.

I can't say that I'm religious - I don't go to church on the weekly basis, I don't pray every night (though perhaps I should) I don't know. ...but I've always thought that it's important to believe in something. ...but let me not get too into my somewhat religious/spiritual (if you can call it that) side of things.

I just wanted to see what the hype is all about. The Bible is known for being the most published book in history. There are those that refuse to talk about anything that relates to the book, there are people that seem to always reference and back up their points by using the Bible to support their opinion, and I think there are the rest of us who either don't care or just haven't taken a moment to pick it up and actually read it.

I guess I'm just tired of being ignorant in a sense, I don't really know anything about my religion (I was born a Catholic), religion in general, etc... other than from the little overview they teach us in school, what I've seen in movies/tv shows, and conversations that others have had that I've never been able to relate to.

I guess picking up this book is my way of taking the first step to getting some sort of understanding.


I've read most of the Bible. Nearly all the books of the OT, and the four gospels, and quite a few of the books of the OT. To be honest, i don't like paul's books/letters, so i haven't read too many of them.

Peace.
catscratches
I actually started reading it (even though I'm not Christian and hate all kinds of religious nonsense) but I couldn't get past very many chapters before being too disgusted to carry on.
HalfBloodPrince
catscratches wrote:
(even though I'm not Christian and hate all kinds of religious nonsense)


Isn't it "your type" that's always going on and complaining about religious tolerance? Well...I hate all kinds of atheistic nonsense Smile I tried reading a book on evolution but I couldn't get past very many chapters before being too disgusted to carry on.
Arnie
I tried reading these topics on Frihost but I couldn't get past "very many" pages before...
loyal
HalfBloodPrince wrote:
catscratches wrote:
(even though I'm not Christian and hate all kinds of religious nonsense)


Isn't it "your type" that's always going on and complaining about religious tolerance? Well...I hate all kinds of atheistic nonsense Smile I tried reading a book on evolution but I couldn't get past very many chapters before being too disgusted to carry on.


Lol...good one...

Salam (peace).
bloodrider
I born in a cristian family, so I had a "proper" education acording to the religion.
When I was young I heard or read many stories from the bible, but I never really read the hole bible. I tried some times but in that time I hadn't the patient (I was more used to science fiction Razz).
Now that I'm older I may some day read it, but simple as a book.
My beliefs had evolved and read it wouldn't change them, but to some people it may really matters, they should read it to improve them selfs.
catscratches
HalfBloodPrince wrote:
catscratches wrote:
(even though I'm not Christian and hate all kinds of religious nonsense)


Isn't it "your type" that's always going on and complaining about religious tolerance? Well...I hate all kinds of atheistic nonsense Smile I tried reading a book on evolution but I couldn't get past very many chapters before being too disgusted to carry on.
At least books on evolution doesn't tell people to stone homosexuals to death.
johanfh
Books on evolution tell you you have to love your self and don't be sad for your neighbour, because only the fittest one does survive. Bad luck for the weaker ones! (And sorry for homosexuals, but in evolution they don't have any change because they do not pass their dna to their children. So it doesn't tell you to stone a homosexual, but does tell you implicitly that a homosexual will 'extinct' himself)

I read the Bible and I think it's a great bundle of books. At the same time I realize it's not one book (although it's presented that way) but a big library full of all different kind of books: poems, stories, critical letters, historical encyclopedia-like books, wisdom-sentences, etc. So just starting at page one and reading until you finish the last one is not very easy and also very difficult. (It's like going to the library and reading all the books you can find in alphabetical order)

So if you would like to know more of the Bible, first think what you would like to know: do you want to know more about the life of Jesus? You can read Luke or Marc, they aim at people who don't know much about the Bible.
Do you want to read a short song about living with God? Read one of the psalms and remember: it's a poem, so you have to 'feel' the song and think about the lyrics.
Do you want to know something about the creation of the world or about the 'old times'? Read Genesis.
Do you want to know something about what christians think about the future? Read Revelations. Remember: this book is very difficult. It's full of symbolic language.
Do you want to know more about how it is to be a christian in daily life? Read a short letter from Paul or Peter or John.

And remember: it's a library. So if you're serious about reading the Bible, look for someone who can guide you through it, like a librarian. Someone who knows a little about the Bible and who can help you find the right parts to read.
If you can't find someone to help you, feel free to PM me. I'll try to help you.

Yours,
JohanFH
Bikerman
johanfh wrote:
Books on evolution tell you you have to love your self and don't be sad for your neighbour, because only the fittest one does survive. Bad luck for the weaker ones! (And sorry for homosexuals, but in evolution they don't have any change because they do not pass their dna to their children. So it doesn't tell you to stone a homosexual, but does tell you implicitly that a homosexual will 'extinct' himself)
Books on evolution say nothing of the sort. They explain evolution. We, as humans, have the choice - we don't have to be bound by Darwinian selection.
You are wrong about homosexuals as well. There are many examples of homosexual animals in nature so clearly it is not selected against in all cases. Whereas the bible commands that they be killed.
Leviticus 20;13 "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."

Of course God does not stop with gays - he likes killing all sorts of people. Adulterers, blasphemers, infidels and false prophets, fornicators, disobedient children, non-virgin brides, witches, anyone who doesn't listen to the priest...the list goes on...
Quote:
And remember: it's a library. So if you're serious about reading the Bible, look for someone who can guide you through it, like a librarian. Someone who knows a little about the Bible and who can help you find the right parts to read.
If you can't find someone to help you, feel free to PM me. I'll try to help you.
The difference is that a library contains non-fiction books as well as fiction.
thegoswebs
I've read the holy bible and I noticed that I completely do not like the book for many reasons. Even though I believe that the holy bible has some pretty good morals, all it really is is a fictional book teaching the ways life "should" be. I myself am a Satanist, I've read the Satanic Bible, by Anton LaVey and have studied my religion very much for the past 3 years. I can not believe in the Holy Bible because it doesn't follow my real beliefs. I believe that everyone should believe in whatever they truley believe in and not follow someone else's morals. If you know what i'm saying.
xtupie
I have read through the bible many times. I try to read it through at least once a year, it usually takes 10 weeks of intensive reading about 18 chapters a day and I do not speed read, and I have at least 4 reading sessions a day. The rest of the time I will study section of the bible and parts of the bible to quote from memory

The bible is most inspirational and there is no other book quiet like it.

The New and the Old Testaments are equally relevant but your friend was correct to tell you to start in the New Testament, not because it is more important than the Old Testament but it deals with Christ’s life and the main reason for the bible.

A daily time of devotion includes three major things, you, God and your bible. During this time you need time to pray and time to read and study your bible.

If you are a new Christian, I would suggest you read a chapter a day following the following plan:
Gospel of John
Gospel of Luke
Acts
Romans to Jude - 19 books
Gospel of Mark
Gospel of Matthew
Revelations

Then you can start with the Old Testament
Read
Genesis to Deuteronomy - The Law or Torah
Joshua to Ester - The History
Job to Ecclesiastes and Lamentations - Poetry
Isaiah to Malachi - Major and Minor Prophets

Remember the order of the books in the Bible are not in chronological date order!

Trust you will take the time to read you bible, and I trust it will change your life.
dougblackjr
I agree too! Start reading with the Gospels (the stories about Jesus), Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The whole Bible is really about Jesus, so it kind of gives you the main plot points to see before you read the rest.

If you every have any questions, feel free to message me!

~ Doug
{name here}
A famous person whose name escapes me now said that you only need to read the bible to not want to be a Christian. As a Catholic, I ended up reading up until the end of a exodus or a book or two after. Then I stopped and never picked it up again until I wanted to figure out the approximate size of Noah's ark in SI units. I didn't stop because I didn't want to be christian, though. I just started shifting towards reading programming books because that's what I was interested in during the time, and I completely forgot about it. Now I'm an agnostic that doesn't even feel inclined enough to read Thus Spoke Zarathustra, much less the Bible.
dougblackjr
I guess it just depends on what you are looking to do. The Bible is a great book to read if you want to grow in your faith in Christ, or see who Jesus was.

I think too that if you read it focusing on Jesus as the central character and theme of the Bible, it makes the rest of it make sense.
Arnie
catscratches wrote:
At least books on evolution doesn't tell people to stone homosexuals to death.
Says a guy with the following signature:
Quote:
~~Homophobes should all go and DIE!~~
dougblackjr
Very Happy

Jesus loves homosexuals, just not homosexuality.

Don't mean to offend...that's just the way it is.
catscratches
Arnie wrote:
catscratches wrote:
At least books on evolution doesn't tell people to stone homosexuals to death.
Says a guy with the following signature:
Quote:
~~Homophobes should all go and DIE!~~
Ehrm? Am I missing something? A homophobe is not another word for a homosexual... It's a person (most often religious, as there are no other "arguments" for hating homosexuals) who hates homosexuals.
liljp617
dougblackjr wrote:
I guess it just depends on what you are looking to do. The Bible is a great book to read if you want to grow in your faith in Christ, or see who Jesus was.

I think too that if you read it focusing on Jesus as the central character and theme of the Bible, it makes the rest of it make sense.

There is no making sense of it. It's similar to reading Jack and the Beanstalk.
dougblackjr
I would love to help you you figure it out!

~ Doug
liljp617
dougblackjr wrote:
I would love to help you you figure it out!

~ Doug

-.- I don't need to figure anything out. It's not that difficult to understand the fairy tale. There is still no making sense of it in reality.
dougblackjr
Alright!

How do the rest of you guys feel?
Arnie
catscratches wrote:
Arnie wrote:
catscratches wrote:
At least books on evolution doesn't tell people to stone homosexuals to death.
Says a guy with the following signature:
Quote:
~~Homophobes should all go and DIE!~~
Ehrm? Am I missing something? A homophobe is not another word for a homosexual... It's a person (most often religious, as there are no other "arguments" for hating homosexuals) who hates homosexuals.
So because some of them say to stone homosexuals, you say all homophobes should die? And then you think I pointed that out because I can't tell the difference between the two words. Think again.
liljp617
Arnie wrote:
catscratches wrote:
Arnie wrote:
catscratches wrote:
At least books on evolution doesn't tell people to stone homosexuals to death.
Says a guy with the following signature:
Quote:
~~Homophobes should all go and DIE!~~
Ehrm? Am I missing something? A homophobe is not another word for a homosexual... It's a person (most often religious, as there are no other "arguments" for hating homosexuals) who hates homosexuals.
So because some of them say to stone homosexuals, you say all homophobes should die? And then you think I pointed that out because I can't tell the difference between the two words. Think again.

For one, his is obviously not serious. If you really think he believes people should be executed for a reason like that, then you should relax and start thinking logically. For two, the people who say homosexuals should all die or homosexuality has caused things such as 9/11, Katrina, and so on are not joking. They are being serious. They are openly spreading hate, prejudice, discrimination, and in a way, threats. His statement on homophobes obviously means they should keep their mouths shut or start using the brain their god gave them.
Arnie
Oh, he is obviously not serious - and obviously all the people saying homosexuals should die, they are. Why? Because you know. You just know. Just like certain people know that homosexuals caused 9/11. But they're wrong. And you're right.

But with those two sentences I'm back where your logic started... Unfortunately you failed to top Catscratches' statement in hypocrisy, but it's all right, you were close.

Obviously now he's in a corner and chances are he'll claim to be joking just to get away with it. But that signature doesn't look like a joke at all. On the Internet, smileys were made to distinguish whether such statements are meant funny or seriously. So even if he were joking, it'd 1) be tasteless and 2) allow a devil's advocate to justify all the so-called homophobes because they could have been joking as well.
Klaw 2
johanfh wrote:
Books on evolution tell you you have to love your self and don't be sad for your neighbour, because only the fittest one does survive. Bad luck for the weaker ones! (And sorry for homosexuals, but in evolution they don't have any change because they do not pass their dna to their children. So it doesn't tell you to stone a homosexual, but does tell you implicitly that a homosexual will 'extinct' himself)


As explained by bikerman you are wrong, i will just name it:
What you talk about is more social darwinism, not the theory.

Arnie wrote:
catscratches wrote:
Arnie wrote:
catscratches wrote:
At least books on evolution doesn't tell people to stone homosexuals to death.
Says a guy with the following signature:
Quote:
~~Homophobes should all go and DIE!~~
Ehrm? Am I missing something? A homophobe is not another word for a homosexual... It's a person (most often religious, as there are no other "arguments" for hating homosexuals) who hates homosexuals.
So because some of them say to stone homosexuals, you say all homophobes should die? And then you think I pointed that out because I can't tell the difference between the two words. Think again.


To kill them might be a "bit" harsh but homophobes they make gays look bad but they are the one's that are bad.
HalfBloodPrince
So wait...now who's killing people for their beliefs?
vineeth
I haven't read Bible till date fully, with care. But I am planning to do that in a few days using a copy of the Bible collected from my friend. As a Hindu, I don't have a copy in my house. But I do love Christ...
Bikerman
vineeth wrote:
I haven't read Bible till date fully, with care. But I am planning to do that in a few days using a copy of the Bible collected from my friend. As a Hindu, I don't have a copy in my house. But I do love Christ...

Don't let being a Hindu stop you - I'm an atheist and I've got at least 2 copies around Smile
dougblackjr
Arnie wrote:
Obviously now he's in a corner and chances are he'll claim to be joking just to get away with it. But that signature doesn't look like a joke at all. On the Internet, smileys were made to distinguish whether such statements are meant funny or seriously. So even if he were joking, it'd 1) be tasteless and 2) allow a devil's advocate to justify all the so-called homophobes because they could have been joking as well.


So wait.....how do these "smilies" work? LOL Surprised
liljp617
Arnie wrote:
Oh, he is obviously not serious - and obviously all the people saying homosexuals should die, they are. Why? Because you know. You just know. Just like certain people know that homosexuals caused 9/11. But they're wrong. And you're right.

But with those two sentences I'm back where your logic started... Unfortunately you failed to top Catscratches' statement in hypocrisy, but it's all right, you were close.

Obviously now he's in a corner and chances are he'll claim to be joking just to get away with it. But that signature doesn't look like a joke at all. On the Internet, smileys were made to distinguish whether such statements are meant funny or seriously. So even if he were joking, it'd 1) be tasteless and 2) allow a devil's advocate to justify all the so-called homophobes because they could have been joking as well.

No one has been killed for being a homophobe. People have been killed for being homosexual.

Homosexuals probably have the highest amount of prejudice thrown at them in the US at the moment.

Not a whole lot of people go around saying homophobes should die (one person who isn't really that serious isn't something to worry about). A lot of people go around saying homosexuals are lesser people and shouldn't be tolerated. And they really believe it to the point that they think something should be done about it.

Nobody blames homophobes for 9/11. Many people blame homosexuals for 9/11 (along with every other issue in the US). How do I know they didn't cause 9/11? I have a brain.

He's obviously (yes, obviously) not going to go out in the road and kill homophobes. I wouldn't put it past people to go out and kill homosexuals for no reason other than them being homosexuals (it's already happened plenty enough).

And no, most homophobes aren't joking as being a true homophobe means you have a phobia (more obvious discussion). Phobias are more often than not highly uncontrollable without some form of therapy. I'm sure some people who make comments on homosexuals are joking. But if you're a homophobe in the real sense of the word, there's a very low chance that you're joking.

The point is, discrimination against homosexuals is so widespread and heavily pushed by tons of people that it's hard to take something like Jerry Falwell saying 9/11 was due to homosexuality in the US as a joke.

I don't really care to defend his signature. It is hypocritical if you think he means what it says. To me, I don't think it means he wants to go out and murder people. I take it as an extreme way of saying homophobes shouldn't be tolerated in that they're highly ignorant, prejudice, misinformed, and need to get their noses out of a 2000 year old book leading their life. They shouldn't be killed as no one should be murdered for something as minuscule as this, but they do need some extensive therapy or teaching.


Last edited by liljp617 on Mon May 19, 2008 9:37 pm; edited 3 times in total
Klaw 2
1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia
the meaning of homophobe

2: of course he didn't mean to kill them, I suppose, but that the world would be better without them.


Last edited by Klaw 2 on Tue May 20, 2008 5:02 pm; edited 2 times in total
Arnie
Yeah, wanting homosexuals dead is so wrong because they're so horribly prejudiced against, but saying exactly the same about homophobes is perfectly fine.
Quote:
He's obviously (yes, obviously) not going to go out in the road and kill homophobes.
When you only hear someone making an insinuation about homosexuality being bad, you'd verbally challenge him. Now you're saying I'm being unreasonable for doing just that to someone who's said much more serious stuff.

If the signature said:
Quote:
Homosexuals should all go and DIE
you (and I) wouldn't accept the argument it's a joke. If you're going to apply a different standard when it's not about homosexuals but any other person, that's already prejudice.
Bikerman
ermm..I have to say that Arnie has a point here. I would put it in terms of the 'universal ethic' which is, simply put, what is right for one is right for all. Various religions and ethical systems put it in different terms - love thy neighbour, do unto others, cast not the first stone...etc. The basic point is, however, that advocating 'death' for a particular viewpoint is fine as long as you extend that to every viewpoint ...not something I think that most people would wish to do. The alternative is to define right and wrong in terms of current social and political norms - always a dangerous thing to do. It might be better to put it in more general terms:
thus 'homophobia is an outmoded viewpoint which should, hopefully, die out'.
It's not very snappy as a sig though....
liljp617
I do not support what he said nor will I attempt to defend it in its directness. He can handle that if he wishes to do so.

But I do think it's quite a bit easier to take what he said more lightly in comparison to what people say about homosexuality on a near constant basis. Mostly due to the fact that prejudice and hate toward homosexuals has already caused quite a bit of harm even in the recent past.

Is saying homosexuals or homophobes should die right? Neither statement is right in my opinion. Is saying all homosexuals should die more serious than the other? To me personally, yes. Applying it to reality and what we've seen so far, people spouting off all homosexuals should die has and will likely lead to more violence and more prejudice against them. The same hasn't happened in the case of homophobes and I don't think it will.

Was he wrong to say all homophobes should die? Yes. Is it as serious a statement as saying all homosexuals should die? No. My opinion...and unlikely to change.

Anyway, I think we're grossly off topic so if you care to continue the discussion feel free to do so in some manner. I'm going to attempt to allow the thread to take its original course if possible.
Bikerman
Well, since this has become a 'live' issue, let's look at the details.
Council for the defence:
'Homophobes should all go and DIE' is the sig in question.
Now, let's examine this. Is it an incitement to kill homophobes? No. Clearly not. It is possibly an incitement for them to commit suicide which is a legal offence in some countries, to be sure. One could, however, construe it as a wish that they will, in the fullness of time, die-out. In that case there is nothing illegal being suggested - merely a hope for 'better times'.
Is it an incitement to violence - again no.
Is it offensive? Perhaps to some.
Should it be censored? No.

(harrumph..my bill for the defence is frih$5000 - payable within 30 days)
spinout
Homophobes... Well isn't it time to wrestle out of the grip that the 'holy' (hahahahahahaha) bible has???

Have I read it - yes some pages here and there - and that was enought to stop.

A woman, some free religous rang my bell, she had read the 'holy' bible for 50 years... She wondered if a wanted a copy? I answered trouthfully: I got 5 pieces - in various editions from new to very old - not ever have I read such a story that is just designed for powermongering!
let us diskuss the 10 commandments, noone can be from God, if there is one! She left and I was still happy.
catscratches
Bikerman wrote:
Well, since this has become a 'live' issue, let's look at the details.
Council for the defence:
'Homophobes should all go and DIE' is the sig in question.
Now, let's examine this. Is it an incitement to kill homophobes? No. Clearly not. It is possibly an incitement for them to commit suicide which is a legal offence in some countries, to be sure. One could, however, construe it as a wish that they will, in the fullness of time, die-out. In that case there is nothing illegal being suggested - merely a hope for 'better times'.
Is it an incitement to violence - again no.
Is it offensive? Perhaps to some.
Should it be censored? No.

(harrumph..my bill for the defence is frih$5000 - payable within 30 days)
Yes, what I'm saying is not that I go around and kill homophobes in my spare time. I'm meaning that homophobia should die out, and I don't really care about the way it does. Hopefully by people realizing that it's just simply wrong, but I wouldn't mind if they killed themselves either.

EDIT: And I'm sorry, but I don't have frih$5000 Wink
Bikerman
catscratches wrote:
EDIT: And I'm sorry, but I don't have frih$5000 Wink

Damn...another 'pro bono publico' defence. Ahh well Smile
Arnie
If you agree with this defense, you are compelled also to agree with the following:
Bikerman II wrote:
Well, since this has become a 'live' issue, let's look at the details.
Council for the defence:
'Homosexuals should all go and DIE' is the sig in question.
Now, let's examine this. Is it an incitement to kill homosexuals? No. Clearly not. It is possibly an incitement for them to commit suicide which is a legal offence in some countries, to be sure. One could, however, construe it as a wish that they will, in the fullness of time, die-out. In that case there is nothing illegal being suggested - merely a hope for 'better times'.
Is it an incitement to violence - again no.
Is it offensive? Perhaps to some.
Should it be censored? No.

(harrumph..my bill for the defence is frih$5000 - payable within 30 days)
If you accept Bikerman's original defense but not this one, that's hypocrisy. You condone both, or reject both.

Judging by his last post Catscratches is choosing for the first option - well Cat, think of that when you feel like correcting someone for making similar "jokes" / statements about homosexuals. You certainly can't do that anymore on these forums if you want to keep any credibility.

[fixed typo]


Last edited by Arnie on Tue May 20, 2008 8:17 pm; edited 1 time in total
HalfBloodPrince
I say homosexuality is wrong.

You say homosexuality is right.

To you your belief; to me mine.
Klaw 2
Arnie wrote:
If you agree with this defense, you are complied also to agree with the following:
Bikerman II wrote:
Well, since this has become a 'live' issue, let's look at the details.
Council for the defence:
'Homosexuals should all go and DIE' is the sig in question.
Now, let's examine this. Is it an incitement to kill homosexuals? No. Clearly not. It is possibly an incitement for them to commit suicide which is a legal offence in some countries, to be sure. One could, however, construe it as a wish that they will, in the fullness of time, die-out. In that case there is nothing illegal being suggested - merely a hope for 'better times'.
Is it an incitement to violence - again no.
Is it offensive? Perhaps to some.
Should it be censored? No.

(harrumph..my bill for the defence is frih$5000 - payable within 30 days)
If you accept Bikerman's original defense but not this one, that's hypocrisy. You condone both, or reject both.

Judging by his last post Catscratches is choosing for the first option - well Cat, think of that when you feel like correcting someone for making similar "jokes" / statements about homosexuals. You certainly can't do that anymore on these forums if you want to keep any credibility.


Cat said himself that it is not he doesn't mean killing them but to let them die out. When a homophobe comes here and says thank god for AIDS. That's a bit worse. And seeing the "homophobes should die" as a joke is wrong, it is a statement with a message beneath the surface, and not to be taken litteral. While with saying thank god for AIDS well, no real message beneath there is there.
Well the (what's the first option?)
Why are we this discussing again in this topic? shouldn't we make an other topic on this?

HalfBloodPrince wrote:
I say homosexuality is wrong.

You say homosexuality is right.

To you your belief; to me mine.


Wel saying it is wrong doesn't matter, what do you do? Go and kill some gay's/harras them/make them miserable or hurt/make the uncomfertable in anyway? Or are you letting them be and do nothing about them?

opinions aren't important, what you do with them is.


Last edited by Klaw 2 on Tue May 20, 2008 8:04 pm; edited 3 times in total
HalfBloodPrince
Ok! Smile

~~Homosexuals should all go and DIE!~~
Arnie
Quote:
When a homophobe comes here and says thank god for AIDS. That's a bit worse.
No, he means it as a joke. How do I know? I just know... surely he'll confirm it afterwards. And don't say that the joke is not funny: it's as funny as the signature of a certain guy here.

Oh, and HBP meant that as a joke. No, really. He'll confirm so in a while. Rolling Eyes

I have nothing more to say. Force yourself into your double standard if you wish.


Last edited by Arnie on Tue May 20, 2008 8:17 pm; edited 1 time in total
Klaw 2
I wanted to say nothing more but in a way I HAVE to respond

HalfBloodPrince wrote:
Ok! Smile

~~Homosexuals should all go and DIE!~~

Got this feeling this is a joke...


Arnie wrote:
Quote:
When a homophobe comes here and says thank god for AIDS. That's a bit worse.
No, he means it as a joke. How do I know? I just know... surely he'll confirm it afterwards. And don't say that the joke is not funny: it's as funny as the signature of a certain guy here.

Oh, and HBP meant that as a joke. No, really. He'll confirm so in a while. Rolling Eyes

I have nothing more to say. Force yourself into your double standard if you wish.

Saying thank god for AIDS has no deeper meaning it is just utterly foolish and stupid, telling that kind of "jokes" will just upset people. And hurt them, saying AIDS is good, is like pissing on the graves of US soldiers who died in WOII and then saying it is just a "joke".

Saying that all homophobes should die is something else than saying that all gays should die, homophobes, they try to make a perfect world for them selfes while not thinking about other people, they are intorelant and the world would be better of without any homophobes. Any people saying that some people are bad just on base of religion, sex, gender, race etc.etc. and try the world to their vision are all bad, while saying those people should all go and die is just showing your.

And saying that when a homophobe goes around harrasing people he afterwards he just can say it was a joke, because catscratches was saying that. Is just not seeing the obvious difference between the meanings.


Last edited by Klaw 2 on Tue May 20, 2008 8:30 pm; edited 2 times in total
Bikerman
Arnie wrote:
If you agree with this defense, you are compelled also to agree with the following:...etc

I do. My point was not whether the statement is objectionable - I said, in fact, that it may well be to some. The point was whether it was illegal or something which should be censored. In both cases the answer, I believe, is no. That applies to my original defence and to the re-worded version. You do not have to agree with a statement to defend the right of someone to make it - in fact the test of free speech is when you don't agree.

I don't personally approve of wishing anyone dead (either homosexual or homophobe) but I would not wish to censor the rights of people to express that wish themselves. I WOULD wish to censor the right of anyone to incite violence against either group - but fortunately that is covered by the law already (even if not always enforced).
The point could also be made that wishing death upon homosexuals is a tradition amongst a certain element of the American Religious Right:
http://adultthought.ucsd.edu/Culture_War/The_American_Taliban.html


Last edited by Bikerman on Tue May 20, 2008 8:43 pm; edited 1 time in total
catscratches
I also think that there is a clear difference between homosexuality and homophobia. Homophobia is a choice, not something you're born with.

EDIT:
Quote:
And saying that when a homophobe goes around harrasing people he afterwards he just can say it was a joke, because catscratches was saying that. Is just not seeing the obvious difference between the meanings.
I never said it was a joke...
Klaw 2
catscratches wrote:
I also think that there is a clear difference between homosexuality and homophobia. Homophobia is a choice, not something you're born with.

EDIT:
Quote:
And saying that when a homophobe goes around harrasing people he afterwards he just can say it was a joke, because catscratches was saying that. Is just not seeing the obvious difference between the meanings.
I never said it was a joke...


Neither did I they started about "jokes". They say that when you say it was a "joke" everyone can say everything what they said was a joke. Like Thank god for AIDS and that kind of crap.
Bikerman
catscratches wrote:
I also think that there is a clear difference between homosexuality and homophobia. Homophobia is a choice, not something you're born with.
I'm not sure how true that is. In my own experience most homophobes do not choose to be so - it is a matter of upbringing and experience. Choice implies knowledge of all the alternatives...I'm not sure that many bigots have that choice early in life (but there again, I like to believe that people are basically decent - that may well be my own personal delusion).
aswapathy
There are some parts like the genealogies that I just can't relate to. But other parts, like some of the parts of the Old Testament that people complain about the most, I read over and over again. I don't think these things were meant to be read the way we read a Dean Koontz novel. I think they were meant for meditation. The more you ponder them, the more they reveal.
catscratches
aswapathy wrote:
There are some parts like the genealogies that I just can't relate to. But other parts, like some of the parts of the Old Testament that people complain about the most, I read over and over again. I don't think these things were meant to be read the way we read a Dean Koontz novel. I think they were meant for meditation. The more you ponder them, the more they reveal.
The Old testament is basically a set of laws. "Do that and don't do that, etc. etc." So I don't see how it could be meant for meditation. =P
Afaceinthematrix
I've read the majority of the Bible. I skipped a few parts in The Old Testament because to be honest (and I've even had highly religious Christians agree with me on this, parts of The Old Testament get extremely boring. There's books that are basically family trees.) But I've read most of the Bible. I've also read parts of the Koran and many books on evolution. I like to be open-minded and see multiple points-of-view, even if I don't agree with some.
xtupie
I think we are all forgetting something VERY important.

GOD LOVES YOU ALL!!! It is the SIN's we do that He hates and separates us from Him.

You are looking at homosexuality and the bible has a lot so say about it and most definitely does not condone it, which is why He made Adam and Eve - not Adam and STEVE!!!

The bible does have a lot to say about others sins like lying, stealing, adultery and disobeying your parents etc. it just seems that people’s pet sins are more prominent and get highlighted but I can assure you that if you continue to sin you will receive "just" payment for your sins.

God does love you, even if you are gay, but He hates your sins!!! It is our sins that separate us from God, and that is why He sent Jesus to pay for our sins and to save those of us who will accept His plan for salvation, that is when you accept Him, you turn from your sins (repent) and following Him, He will accept you.

But you cannot habitually continue in your sins and expect to be saved!!! That is why we must REPENT (which means to turn around or turn away from) our sin.

Yes there is GRACE but who know how big or small God's grace is. And Yes Jesus death for you and me is complete, i.e, he died for all my sin, past - present and future, but if I continue to do the something I did before I was a Christian then there is something terribly wrong. No one is perfect and we all sin the difference is God's forgiven me and I live under His grace and mercy.

When I came to Jesus I was an adulterer, liar, drunkard but when I got saved I stopped doing those things, yes I did tell the odd lie and I still sinned but now it is different, when I become aware of a sin or sins in my life I confess them and repent of them and many of the things I used to do, I do not do anymore.

There is a major change in my life style and that is due to my relationship with Jesus Christ

If you come to Christ, repent of your sins but then just go on doing them as you did before, then who are you fooling?

Not God!!! There must be a CHANGE in your Lifestyle!!!
Klaw 2
xtupie wrote:
I think we are all forgetting something VERY important.

GOD LOVES YOU ALL!!! It is the SIN's we do that He hates and separates us from Him.

haha nice joke. o wait you were serious, oops Embarassed

xtupie wrote:
You are looking at homosexuality and the bible has a lot so say about it and most definitely does not condone it, which is why He made Adam and Eve - not Adam and STEVE!!!

Duh of course, if you created two men we only would have had 1 generation, however i don't know what that has to do with gay's.

xtupie wrote:
The bible does have a lot to say about others sins like lying, stealing, adultery and disobeying your parents etc. it just seems that people’s pet sins are more prominent and get highlighted but I can assure you that if you continue to sin you will receive "just" payment for your sins.

If he exists of course. Besides god is pretty hypocritical in his bible isn't he.

xtupie wrote:
God does love you, even if you are gay, but He hates your sins!!! It is our sins that separate us from God, and that is why He sent Jesus to pay for our sins and to save those of us who will accept His plan for salvation, that is when you accept Him, you turn from your sins (repent) and following Him, He will accept you.

He loves you eventough you are gay however you commit a sin, by being gay.

xtupie wrote:
But you cannot habitually continue in your sins and expect to be saved!!! That is why we must REPENT (which means to turn around or turn away from) our sin.

Yes there is GRACE but who know how big or small God's grace is. And Yes Jesus death for you and me is complete, i.e, he died for all my sin, past - present and future, but if I continue to do the something I did before I was a Christian then there is something terribly wrong. No one is perfect and we all sin the difference is God's forgiven me and I live under His grace and mercy.

Always thought it was funny , dying for someone elses sins, really never got that part. Anyway is not believing in god a big sin?

xtupie wrote:
When I came to Jesus I was an adulterer, liar, drunkard but when I got saved I stopped doing those things, yes I did tell the odd lie and I still sinned but now it is different, when I become aware of a sin or sins in my life I confess them and repent of them and many of the things I used to do, I do not do anymore.

Sorry but isn't that just lack of discipline?

xtupie wrote:
There is a major change in my life style and that is due to my relationship with Jesus Christ

If you come to Christ, repent of your sins but then just go on doing them as you did before, then who are you fooling?

Not God!!! There must be a CHANGE in your Lifestyle!!!

Hmm okay fair enough. If there IS a christian God.
gandalfthegrey
Yes, I read it as a teenage Christian.

Looking back, I remember how I found much of the old testament deeply disturbing to me. How could such a loving God be so violent or ignorant?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2007 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.