More religious madness

Remove all ads!

@Gnarfflinger: Mate, I still dunno if you were agreeing with me or not...

Edit:

HELL YES! Its the same old story all over again. A VERY vocal minority earns a reputation for the entire community, where the overwhelming majority do not share those sentiments.

For instance, with reference to the Holocaust during WWII..is it fair for me to say that all Germans are racist Nazi pigs? Its not!! Its pretty much the same thing with Muslims as well. We are PEOPLE! Just like you guys! You get nutjobs in EVERY group of people you can think of! Whether it be Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Americans, Indians, Saudi Arabians, Chinese, Japanese...it doesn't matter.

They are NOT a true representation of what we are all about! I've said this on these boards sooo many times...

*Le sigh*

 

Faraaz:

What I said wasn't a generalisation of people but of beliefs - I'm saying that *Islam* is bad, not muslims. My statement didn't involve anyone - neither muslims such as yourself nor the nutters who want the Pope dead.

Seperating people from their beliefs is, IMO, important. The people calling for the death of the Pope could be really nice people ... until you bring up the subject of religion at which point they morph into nutters. Thus as far as I can tell it is the religion that is the problem, not the people (well - I'm sure some of them are just morons - but that can't be generalised to everyone).

So by that statement I made I was only meaning that your beliefs suck, not you

[edit: hmm, this post gives the impression that I only dislike Islam because of the nutty muslims out there - that's not true. I detest it for a wide variety of reasons...]

 

I don't understand how people can say "X religion is a bad thing because the did bad stuff in the past and have nutjobs". The point is that this happened in the past, and the teachings of that religion have changed over time as society evolves. Religion is not static, as much as militant atheists would like to believe. The only people who follow a holy book of any kind to the word are fundamentalists, and for the rest it provides some guidelines to living the "right" way.

Also, I'd be incredibly offended if I was a Christian and someone told me my beliefs suck, since by extension you'd be insulting the foundation from which I draw meaning.

 

Once you get past the doctrinal differences we face the same challenges.

 

Clixby;

I'm just going to assume that everything you said there was aimed at me...

... in which case I'm pretty sure you must have missed the bit that I editted in. The things you note are not my only issues with Islam and religion in general - they're just the most obvious manifestations of it.

Religion can change - of course it can. That doesn't make it any less nonsensical or dangerous. It's the absurd thinking that makes it dangerous - the suspension of rationality which leads to all sorts of horrible things. The 'nutters' aren't necessarily even nutters outside their religious lives - only when religion is invoked do they start suspending their rational and critical thinking and thus look bat**** crazy to those of us who are holding onto those things.

Suspending reality is something that moderately religious people do as well - not just hardcore fundies, and while the results aren't as spectacularly bad, they're still bad. So many things are unreasonably taboo because of religious thinking - people deny themselves a lot of things which otherwise would be enjoyable because 'God tells them to', not because they actually are bad things. It can also stop all kinds of scientific and medical advances on the basis of things that, well ... aren't real.

This is why I think religion - and faith in general - is a bad thing, and why I think that the Pope was right in saying that Islam sucks. Not that the Pope's beliefs are that much better mind you - they still carry the same rubbish which makes Islam dangerous.

Blah - anyway, rant over. I could probably say a lot more on the subject ... but I'll try not to. My wrist is sore anyway...

Two quotes to end with:

"I'm not convinced that faith can move mountains, but I've seen what it can do to skyscrapers." -William H. Gascoyne

'Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.' - Voltaire

 

But what if they actually believe that the choices they make are actually better? A parent tells a child not to skate on thin ice not to be vindictive or arbitrary, but because there is real danger. Just like the Commandments of God warn us of real danger. They command us to be sexually pure. This is not to be punitive or restrictive, but to protect us from STD and unplanned pregnancy as well as complicated interpersonal situations. As a Mormon, Alcohol, Tobacco and illegal drugs are forbidden not for the sake of "silly rules" but to protect us from the harmful effects of these substances.

Believing absudrities is not a pre-requisite for attrocities. All that is required is an excess of Wrath, jealousy, greed, Lust, pride or Gluttony.

 

@Aikanaro: So, by extension of your statement, am I to understand that Christianity is just as bad as Islam?

Edit: Sorry Abomination..fixed now.

[ September 27, 2006, 10:14: Message edited by: Faraaz ]

 

Gnarff:

I'll take what you say in your first paragraph seriously when you can give me a non-doctrinal reason why homosexuality is bad. Until then I'm considering your points about sins always being bad things as invalid.

Faraaz:

Assuming you mean me, as Abomination hasn't posted...

Yes, Christianity is fundamentally just as bad as Islam. Fortunately however the vast majority of Christians now ignore the worst parts of their religion - the basic problem of faith is still there though, and is still screwing things up.

 

Eh? When did I say that? That's twice I've been misquoted when I didn't even post

But to answer your question: yes. Just as bad and as good as each other. They both have their various practices and I recently discovered that a workmate of mine is muslim, he doesn't do strange dogmatic things like only shave on sundays or something much like how presbetarians worship in a rather relaxed manner and can pretty much do as they please so long as they don't harm others.

The more organised and the more strange 'customs' or practices a certain division of a religion is the worse it is in my opinion. People who practice such things honestly need to question 'why' they do those things and by not doing them they are immoral... like having to eat fish on thursdays only or some strange **** like that.

 

Sorry Abomination, I was browsing multiple threads at the time, and I just had my head up in the clouds at the time I suppose.

Again...apologies.

@Aikanaro: How is this any different from Muslims?? There's not a lot of Muslims who would give people spouting off about Jihad the time of day...myself being a prime example. As well as all my family members and all my muslim friends...

To give you an example, during the months after 9/11 and the American invasion of Afghanistan, the mullah in my local mosque was "encouraging" the youth to go to Afghanistan and "lend our aid" to our Muslim brothers being slaughtered by the "American dogs"...does this mean I'm making this post from a cybercafe in Kabul? Not really...

However, I do agree with you partly about religion being a major reason for most of the things messed up these days.

I'm not sure if you are familiar with the communal riots in India between Hindus and Muslims, but recently, there were some incidents in Godhra, Gujarat...the western parts of India. Horrific would be an apt adjective to use in this instance. Intelligent people give way too much importance to what should, in essence, be a guideline to living a fulfilling life.

 

The only difference is in scale, I guess - though I'll admit that I don't really have that much knowledge of what's going on in Muslim nations. From what I do see though Islam has a larger number of 'hardcore' members than Christianity. Of course - Christianity might catch up in that regard is America keeps going the way it is...

 

I've heard that homosexual relations carry a greater risk of STD infection, as well as an increased risk of "damage" to the areas involved. Further, it is not natural, despite what others claim.

Could it be that from the past abuses that we've learned to study the doctrine ourselves and came to conclusions that those past things are not what God intended, and have come to understand a better way to live?

 

You shouldn't have said that... Since now I have to have my piece about this.

Let's start defining what's natural. First of all natural is anything that can be. Electromagnetic radiation is natural. Simple molecules formed into complex cellular machinery is natural. Mutations are natural. Mental functions are natural. Disruptions in mental functions are natural. They all happen within the spectrum of natural occurences.

Defining rare occurences in nature unnatural doesn't work. It's devoid of meaning, or the meaning is blurred for the very least. You could say that something isn't normal, meaning that the statistical likelihood of that occurence isn't very big. So why won't you?

Homosexuality is natural. It happens in the nature all the time and humans are no exception. It's rare, but it happens so much that a search for valid causal reasons for it has been going on for some time. That is it happens so often that it could have a hereditary basis to some extent. It might have something to do with beneficial hereditary traits, think on a population scale and not individual, mind you. That would make it not only natural, but maybe even a good thing in the means of survival.

If you go on argumenting morals on the basis of what's natural, then do your research better and put your argument on a firmer basis.

 

STDs can only be spread provided one of the people involved already has an STD. AIDS can be transmitted sexually however that is not the only way one can be infected with AIDS. Just because somebody is a homosexual male does not mean they will engage in anal-sex.

Having regular sexual relations increases the chance of damage to the genetalia as opposed to not having sexual relations... the same applies to homosexual sexual relations. Obviously the more you use something the higher chance you'll 'strain' something. A woman who has too much vaginal sex with a man can damage herself if she does it too much, too rough and if the male is packing a fairly large penis. However the church doesn't condemn sex for that reason.

The definition of what is natural is entirely up to the interpretation of the viewer. I would argue that homosexuality IS natural since people are homosexual not by choice but by... well... being 'naturally' inclined that way. It's in their nature. They can't fight it.

 

Well, I was asked to defend my stance without scripture. One of the main purposes of sexual activity is to reproduce. Homosexuality does not further this agenda. That is what I base this on. Just as a disease's sypmtoms are considered abnormal, homosexuality is abnormal, whether you are more comfortable calling it sin, disease, curse, shoice, genetic defect or waht have you.

Abomination: I'm not allowed to use holy books to defend my position, you can't use medical or science books to defend yours.

I will not accept that unless you can prove that Free Will also does not exist. Homosexuality is a temptation, stronger for some than others, but still a temptation. As such it can be fought.

 

The reasoning for not using holy books to defend a position is that they are based on unchanging dogma and the reasoning behind homosexuality being evil is because 'God says so'. You bring up points saying that it's unnatural and try to use scientific reasoning to prove it's wrong yet you won't allow me to defend using the same principles?

Free Will does exist to an extent in many things. You have no choice but to breathe air because your body requires it. You have no choice but to consume food because your body requires it. You wish to have a relationship with somebody of the opposite gender because your hormones push you in that direction. I'm never tempted to be homosexual, I have no sexual feelings towards men, to me it's not even on the table - however others DO have these feelings and they can't change the fact that they're sexually attracted to men and not sexually attracted to women. I dare say they would be happy to change their feelings to avoid the social harassment they recieve from fag-haters, homophobes and the christian church. Since they're not attracted to somebody of the opposite sex you would condemn them to a life without honest romantic love?

It is NOT a temptation. The temptation is how much homosexual sex one has, not the act of loving a member of the same gender - that is something that can not be changed. Frankly I don't see how it can be a temptation. What are the advantages of being homosexual over being heterosexual? I dare say none. I dare say that heterosexual relationships are better, more enjoyable, even from a sexual perspective (although I honestly can't say I know what a homosexual sexual relationship is like). Some homosexuals have never had a heterosexual relationship, they don't know what they're missing out on because they've never even tried it, if they've never tried the other side how are they being tempted?

As for reproduction I dare say anything swaying humans towards not reproducing as much these days is a good thing with over-population being a concern for most countries. I would dare say homosexuality is a way for humans to deal with sexual need and frustrations without the after effect of population growth.

 

So is kissing my wife, but I don't see anybody telling me not to that.

 

By that logic, we should also shun geniuses, psychics and the color-blind, too. Abnormality isn't bad or harmful in and of itself. That you choose to consider an abnormality that does not harm or affect you in an way to be immoral is your issue, not the homosexuals'.

By your logic: One of the main purposes of water is to hydrate and deliver oxygen molecules to carbon-based life forms. Hydro-electric power does not further this agenda. Therefore, hydro-electric power is abnormal, a chosen deviancy and therefore immoral. So are light-water nuclear reactors, ice machines, water slides and swimming pools.

Try again.

So earlier you compared it to a disease, and now you say it's a temptation that can be resisted. Which is it?

By the way - you could resist your heterosexual urges if you wanted to bad enough. Doesn't mean you should.

 

Actually the female siblings of homosexuals have more children in average. So that which causes homosexuality might increase the number of offspring by making the females of the same family more fertile. It stands to reason that it even might have a positive effect on how much the children are being nurtured.

You see the thing is that reproduction isn't that simple as a man and a woman banging their uglies together for the love of it and the love for each other and having babies as much as they can. It takes a whole family and preferrably a healthy community to succesfully produce successive generations with us humans.

If you could show that homosexuals increases aggression in the society and mortality rates, then I might be one of the people that would start to consider that homosexuality is wrong. But even that's a very problematic stance, since that would make other behavioral patterns wrong that can't possibly be considered as such by most of people. Like the mainstream masculine culture for instance

 

I didn't notice this one before:

This, as Barmy would say, is total bollocks, mate. Where this urban legend came from was the rapid spread of STD's (particularly HIV) in the gay community during the '80's. The reason for the spread had nothing to do with homosexuality, but rather the unprotected sex homosexuals thought there was no harm in engaging in, for obvious reasons (no pregnancy) and it was also believed at the time that STD's couldn't be transferred anally.

That's the factual basis. Logically, there's not a single good reason for this to be true if you think about it. Honestly - how could sexual preference weaken one's immune system? Can you think of one good reason?

As to "damage" - no more likely than in heterosexual sex. A large penis in a small vagina can cause damage too, but that's hardly a reason to be against the union of a giant and a midget. Besides - the human ass is designed to expand and contract regularly to accomodate long, hard cylindrical objects (daily if you get enough fibre). They may get sore, but they can generally take it. Damage may occur in extreme circumstances (such as rape and lack of lubrication), but it's far from the norm.

Again, this is another "think about it" - do you really think SO many people (gay and straight) would continue to engage in and enjoy anal sex if it were so painful? It would have to hurt if permenant damage is so likely.

First of all, that's your opinion, period. Second, whether or not it's "natural" is completely irrelevant. Humanity's ability to flourish, evolve and improve is based on our knack for going against our nature. Climbing into large metal cylanders with wings and flying around the world is unnatural. Developing miracle cures for disease is unnatural. Artificial limbs are unnatural.

So stop hiding behind the bible and/or the arguement that it's unnatural/abnormal and just admit your prejudice already. It's clear you just plain don't like gay people and are afraid to say it.