Religion - Good or Bad?

[Ardemax]

Haha, citing a Christian website as a source because that won't be biased at all. Again, the bible isn't evidence.

Sure it may be religious-based, but the articles written there are pretty accurate. I don't see how a bias can be made of that. It's exactly the same as an atheist website detailing reasons why Jesus didn't exist?

Ok then, if Jesus didn't exist, then why do we separate time from his birth? (BC and AD)

Newton was also a pretty strange guy who was heavily interested in Alchemy, not to mention born almost 400 'friggin years ago. Oh and Edison was a deist, far from religious..

I wasn't saying they were religious I'm pointing out you haven't specified what a "leading" scientist is.

If the earth is really only 6,000 years old, as the bible says, then dinosaurs were a pretty significant part of the earth's timeline and pretty worthy of at least a namedrop in my opinion.

Like @FlyingJesus has pointed out, it's like saying the Bible should give a shout out to the ocelots. It's not important or relevant to what is written.

[deathbot20]

look the bible has been translated and rewritten so many times, that we cannot be certain of its truth anymore.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Christianity is a mess of a religion with too many Bibles and no approved and agreed upon text. If a Church wants to reinterpret and realise that sexuality doesn't make a person bad then let them. It's far more noble to look at a person and judge them for who they are, not look at people and judge them for what they may be.

The standard throughout history for Christianity, agree with it or not, has been against homosexuality and although Churches may wish to slither around the issue - it doesn't change those historical facts. Again, I think there's a clear line between thinking it to be wrong (as the Bible states) and then those who call for stonings and all the rest as a method of punishment.

Thousands of years of bigotry yes, the Bible itself not necessarily. The one and only point of the entire text that mentions homosexuality is in Leviticus, the laws of which are Jewish Mosaic laws and not Christian ones, as any Christian who actually knows anything about their religion will know that with the sacrifice of Jesus a New Covenant was introduced which casts Levitical/Deuteronomical law as being null and void (hence no more sacrificing of animals, the ability to wear polycottons, and many more things), as stated in the New Testament and by just about every Christian scholar since. Even with this aside, it's actually widely believed now by Jewish authorities that in many instances (ie: if you're not a priest) gay sex is not a problem and is preferable from a religious point of view to a life of misery.

I know that you love to believe that if something's happened for a long time it must be right, and fair enough if that's the way you want to define "good morals", but you can't make scriptural claims that are false

I'm not arguing whether it is right or not (my personal views on this aren't important), i'm simply arguing that Christian morality teaches against homosexuality - that is just a historical fact as I mentioned above. I'm not saying the Bible isn't contradictory either as well as having many silly parts.

But a quick search will show its been condemned throughout many passages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bib..._homosexuality - agree with it or not.

[GommeInc]

The standard throughout history for Christianity, agree with it or not, has been against homosexuality and although Churches may wish to slither around the issue - it doesn't change those historical facts. Again, I think there's a clear line between thinking it to be wrong (as the Bible states) and then those who call for stonings and all the rest as a method of punishment.

Like I said, Christianity is a mess of a religion, with many different types. If a Church wants to become liberal then let it. It's very narrow-minded of the Church in general to assume homosexuality is evil, when the Bible itself doesn't even know why it is other than "it is". It usually describes what homosexuality is, then discredits it without really knowing itself why it's evil. Assume the Bible is primary legislation, and each denomination is a type of Court - the different Churches create secondary legislation based on their needs and social values. They distort the original legislation to suit their very needs. Discarding traditional views isn't bad, especially when homosexuality as a general concept has no bad or good qualities - it's down to the individual homosexual and their merits, and the prejudice of those looking at them.

[FlyingJesus]

The massive majority of Christian denominations (including Roman Catholicism and Conservative Protestantism) are supersessionist, so scripturally they have quite literally no reason to denounce homosexuality other than possibly calling on the letters of Paul which were badly translated from words that don't actually exist in English

[RandomManJay]

Personally I see religion as a dangerous institution which teaches us to be ignorant of our lives and the lives of others, as well as teach us to not question our possible origins, whatever they may be. When used correctly, it can provide many comforts, hopes and a focus in which to live. When used incorrectly, it teaches us to accept fallacy are true without question, and provides an escape from morality, both societally and personally defined. It creates the delusion that what you do in this world does not impact anyone else enough to place responsibility, and that you are not ultimately responsible, or should take responsibility for your actions.

I believe that at a time religion was a dominant and influential factor in our societal development, and should be regarded as such in our history. But in today's world it hinders it, and tries to force society to regress to the time in which it was dominant. Everything that religion claims to provide or achieve can be achieved independently of religion. Regardless of religion, there will always be those who are good and those who are bad. Society, and those within society, should define those people, not a supposedly all-knowing deity(ies) who(se) perception of our world and its conflicts is not in line with ours.

This being said, I would never look negatively at someone who is religious, unless their views conflict with my morality, at which I look down on the person for their morality, and not the religion which may have influenced it.

[dggood]

I am not a religious person and i don't believe that religion is as important in this day and age. I do believe it has its moments, it has created some horrific fights and wars and deaths. But i also do believe it has prevented some as well, there are some angry people out there that have stopped their violence because of religion, there would also be some people that the only reason they aren't mugging, fighting, bullying you is because of religion.
I think we should just look to more spiritual religions these days, like Buddhism and Zen. =]