Creationism being taught i schools.

[sherminator]

Ok call me stupid(many do) but if you WERE going to teach the above in schools....(me thinking aloud now) surely the lesson would be

"god made everything" the end?

Or is there a lot more in the bible that i dont know about?

[beso]

A sin to engage in homosexuality? How grand of God to forgive what he apparently designed into us.

So it is a sin for people to follow their natural instinct. Instincts that are present in at least dozens of animal species. Instincts that are known to have several genetic and development origins. Instincts that have no bearing on the person's ability to contibute to society and have no effect on the lives of any other people.

Is the condemnation of homosexuality literal of metaphorical?

[beso]

Reigion does promote hate and intolerance. It always has.

Even the supposedly enlightened Christians who are attempting dialog with other versions of their own doctine stop short of real acceptance.

Sure they claim to appreciate the contribution of other faiths to human spirituality but just ask a Christian theologan if there is any way to slavation other than through Jesus.

[Symmetryigr8]

To some branches of Christianity yes it is a sin. I don't agree with it but it doesn't make religion wrong. "Science" has as much to answer for as religion.
A lot of religion is to do with resisting urges built into us, a lot of society and common law is the same. The urge to procreate, to fight, to always take advantage is built into us at an animal level but we try and resist them. Not believing other religions are a way to salvation is not the same as hating them. Ask a Ford dealer if there a better make of car. Electronics businesses are attempting to dialog and make their products more compatible but they stop short of full integration. These are not signs of hate and intolerance. If everyone had to fully and wholly endorse every other viewpoint then everyone would think and believe the same, that is a fascist state.
You confuse hate and intolerance with a mutual difference in belief.

[naomi24]

Symmetry, //Other people's religion has never affected me in real way beyond songs of praise on TV.//

That's the usual sound of the death throes of a religious apologist's argument, and it's one we've heard many times before. Religion doesn't affect me, so I'll support it regardless, and sod everyone else because I'm ok. Perhaps you should spend some time talking with some of us atheists who actually possess a modicum of un-Christian kindness. You see, we care about the babies born every day infected with the Aids/HIV virus because the church doesn't allow the use of condoms, we care about seeing justice done to the child abusers of the Catholic church, and about the women subjected to horrendous circumcision in the name of religion, and about those condemned to live their lives as chattels of men, and as second class citizens - and just let's hope you never have to go into hospital, because the chances are you'll be more likely to succumb to a hospital acquired infection if you're treated by someone who refuses to bare and scrub their lower arms, or to remove their religious jewellery because their religion forbids it. No the religious do not have the right to cry 'foul'. It isn't they who are being abused - it's the rest of society - and shame on those who are unthinking enough to support it.

[beso]

For milennia religions have demanded that everyone thinks the same. There are plenty of places even today where to leave a religion is punishable by death. Religion is fascism.

What exactly does "science" have to answer for?

[beso]

Actually I don't have the urge to fight and take advantage of others so I don't heed to resist. Perhaps that is why I don't need religion.

[Symmetryigr8]

Science has to answer for allowing the development of modern warfare, the atomic bomb or the machine gun are products of rational science. I too feel terrible about the HIV epidemic and I have previously stated that I am not religious and that certain branches of Christianity still need to change, but protestantism, quakerism and many other branches of Christianity do allow contraception. The horrific abuse of children is against the doctrine and rules of the church, those who have committed it and covered it up are running against their faith, you are confusing the true intentions and reasons of faith with people who commit atrocities in the name of faith.
No religion forbids scrubbing below the elbows and if it did a practitioner would not be allowed to perform medicine in the same way a rigorous Christian who refuses service to homosexuals is in breach of law.
You are stating extreme examples applying to minorities, the same can be said for scientific extremists. Eugenics, the Stalinist purges, chemical warfare, climate change, thalidomide sufferers and many other tragic situations have risen from rational scientific men who claim to have scientific rights and superiority.
From a rational, scientific purely empirical view you do have urges to fight and dominate and sexually reproduce as that is all we are here for, evolutionary development biology tells us this as a scientific fact. Compassion and ethics are rational flaws.
The religious have as much right to cry foul as you that is the point of multi-culturalism and democracy, to deny this is a gross hypocrisy against those you deem to be fascists. Religion and faith have a place and a worth in society, no-one has given a rational reason people shouldn't have a faith.

[chakka35]

Oh dear, I was hoping to keep out of this if only because Symmetry is repeating, at enormous length, matters which have been discussed and largely debunked on this site years ago.

But just on a point of order - a matter of fact - the Christian prejudice against homosexual practice comes from Leviticus which says that when a man lieth with a man as with a woman it is an abomination...

.. and they shall surely be put to death.

Is that not a fairly hateful attitude? Interesting how that nasty book, the Bible, lets off female homosexuals, isn't it? Would RC B&B owners be OK with a pair of lesbians sharing a bed?

[naomi24]

Symmetry, You are non-religious, and yet you support religion, and moreover one religion above the other it seems. You sound just like the religious to me. We all believe in an invisible magic man in the sky, and this practice is acceptable because we believe in it, but that one isn't because we don't. And no, I am not stating extreme examples applying to the minority - and even if I were, would that make them any more acceptable? I think it is you who are confused. This article may help you to see this from another point of view.

http://www.timesonlin...in/article7094227.ece

So the religious have as much right to cry 'foul' as the non-religious? According to the religious apologists, it seems they have more right. We recently saw the case of a religious shop assistant who refused to serve a customer with prescribed medication, a decision which the customer had no alternative but to accept - and it would be interesting to do a test run and refuse to allow someone whose arms were covered to treat me in hospital. How far do you think I would get? Probably as far as the nearest court room. Never mind that I was doing my best to avoid infection. They would not only cry 'foul' - they'd cry religious discrimination too.

continued..

[naomi24]

..continued

In my opinion there is one very rational reason why people should not have faith and that is simply because it's irrational, but that's only my opinion. No one is denying that people are free to believe as they will, and that is their choice, but the faithful should not be free to demand that other people respect their beliefs or that they be given carte blanche to impose them upon anyone else's life in any way whatsoever. That is what you are supporting, and whilst you are championing what you see as the rights of one section of society, you are denying the rights of the remainder.

[naomi24]

Symmetry, Having just had time to read Beso's and Chakka's posts properly, I went back through yours to find where the references to homosexuality came from, and realised I'd missed this.

//the bible does not preach a literal hatred of gays it argues it is a sin to engage in homosexuality but that Jesus and God forgive gays not hate them. The bible preaches no literal hatred as the main point is one of forgiveness and love for all regardless of whether they have sinned. //

What utter tripe! That could only have come from someone who has never read the bible, but whom I suspect has had some religious education - and I use the word ‘education’ advisedly. Amongst other things, God, as Chakka says, made the punishment for homosexuality abundantly clear, and as far as I am aware, Jesus made no mention whatsoever of homosexuality.

[chakka35]

Your last paragraph, birdie, says it all in a nutshell - not that the nuts will take any notice.

Veterans of this site will know that I have asked various religionists why they reject Santa and the Tooth Fairy while accepting God, when all three of them are supernatural creatures which purport to do magical things and for whose existence there is not a scintilla of evidence. In all the years, and no matter whom I have asked, I have never had a reply.

[mibn2cweus]

Symmetryigr8, It is true that as civilised human beings we have an obligation, to our own wellfare, to see that the products of reason are not delivered into the hands of the unreasonable. Atomic weapons have been employed once, thanks to prevailing reason, since their invention ~70 years ago to successfully bring an end to war. It is when these products of reason fall into the hands of those who are engaged in an ongoing war against reason, mandated by the gods of their religious leaders, that you will see all hell break loose, not in the afterlife but by unevolved savages who have never learned how to live life as rational human beings. As a supporter of those who seek not an understanding of but to escape from reality, whose actions are motivated by a god who does not answer for the choices of his believers and followers, the consequences of their actions is on your conscience, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

[beso]

Great post mibn2cweus.

//whose actions are motivated by a god who does not answer for the choices of his believers and followers//

This is an inevitable consequence of a philosopy the faithful consider beyond question and that a book written by stone age nomadic goat herders holds the ultlimate truth about all morality for an eternity because those who wrote it claimed they heard it direct from some supernatural being that cannot be detected.

I can accept that these true believers have the right to hold these bizarre beliefs. However the presumption that wider society should accpt that their beliefs should underpin our public policy is ridiculous. Moreover the demand that we "respect" their beliefs by refraining from criticism is beyond any sensibility.

My sense of morality suggests it is my duty to actively contribute to the ultimate marginalisation of religious views in our societies. The future of humanity hinges upon this fundamental change in our relationships with each other and the planet.

[flobadob]

I'd love a prawn roll right now, but I'd be ascared of being damned for eternity over the head of it. Think I'll go slaughter a sheep instead. That'll make him happy.

[beso]

Don't forget though that He demands His meat is very well done, burnt to inedible by humans. Makes more smell then and the smell is very important.