sassermaet Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 And the enlightenment continues http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8010975.stm (** mod edit - thread title changed **)Admin - Forum use guidelines[/url]"]Give new threads appropriate and descriptive names - It makes it easier for folk to find subjects they're interested in, and saves them wasting their time on subjects they're not. Titles like "Look at this", "Lerwick" and "Advice needed" are not very helpful Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArabiaTerra Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 It's progress, I suppose. The Kirk dragging itself, kicking and screaming into the 1960's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Para Handy Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 There has always been something queer about Religion since day one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sassermaet Posted April 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 ^^^ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOYAANISQATSI Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 We have to first understand the church and it's edict.... The faith of millions and their beliefs.... Firstly, the last king must be strangled with the entrails of the last priest, before any kind of understanding can begin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAStewart Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 Seperate religion from public life since it does not seem to want to understand simple concepts like evolution and homosexuality Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fifi Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 who do you think owns vast quantities of land in Central London, including many government buildings...Not just London. The Church Commissioners are one of the largest landowners in England. After leaving uni my bruv & sis both got their first jobs in London with the Church Commissioners in Millbank. They spoke then about the Church Commissioners being massive landowners. I believe they may have lost money in property since, but probaby still major landowners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest posiedon Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 Why do religious bigots cling to one tiny part of Deuteronomy (homosexuality) but ignore the rest of it? Oh I remember..........................It's cos they're bigots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOYAANISQATSI Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 But you are not milllions, I think you would need to change things from within, violence in this day here in UK would inflame any dorment feelings of persecution. The long game may have to be played, and there are many relgions, they all have to look at themselves, we cannot pick on one, that has been tried before, Henry VIII died, there are still Catholics... Gutting priests to strangle kings is just an old saying; I would show no such bias when it comes to people who claim the right to rule or figures of so called religious authority. Burn em all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deorccwen Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 Leviticus http://www.o-bible.com/cgibin/ob.cgi?version=bbe&book=lev&chapter=20 20:10 And if a man has sex relations with another man's wife, even the wife of his neighbour, he and she are certainly to be put to death.20:11 And the man who has sex relations with his father's wife has put shame on his father: the two of them are to be put to death; their blood will be on them.20:12 And if a man has sex relations with his son's wife, the two of them are to be put to death: it is unnatural; their blood will be on them.20:13 And if a man has sex relations with a man, the two of them have done a disgusting thing: let them be put to death; their blood will be on them.20:14 And if a man takes as wife a woman and her mother, it is an act of shame; let them be burned with fire, all three of them, so that there may be no shame among you.20:15 And if a man has sex relations with a beast, let him be put to death, and let the beast be put to destruction.20:16 And if a woman goes near a beast and has sex relations with it, you will put an end to the woman and the beast: their blood will be on them.20:17 And if a man takes his sister, daughter of his father or his mother, and has sex relations with her and she with him, it is an act of shame: they are to be cut off before the children of their people; he has had sex relations with his sister, and his sin will be on him.20:18 And if a man has sex relations with a woman at the time when she is unwell, he has seen her fountain and she has let the fountain of her blood be uncovered, and the two of them are to be cut off from among their people.20:19 And you may not have sex connection with your mother's sister or your father's sister, for they are his near relations: their sin will be on them.20:20 And if a man has sex relations with the wife of his father's brother, he has put shame on his father's brother: their sin will be on them; till the day of their death they will have no children.20:21 And if a man takes his brother's wife, it is an unclean act; he has put shame on his brother; they will have no children.20:22 So then, keep my rules and my decisions and do them, so that the land which I am giving you as your resting-place may not violently send you out again.20:23 And do not keep the rules of the nations which I am driving out before you; for they did all these things, and for that reason my soul was turned against them.20:24 But I have said to you, You will take their land and I will give it to you for your heritage, a land flowing with milk and honey: I am the Lord your God who have made you separate from all other peoples. So, apparently, according to the Bible online anyway, it's the same penalty whether a man has sex with another man (20:13), with an animal (20:15) or with another man's wife (20:10). But there's a lesser penalty if the woman is your aunt by marriage (20:20). And apparently, according to this, it's not so bad to have sex with your sister (20:17) as with another man's wife. Hmmm.... It's made pretty clear (20:23 & 20:24) that these rules were made specifically to differentiate the Israelites from the former inhabitants of the territory they had taken by force of arms (the Caananites). So. A good guide for life today, then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deorccwen Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 Not sure whether it was clear that I was being sarcastic in my last comment! I suspect the reason we still have some of these views is really because Christianity has been such a widespread force in so much of the world (thanks, Roman Empire!). The Romans themselves (pre-Christian) were not - officially at least - keen on homosexuality in any case, or adultery etc. which is not to say these things didn't go on anyway! So they had a dual reason for spreading the belief. As for current attitudes, I think these things are all still fairly widely frowned upon: it's just a matter of degree of social acceptability. So we'd still think it revolting if someone had sex with an animal, but neighbour's wives etc is a bit more of a grey area because we (rightly, in my opinion) think the issue of mutual consent is more important than the mechanics of the act itself. Though we deplore the social upheaval that can result. But homosexuality is mostly still the big problem (IMHO) because so many men feel threatened by it. I had a temporary job working in a veg-prepping factory in my student days, when a new worker was to join the force. Two people who had worked with him before and liked him revealed that he was gay. The following days were rendered horrible with "backs to the walls, lads!" jokes and angry comments about gay men from the men working there. When I suggested that they had no need to worry, since he was unlikely to fancy them anyway as, after all, they weren't attracted to every woman they met despite being heterosexual, I was told that I simply didn't understand. The man never started work there (presumably he was fore-warned). So he was deprived of a job that he presumably needed, because of the prejudices of other people. Another man told me in hushed (but amused) tones of the time he and a couple of friends wandered into a gay bar accidentally. Needless to say, he told me, they necked their drinks and left in a hurry. I asked him why, to which he said, in some surprise, "Well, how would you like to look around and find yourself in a pub full of lesbians?" He was even more surprised when I told him I knew it would not bother me at all, as I'd been in exactly that situation a number of times and never felt in the least threatened. I have honestly never met a heterosexual woman who felt this degree of personal insecurity (and anger) in the presence of lesbians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJ Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 oh god I have.The one I used to find hardest to understand was women who had a problem with gay men. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deorccwen Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 Bizarre. Were they very religious (Christian)? That might explain both. Or is my personal worldview (and personal prejudices ) just getting the better of my reason? . Maybe it's just the people I know who don't have a problem. (Halloo down there! I can just see you from my ivory tower... ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgonzola Butt-cheese Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 That they change the rules regarding religion is direct proof of what a bunch of cobblers it really is.. I often wonder how many people would bother with religion if it stated that this is your life and thats it - enjoy! Its just a human invention to help people live with the prospect of death. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 What is wrong with that. There are many type of folk, and through the ages we have always needed a way to explain or celebrate life and death. Religion does a lot of good as well, The Salvation Army, Christian Aid, In Blackburn there are Muslim based charities fighting drugs, racism... If you got rid of religion, who will do these things. But there are factions of various religions who have accepted that a human right is to be who we are sexually, it will take a long time to change an edict that is centuries old and ingrained in so many peoples heads.. Folk are actually frightened of not going to a heaven...tis not their fault sometimes, but nowadays, what can you believe in? Death and Taxation, two constants in our lives.... Religion does not have a monopoly on charities. There are plenty that find they can be altruistic without the need for a higher calling. On your second point, yes some religions may have changed their stance on various issues, but doesn't that detract from the supposed infallibility of what the believe? If they don't like bits of what their religion teaches, why not have their own opinions on what's right and wrong instead of fiddling some outdated "moral code" Thirdly, why is there a need to believe in some higher power? Why is faith so important? In any other context, if someone completed eschewed rationality to "believe" in something then they'd be laughed at by most. The greeks had little problem with homosexuality, they also knew the earth was round. As history marches on, it is not always progress that is made. Illogical prejudices like homophobia and xenophobia are only fostered by religion as a whole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.