NationStates

Holy Nordic Empire wrote:Christianity changes? Do you consider Christianity as a "designer-religion" you can change so it fits into the sick mind of self-centred people? Who can change the words of the Bible? No one! Not even a socialist government like the swedish. A step in the right direction? It's a step towards dechristianization of the people.

As I said before, Christianity has humanized over the centuries. If it hadn't, we would still be practising forms of punishment found in the Old Testament, we would still have slavery, etc. It seems you still want that?

And the Swedish government has no control over the Church of Sweden. These reforms were decided within the upper echelons of the CoS, without government influence. Swedes are a very liberal minded people, it was a smart move to attract more worshippers.

*Imagines what an official church would look like in the US*

*Remembers a book by Margaret Atwood*

Yeah, no. It may work for Europe, but it wouldn't work here at all.

Johz wrote:For a start, sin is a choice based on our own free will, right? Otherwise the Lord's Prayer with lines such as "lead me not into temptation" makes no sense. We are agreed? Good.

Homosexuality then, cannot be a sin, as it is not a choice. See nature for proof of that: homosexuality is everywhere. Therefore homosexuality cannot be a sin, as it is a choice.

To be fair, to be fair, most Christian denominations do not view homosexuality in itself as a sin. They view acting upon your homosexuality (i.e. having sex with the same gender) as a sin, and that is a choice.

Jafas United wrote:

Johz wrote:For a start, sin is a choice based on our own free will, right? Otherwise the Lord's Prayer with lines such as "lead me not into temptation" makes no sense. We are agreed? Good.

Homosexuality then, cannot be a sin, as it is not a choice. See nature for proof of that: homosexuality is everywhere. Therefore homosexuality cannot be a sin, as it is a choice.

To be fair, to be fair, most Christian denominations do not view homosexuality in itself as a sin. They view acting upon your homosexuality (i.e. having sex with the same gender) as a sin, and that is a choice.

You know what else is a choice? Being a Christian.

I suppose we should prevent you from marrying now shouldn't we?

Wamitoria wrote:

Jafas United wrote:
To be fair, to be fair, most Christian denominations do not view homosexuality in itself as a sin. They view acting upon your homosexuality (i.e. having sex with the same gender) as a sin, and that is a choice.

You know what else is a choice? Being a Christian.

I suppose we should prevent you from marrying now shouldn't we?

Err...did you even read what I wrote? What on earth does your strawman have to do with this?

Jafas United wrote:

Johz wrote:For a start, sin is a choice based on our own free will, right? Otherwise the Lord's Prayer with lines such as "lead me not into temptation" makes no sense. We are agreed? Good.

Homosexuality then, cannot be a sin, as it is not a choice. See nature for proof of that: homosexuality is everywhere. Therefore homosexuality cannot be a sin, as it is a choice.

To be fair, to be fair, most Christian denominations do not view homosexuality in itself as a sin. They view acting upon your homosexuality (i.e. having sex with the same gender) as a sin, and that is a choice.

Wait, what part of that is fair?

Terruana wrote:

Jafas United wrote:
To be fair, to be fair, most Christian denominations do not view homosexuality in itself as a sin. They view acting upon your homosexuality (i.e. having sex with the same gender) as a sin, and that is a choice.

Wait, what part of that is fair?

It's a figure of speech. I was merely pointing out that most Christian groups do not view homosexuality as a sin, but the act of homosexual sex is in their eyes, a sin.

Christ, I never knew my post would be so hard to comprehend with.

Religion is not intrinsically evil. It is only when religion is used to justify violence, that it becomes evil

It does not matter if the state religion is not actually having a major impact on the nation. What matters is that the very fact there even is a state religion is utterly disgusting.

Jafas United wrote:

Terruana wrote:
Wait, what part of that is fair?

It's a figure of speech. I was merely pointing out that most Christian groups do not view homosexuality as a sin, but the act of homosexual sex is in their eyes, a sin.

Christ, I never knew my post would be so hard to comprehend with.

Actually if you read the bible and take a look at the times during it is writing such as the time of Moses or Paul's quest in Rome...its not agasint Homosexuality at all!

It's just be misread for many years, mostly in the 20th and 21th century!! I blame those fucking assholes like The Westbro baptist church or the Catholic church for spreading a fucking lie that is not true

Orcoa wrote:

Jafas United wrote:
It's a figure of speech. I was merely pointing out that most Christian groups do not view homosexuality as a sin, but the act of homosexual sex is in their eyes, a sin.

Christ, I never knew my post would be so hard to comprehend with.

Actually if you read the bible and take a look at the times during it is writing such as the time of Moses or Paul's quest in Rome...its not agasint Homosexuality at all!

And was I talking about the Bible? No. I was referring to what different Christian denominations teach about homosexuality.

That's three now. Wow.

Jafas United wrote:

Orcoa wrote:Actually if you read the bible and take a look at the times during it is writing such as the time of Moses or Paul's quest in Rome...its not agasint Homosexuality at all!

And was I talking about the Bible? No. I was referring to what different Christian denominations teach about homosexuality.

That's three now. Wow.

I know, I'm just saying that people misread Roman, Leviticus, and Sodom have nothing and I mean fucking NOTHING to do with Homosexuality as we know it today

In this politically correct climate that relinquishes morality to the relativistic whims of society, stating that homosexuals should not marry is becoming unpopular. Should a woman be allowed to marry another woman? Should a man be allowed to marry another man? Should they be given legal protection and special rights to practice their homosexuality? No, they should not.

The Bible, of course, condemns homosexuality. It takes no leap of logic to discern that homosexual marriage is also condemned. But our society does not rely on the Bible for its moral truth. Instead, it relies on humanistic and relativistic morals upon which it builds its ethical structure.

Homosexuality is not natural. Just look at the male and female bodies. They are obviously designed to couple. The natural design is apparent. It is not natural to couple male with male and female with female. It would be like trying to fit two screws together or two nuts together and then say, "See, its natural for them to go together."

Homosexuals argue that homosexuality is natural since it occurs in the animal world. But this is problematic. It is true that this behavior occurs in the animal kingdom, but it is also true that we see animals eating their prey alive and even their own young. We see savagery, cruelty, and extreme brutality. Yet, we do not condone such behavior in our own society. Proponents of the natural order argument should not pick-and-choose the situations that best fit their agendas. They should be consistent and not compare us to animals. We are not animals. We are made in God's image.

If you're an atheist, you might actually want to support a state church. Countries with a state church actually have more atheists than countries without them.

Holy Nordic Empire wrote:In this politically correct climate that relinquishes morality to the relativistic whims of society, stating that homosexuals should not marry is becoming unpopular. Should a woman be allowed to marry another woman? Should a man be allowed to marry another man? Should they be given legal protection and special rights to practice their homosexuality? No, they should not.

The Bible, of course, condemns homosexuality. It takes no leap of logic to discern that homosexual marriage is also condemned. But our society does not rely on the Bible for its moral truth. Instead, it relies on humanistic and relativistic morals upon which it builds its ethical structure.

Homosexuality is not natural. Just look at the male and female bodies. They are obviously designed to couple. The natural design is apparent. It is not natural to couple male with male and female with female. It would be like trying to fit two screws together or two nuts together and then say, "See, its natural for them to go together."

Homosexuals argue that homosexuality is natural since it occurs in the animal world. But this is problematic. It is true that this behavior occurs in the animal kingdom, but it is also true that we see animals eating their prey alive and even their own young. We see savagery, cruelty, and extreme brutality. Yet, we do not condone such behavior in our own society. Proponents of the natural order argument should not pick-and-choose the situations that best fit their agendas. They should be consistent and not compare us to animals. We are not animals. We are made in God's image.

Ugh...
1: Clicky and look at the picture.
2: Okay.
3: Occurs in nature: Natural.
4: Homosexuality in nature, except in cases of rape, does not harm those who do not consent. Eating your own young involves your young not consenting.

Furthermore, I'd be ashamed to be made in the image of a being who was jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

Holy Nordic Empire wrote:

In this politically correct climate that relinquishes morality to the relativistic whims of society, stating that homosexuals should not marry is becoming unpopular. Should a woman be allowed to marry another woman? Should a man be allowed to marry another man? Should they be given legal protection and special rights to practice their homosexuality? No, they should not.

The Bible, of course, condemns homosexuality. It takes no leap of logic to discern that homosexual marriage is also condemned. But our society does not rely on the Bible for its moral truth. Instead, it relies on humanistic and relativistic morals upon which it builds its ethical structure.

Homosexuality is not natural. Just look at the male and female bodies. They are obviously designed to couple. The natural design is apparent. It is not natural to couple male with male and female with female. It would be like trying to fit two screws together or two nuts together and then say, "See, its natural for them to go together."

Homosexuals argue that homosexuality is natural since it occurs in the animal world. But this is problematic. It is true that this behavior occurs in the animal kingdom, but it is also true that we see animals eating their prey alive and even their own young. We see savagery, cruelty, and extreme brutality. Yet, we do not condone such behavior in our own society. Proponents of the natural order argument should not pick-and-choose the situations that best fit their agendas. They should be consistent and not compare us to animals. We are not animals. We are made in God's image.

What the blue blazes are you on about? One must assume a stance of "political correctness" in order to accept moral relativism as a valid school of thought? One cannot bear a clearly-defined ethical framework and be a moral relativist simultaneously? No. You don't understand moral relativism at all. It is a school of thought which bears moral flexibility and adaptability, a school which leaves no moral principle untested and holds no ethical framework as infallible. Simply arguing "it occurs in nature, therefore it is good" is not the position of a proponent of homosexuality (rather, they are merely telling you that your assertion that homosexuality is unnatural is invalid), nor is it the position of a moral relativist. That you confound moral relativism and the naturalistic fallacy (which you yourself commit) indicates you have much to learn about your philosophical opponents.

Tlaceceyaya wrote:

Holy Nordic Empire wrote:In this politically correct climate that relinquishes morality to the relativistic whims of society, stating that homosexuals should not marry is becoming unpopular. Should a woman be allowed to marry another woman? Should a man be allowed to marry another man? Should they be given legal protection and special rights to practice their homosexuality? No, they should not.

The Bible, of course, condemns homosexuality. It takes no leap of logic to discern that homosexual marriage is also condemned. But our society does not rely on the Bible for its moral truth. Instead, it relies on humanistic and relativistic morals upon which it builds its ethical structure.

Homosexuality is not natural. Just look at the male and female bodies. They are obviously designed to couple. The natural design is apparent. It is not natural to couple male with male and female with female. It would be like trying to fit two screws together or two nuts together and then say, "See, its natural for them to go together."

Homosexuals argue that homosexuality is natural since it occurs in the animal world. But this is problematic. It is true that this behavior occurs in the animal kingdom, but it is also true that we see animals eating their prey alive and even their own young. We see savagery, cruelty, and extreme brutality. Yet, we do not condone such behavior in our own society. Proponents of the natural order argument should not pick-and-choose the situations that best fit their agendas. They should be consistent and not compare us to animals. We are not animals. We are made in God's image.

Ugh...
1: Clicky and look at the picture.
2: Okay.
3: Occurs in nature: Natural.
4: Homosexuality in nature, except in cases of rape, does not harm those who do not consent. Eating your own young involves your young not consenting.

Furthermore, I'd be ashamed to be made in the image of a being who was jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

Oooh such harsh words!

You forgot a few though I may say here is a list if you wish to add to your post

http://www.noswearing.com/dictionary

Of Course even if we do not share the same spiritual beliefs, I find that Nordic is very wrong when it comes with Homosexuality and other things in his posts.

Orcoa wrote:

Tlaceceyaya wrote:Ugh...
1: Clicky and look at the picture.
2: Okay.
3: Occurs in nature: Natural.
4: Homosexuality in nature, except in cases of rape, does not harm those who do not consent. Eating your own young involves your young not consenting.

Furthermore, I'd be ashamed to be made in the image of a being who was jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

Oooh such harsh words!

You forgot a few though I may say here are a list if you wish to add some more to

http://www.noswearing.com/dictionary

Of Course even if we do not share the same spiritual beliefs, I find that Nordic is very wrong when it comes with Homosexuality and other things in his posts.

I was quoting Dawkins' description of god as depicted in the bible.

Tlaceceyaya wrote:

Orcoa wrote:Oooh such harsh words!

You forgot a few though I may say here are a list if you wish to add some more to

http://www.noswearing.com/dictionary

Of Course even if we do not share the same spiritual beliefs, I find that Nordic is very wrong when it comes with Homosexuality and other things in his posts.

I was quoting Dawkins' description of god as depicted in the bible.

I had a feeling you were doing so.

I liked Dawkins more when he was not writing books about how god does not exist and his work on his The Selfish Gene stuff. His older stuff was more interesting

Holy Nordic Empire wrote:In this politically correct climate that relinquishes morality to the relativistic whims of society, stating that homosexuals should not marry is becoming unpopular. Should a woman be allowed to marry another woman? Should a man be allowed to marry another man? Should they be given legal protection and special rights to practice their homosexuality? No, they should not.

The Bible, of course, condemns homosexuality. It takes no leap of logic to discern that homosexual marriage is also condemned. But our society does not rely on the Bible for its moral truth. Instead, it relies on humanistic and relativistic morals upon which it builds its ethical structure.

Homosexuality is not natural. Just look at the male and female bodies. They are obviously designed to couple. The natural design is apparent. It is not natural to couple male with male and female with female. It would be like trying to fit two screws together or two nuts together and then say, "See, its natural for them to go together."

Homosexuals argue that homosexuality is natural since it occurs in the animal world. But this is problematic. It is true that this behavior occurs in the animal kingdom, but it is also true that we see animals eating their prey alive and even their own young. We see savagery, cruelty, and extreme brutality. Yet, we do not condone such behavior in our own society. Proponents of the natural order argument should not pick-and-choose the situations that best fit their agendas. They should be consistent and not compare us to animals. We are not animals. We are made in God's image.

Trying not to start a shit storm but....

You know we were fucked up savages at one point too right? I respect everyone's beliefs but still, at one point we did stuff in comparison to that. Hell, we still do stuff like that.

Shadowlandistan wrote:Religion is horrible, we should phase it out ASAP!

a wonderful simplistic solution. Lets first start in abolishing the first amendment and outright criminalize religion.

Shadowlandistan wrote:Religion is horrible, we should phase it out ASAP!

Oh you can try my friend, you can try and re-educate about the wonders of Atheism though government mandate and force....oh wait...that does not work.

Orcoa wrote:I liked Dawkins more when he was not writing books about how god does not exist and his work on his The Selfish Gene stuff. His older stuff was more interesting

Yeah, he's a real scientist but atheism is outside his field.

A useful comparison would be Albert Einstein's opposition to nuclear weapons. Or Charles Darwin's opposition to slavery. Dawkins doesn't have the stature of either of those scientists, of course, and he's further out of his field ... but it's just a comparison. Scientists who become known by name to the general public (while still alive) have an enormous opportunity to speak out on social issues that matter to them. I probably would too, if I was famous for anything.

I read The God Delusion. It was alright I guess. Kinda trying too hard to persuade me of something I was already pretty sure of. One of his books is enough, I get the idea.

He hasn't disproved the existence of God, but it's like he thinks he has. I don't think a real expert in the field would do that. An academic theologian or a philosopher would be more cautious or else they never would have risen to any kind of recognition in the first place.

Anyway, that's not what the thread is about. Wikipedia tells me that Finland has "established" TWO churches: Lutheran and Eastern Orthodox. They're not on equal standing, but that is significantly different to the UK establishing only one Church.

Orcoa wrote:

Shadowlandistan wrote:Religion is horrible, we should phase it out ASAP!

Oh you can try my friend, you can try and re-educate about the wonders of Atheism though government mandate and force....oh wait...that does not work.

You'd be thinking of the 20th century "Communist" countries?

I think it's more like they saw churches as rivals for power (rivaling the state I mean) and to some extent as a divisive force. Think of how Stalin deliberately relocated ethnic minorities to make the Union more homogenous. It's abusive of course to break up ethnic groupings by force and I'm not at all defending that, just saying that it wasn't all about religion.

And then there's the Chinese ... apart from the Cultural Revolution (which was pretty horrible in many other ways) they seem to actually use Confucian principles of respect for ancestors and respect for book learning when it suits them. There are still portraits of Mao hanging around on walls, because it feels wrong to stop respecting someone they respected before. There are little shrines scattered about, and the government tolerates low-key worship and some celebrations. What the government fears and cracks down on is any kind of "secret society" where people get together in private and discuss ideas contrary to the state ones. They don't like Christianity for obvious reasons, but they HATE Falun Gong because it co-opted some things the State already encouraged (like the qigong, but also the Confucian virtues) but seemed to be rapidly growing in other directions. You could see their oppression of Falun Gong as simple fear that it might grow into a theocratic alternative to state government. Again, I'm not defending the state persecution of religions, but it's understandable.

Both Russia and China are doing pretty well just now. But what lifted both out of feudal poverty was Communism, not Atheism.

Perhaps a Menshevik Union (ie, Bolsheviks had not pulled a shut-out play) would have been capable of doing all that heavy lifting to defeat the Axis ... we simply would not have won WW2 without Russia ... but hell, maybe a Menshivik Union would have taken the Axis side and that would majorly suck ... anyway for sure the stagnating old regime of Monarchy would not have been much help. And China! They got fucked over pretty bad by Japan, after getting fucked over pretty bad before by the European powers and the US. Without Communism (or some other revolution) I think Asia would be like the middle of Africa now, but twice the size and with four times the population. China would be in the news as that tragic country where a million people starved to death this week, not the country building high-speed rail and providing abortions to any woman who asks for one.

The Communist revolution came a lot later to China than to Russia, and the Chinese learned some things not to do. Persecuting religions which don't pose a threat to the state would be one of them.

So yeah, I certainly wouldn't want any country to try to enforce Atheism with state power. But the ways it has been tried were more about a desperate attempt to make Communism work. In both major cases it was primarily about the economic structuring of society, and the Atheism was more about suppressing alternative leadership structures (which Churches are) which posed a threat to the autarchy.

tl; dnr: don't try to smear Atheists by pointing to State Communism. It's more complicated than that.

Conspiracies Revealed wrote:If you're an atheist, you might actually want to support a state church. Countries with a state church actually have more atheists than countries without them.

I'd be fairly surprised if institution of a state church actually caused increases in the domestic Atheist population.