A Discussion/Debate on Religion & Other Closely Related Topics

[Gatefan1976]

Government and Science are systems that were born out of it simply because it was the best place to grow from initially and not because they were a natural result...if that makes sense. However, religion is basically morality with a story and source of divinity.

I am not so sure I would include science in that assessment. Religion -may- have given science an environment to grow under as a side effect of a contemplative lifestyle, but I doubt that science was a "goal" of religion. Government however, sure. (holy roman empire anyone?) The question still remains, does morality NEED a source of divinity? If so, does it require an "active" divine force? (one that answers prayers and intercedes itself on "your" behalf)

I'm not saying that atheists can't be moral, but rather question if a society can continue to perpetuate moral codes and ethical structures across several generations without some sort of grounding structure that religion provides. Even in atheist North Korea, a cult of personality has replaced religion to take it's place...to some rather nasty results.

Doesn't the law to some degree fill the need for a grounding structure?
I get what you are saying here tood, but let me ask you -personally- a different question. Do you need the -organization- of the church (any church) to validate your belief in God or Jesus? Are not the -human- structures of Church just as fallible as the cult of personality of NK or Stalin, or Hitler, or any other dictator?

The Bible spends an awfully long amount of time on everything but how the world works.

Agreed.

The stories surrounding thunder Gods seem to focus more on the morality or "moral of the story" type deal than to actually answer deep profound questions of ancient man as to how thunder happens. When we say "why" we mean as to "What is the lesson, the message for us to lead better lives".

I disagree with your example, I agree with your conclusion.

[Falcon Horus]

Church of Sweden to stop clergy calling God 'he' or 'the Lord' in bid to crack down on gendered language

""We talk about Jesus Christ, but in a few places we have changed it to say 'God' instead of 'he'," Church of Sweden spokesperson Sofija Pedersen Videke told The Telegraph. "We have some prayer options that are more gender-neutral than others."

"A wide majority of people decided on the book," she said, adding that she had heard of no priests who objected to the new linguistic framework.

The Church of Sweden is headed by Archbishop Antje Jackelen, who was elected Sweden's first female archbishop in 2013.

Archbishop Jackelen defended the decision, telling Sweden's TT news agency: "Theologically, for instance, we know that God is beyond our gender determinations, God is not human.""

[Annoyed]

Archbishop Jackelen defended the decision, telling Sweden's TT news agency: "Theologically, for instance, we know that God is beyond our gender determinations, God is not human."[/I]"

I don't care if they wanna call a deity swiss cheese.
But this guy just nuked his own argument.

By the rules of religion, "God" created us. Created both the male and female and orchestrated how the differences could be used. So how can that same "God" be "beyond gender determinations" ?

[Falcon Horus]

I don't care if they wanna call a deity swiss cheese.
But this guy just nuked his own argument.

By the rules of religion, "God" created us. Created both the male and female and orchestrated how the differences could be used. So how can that same "God" be "beyond gender determinations" ?

You clearly forwent to read the article because "this guy" is actually Archbishop Antje Jackelen, and therefore you should have said, "this woman".

I thought God created us in his image -- in which case, he's an androgynous being.

[Annoyed]

I didn't read the article at all, just what you quoted. Obvious gibberish. Why would I wish to read the rest?

[aretood2]

I don't care if they wanna call a deity swiss cheese.
But this guy just nuked his own argument.

By the rules of religion, "God" created us. Created both the male and female and orchestrated how the differences could be used. So how can that same "God" be "beyond gender determinations" ?

Historically, God is referred to as a "he" but never in the sense that he is a man...well Catholics notwithstanding. So in the Bible, it was written as is. The problem with trying to change it has more to do with politicking than any actual theological constraints.

Just to show the folly of politicking, "Manufactured" has "man" in it as much as "Sportsmanship".

So the question remains, how will they deal with phrases like "Our heavenly father"? For the sake of politicking, they are shortchanging some actual theological issues with changing references to God from he to something else. God isn't male, the fault isn't with scripture. The fault is with people who can't divorces "he" and "mankind" from "male" and realize that words have different meanings given the proper context.

[Annoyed]

(In the character of Samuel Clemens as seen on Star Trek (TNG) "Time's Arrow")

Some would say that that is indicative of the male gender's dominance in our racial history. Some would say that it shows how the male gender has dominated human history and the documentation of it.

[Gatefan1976]

(In the character of Samuel Clemens as seen on Star Trek (TNG) "Time's Arrow")

Some would say that that is indicative of the male gender's dominance in our racial history. Some would say that it shows how the male gender has dominated human history and the documentation of it.

And many would say it's time for that 19th century thinking to die off, much as Clemens said:

Counselor Deanna Troi: Poverty was eliminated on Earth, a long time ago. And a lot of other things disappeared with it - hopelessness, despair, cruelty...
Samuel Clemens: Young lady, I come from a time when men achieve power and wealth by standing on the backs of the poor, where prejudice and intolerance are commonplace and power is an end unto itself. And you're telling me that isn't how it is anymore?
Counselor Deanna Troi: That's right.
Samuel Clemens: Hmmm... Well... maybe... it's worth giving up cigars for, after all.

Perhaps cigars are not the only thing worth giving up?

[Who Knows]

My bible says 'God created man in his own image'. I suppose the bra-burners could insist it is a mis-print & should be read as (Hu)man(s) in his own image. But then HIS own image would still upset them.
I have been conversing with a filippino, & I get confused because most of their pronouns are gender neutral. They do not have son or daughter, just child, so you have to read more to find out what gender the child is.
Keeping state & religeon seperate just got a whole lot harder with this same sex marriage, the Government is sticking its nose in to legislate if churches have to conduct same sex marriages or can opt out on religeous grounds as the bible defines it as 'a union between a man and a woman', not two men or two women.

[Gatefan1976]

Hey, there is an easy answer, remove all legal associations of the marriage from the religious ceremony.

Wanna go have a bronze age rite, go right ahead, don't expect it to have any impact on the law, or your legal status, or your tax bracket, or your right to see loved ones, or any other legal right currently -GIVEN- to your bronze age myth structure.
There, problem solved, state and law separated from religion.

[Annoyed]

Keeping state & religeon seperate just got a whole lot harder with this same sex marriage, the Government is sticking its nose in to legislate if churches have to conduct same sex marriages or can opt out on religeous grounds as the bible defines it as 'a union between a man and a woman', not two men or two women.

I don't think anyone is attempting to force Churches to perform ceremonies that oppose the teachings of the religion involved. Yet, anyway. I strongly suspect any such attempt would hit a rather large brick wall into form of Freedom of Religion.

As far as I know, as of now, only govt institutions themselves are required to recognize gay marriage.

This might change soon. SCOTUS has a case before it where a gay couple wanted a bakery to create a cake for a gay wedding, and the owner of the bakery objected to doing so on the grounds that it violated his religious views. The gay couple took the bakery to court. The basic question is "Does a gay person/couple have the right to force someone else, in this case, a privately owned business, to ignore their own religious views?" We should get the court's decision by early next year.

[Annoyed]

And many would say it's time for that 19th century thinking to die off, much as Clemens said:


Perhaps cigars are not the only thing worth giving up?

And what has the Federation developed that made that possible? Cheap, clean and practically unlimited energy which translates to practically unlimited resources when you throw energy-matter conversion into the mix as well.

If /when we ever make similar technological strides, we may no longer have to compete with each other for resource allocation, but until then, that's not going away.

[Gatefan1976]

We were speaking of social issues, you know, the ones -YOU- brought up.
The best goalkeeper in the world would have issues keeping up with you.

You rant about a topic, get nailed by someone, then move on with no recognition of, well, anything.

I don't think you understand star trek at all, it's just a space shooter for you, cause that's the only level you seem to grasp it on.
Stick to transformers, it's more your level.

[Annoyed]

Pointing out that the technical capabilities of the Federation which allow them unlimited resources and therefore eliminates the need to compete for them isn't relevant to a suggestion that we try to emulate that society?

If and when we ever develop that access to resources, that make such an approach practical in the real world would be the time to make such a suggestion.

Until that time, there will be competition for access to limited resources.

[SoulReaver]

I thought God created us in his image -- in which case, he's an androgynous being.

he created man in his image
and he was very pleased

Spoiler:

but then he tried something different & man did he regret it