From: "bramble" 

On 26 mar, 00:09, "CE"  wrote:
> On Mar 25, 7:16 pm, "bramble"
 wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 25 mar, 19:52, "CE"  wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 23, 11:48 pm, "ScottyFLL"
 wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 23, 10:31 pm, "J Young"
 wrote:
>
> > > > We don't all take the word of your bible as truth.  In fact, the
> > > > majority of the world's population do not.
>
> > > Well, let's look at what the majority of the world's population has to
> > > say on the subject of homosexuality. The majority of people in the
> > > world are either Christian or Muslim, with an estimated 2.1 billion
> > > Christians and 1.79 billion muslims in 2006. These two religious
> > > groups consider homosexual acts to be a sin.
>
> > > There are also an estimated 376 million buddhists in the world.
> > > According to the Dalia Lama, homosexual acts are generally considered
> > > to be sexual misconduct, that is to say, homosexuals are considered to
> > > be wrong.
>
> > > So far, that's 2.1 billion plus 1.79 billion plus 376 million.
>
> > > The hindu position is more nuanced. It seems that in hinduism
> > > homosexuality is generally recognized but not approved.
>
> > > To this could be added the 14 million Jews who have similar beliefs
> > > with regards to homosexuality. A quick search on Wikipedia shows:
> > > Mythologist and author Devdutt Pattanaik summarised the place of
> > > homosexuality in Hindu literature: "though not part of
the mainstream,
> > > its existence was acknowledged but not approved." In
the Manu Smriti,
> > > an important Hindu law code probably compiled between 200 BC and 200
> > > AD, there are punishments for women who has sex with virgins and men
> > > who have sex with priests.
>
> > > For the sake of simplicity, let's split the hindu population in half
> > > on this issue, although it does seem most disapprove of homosexuality.
> > > Tht's another 450 million people. Scientology's founder wrote of
> > > curing homosexuals of this orientation, clearly indicating he
> > > considered it to be wrong. That's another 500 million people.
>
> > > Leaving aside the many other religions in the world, that's already
> > > 4.85 billion people who consider homosexuality to be wrong based on
> > > the writings in their religious texts.
>
> > > So, yes, you're correct. The majority of the world does not consider
> > > the Bible itself to be the Truth; there are only 2.1 billion
> > > Christians in the world.
>
> > > But any overview of the positions held by world religions shows the
> > > vast majority of the world's population agrees with the point being
> > > made by those Bible passages.
>
> > > Homosexual acts are disordered. They are, quite simply, wrong.
>
> > I will desagree with you on the figures.  Muslims, Christians and Jews
> > are a great population, stop.  Well, you assume they think that,
> > because that is written in their holy books, but... this idea is
> > forced upon them.  It cannot be considered a real believe of the
> > people, but a believe they are subjected to.
> > The religious believes are forced over the people.  You only need to
> > read a little their holy scriptures to see this is a morality imposed
> > over people.
>
> > And even if homosexuality is not to be advisable for anyone, it has to
> > be tolerated in a secular society.  And what I take out of all this
> > arguments is that religious people are a venom for the peace, they are
> > hatemongers, and generators of wars and cruelty.  You only need to
> > read the Bible or the Koram.
> > They are continously justifying all sort of wars and killings of
> > people in a genocidal way.
> >  These gods, are genocidal gods.  And it is a shame for humanity that
> > we are  still praising them.
> > Bramble- Hide quoted text -
>
> Wow. That's an amazing rationalization. In fact, it's like a
> rationalization sandwich with layer upon layer. I kept looking for the
> delicious luncheon meat in the centre. Unfortunately, there was none.
>
> In response to the comment that most people in the world do not
> believe in the prohibitions against homosexual acts in the Bible, I
> agreed - but also pointed out that there are equivalent teachings in
> so many religions that the majority of the world's population does in
> fact agree with the biblical teachings against homosexual acts.
>
> To back that up, I used hard data. In showing how the vast majority of
> the world believes in these teachings, I did not imply that this large
> proportion of the world population justifies these beliefs. I was
> merely responding to someone who suggested that a lack of belief in
> this position by large numbers of people made it irrelevent.

> Nowhere in my post did I advocate the harming or killing of
> homosexuals and yet Bramble chose to imply that I did or that
> religious people hold this view. This is disinformation. The truth is
> that the Roman Catholic church actually encourages people to treat
> homosexuals with respect, compassion, and sensitivity and to avoid any
> sign of unjust discrimination towards them. Feel free to look it up.
> It's item 2358 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
>
> As for being forced to believe anything, that's a crock. I'm a Roman
> Catholic because I came to believe in that church's teachings. Anyone
> who doesn't believe is free to leave the church and anyone who does
> believe is free to join. The teachings of the Catholic church as
> outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church are only descriptive
> and outline what it means to be a Catholic in much the same way as
> Darwin's Origins of the Species might be said to be descriptive of
> what it means on a basic level to be someone who believes in
> evolution.
>
> Incidentally, Catholics are not fundamentalists. There is no conflict
> between Catholic teaching, for example, and evolution.
>
> Someone else tried to muddy the waters in this discussion with the old
> argument that there are other prohibitions in Leviticus and, since
> they no longer apply, then surely the prohibition against two men
> having sex must also not apply. However, that's just wishful thinking
> from someone trying to justify the homosexual rights position. In the
> Bible, there are other places where some prohibitions are lifted. For
> example, God later allows the eating of all foods, which would include
> shellfish. The prohibition against homosexual acts is not lifted.
>
> I find the last-ditch attempt to deny the meaning of these passages by
> claims of mistranslation to be pretty funny. The organization that has
> handed down the Bible throughout the centuries and has had experts
> working to understand it and translate it properly is now being
> accused of mistranslation by some guy on an internet newsgroup. The
> fact that the Jews, Christians and Muslims all agree on the general
> intent of Scripture when it comes to homosexual acts doesn't seem to
> phase this person a bit. According to this self-professed expert,
> centuries of scholars from three religious traditions have all been
> wrong about their own holy book. That's an amazing claim. And a pretty
> funny one.



WOW, WOW,WOW!
Just consider for a minute the way religions are distributed in the world map.
Is it a fortuitous distribution?  It is a political distribution.  So a
dominant class has the power to impose a set of believes over the people. 
So most of the people in a muslim country is muslim, most of the people in
a catholic country remains catholic, and so on, with other religions.
If people were let alone in freedom, the power of the religious elite would
slowly erode, and little by little only a handful of people would have a
religion at all.
This is my chain of reasoning.
You told something about the Catholics accepting evolution.  This was an
official position of the leadership that happened in the times of the Pope
John XXIII Since them, this declaration has been slowling cooling, till our
dear Pope Benedictus that is dreaming of rejecting it.  He has made some
declarations that show this mood of rejection. This Pope is at present
ready to follow the tract of the Evangelical fundies, in the intelligence
that their fundamentalist positions of the protestants Evangelicals had
made them to grow stronger.  I do not know if this is true or false.  I
don't have the data. The fact is that there is a gap between the leaders
and the mass of believers about how hard they had to follow the tenets and
strictures of any religion.
So, when you take the believes of a hard core elite and made the asumption
that this is the real convinction of the people at alrge, you are fooling 
the readers

If the leaders become liberal, the people under them become liberal. If the
leaders, like the nazis in their time, take the path of totalitarianism all
the people is forced to follow that path.   If the
Evangelical leaders radicalize their doctrine, the hitlerian youth that
make that prop up their power, force people to comply.  It is a machine
that takes some time to build, and can not succeed in a few weeks.  It
needs some years.
This is not that different to other political organization. In fact, a
religion is very similar to a political party.   And if you take a
look at little we know of  History, you can see that religions were born
out of political troubles, or royal or imperial decisions.  Once a king or
emperor say the yes, a religion starts to build up. In modern times, it
needs money.  Big money is the equivalent of kings and emperors nowadays. 
And it is so for the same reason, the money.

Bramble

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag