maliagar wrote:LibertyD wrote:I will agree with you that those people have made up their mind to let someone else make up their mind, but they don't have their own opinions unless their religious leader says that it's okay.
In my opinion, this is an extreme simplification of what really goes on. Religions offer, among other things, moral codes. But how these moral codes are applied to specific circumstances is a different story. Here's where conscience starts playing the key role. Certainly, some religions intend to prescribe even the specific application of general rules, but this is not the case with the wisest, most ancient, more traditional faiths.
Actually, it is most definitely the case with the Catholic Church -- and since that happens to be "the wisest, most ancient, more traditional faith"of which Maliagar speaks, he is full of soup.
That wise, ancient, traditional faith is now telling Ameican politicians how they can and cannot vote -- with very little, if any, regard for the Ameican sensibility of separation of church and state.
It tells people what they can and cannot do in bed. It tells people what they can and cannot do with other consenting adult people.
Maliagar's argument is actually funny it is so wrong.
Quote:Quote:...to see whether they should be pro-life or pro-choice...
Exactly. That's a general rule. Like the rule "do not kill."
No it is not!
Pro-choice has a specific meaning -- it references people who advocate a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy with a safe, legal abortion.
There is no "general rule" about abortion in the Bible -- and there is no definition in the Bible that indicates "life" starts at conception.
Quote:Quote:...whether it's okay to question the validity of certain interpretations of the Bible...
Of course. Those who claim that they don't need guidance to understand the Bible don't know what they are talking about.
I cannot get over Maliagar even going here! In another thread, I showed he was completely wrong about how his Church deals with interpreting the Bible -- and as far as logic and truth are concerned, personal interpretation of the Bible makes a hell of a lot more sense than depending on Maliagar's church to do it for you.
For people like Maliagar, who apparently cannot think on their own and cannot justify some of the abominations that show up in the Bible, I guess a Church which CAN rationalize and avoid dealing with troublesome issues IS a blessing. Maliagar, and others like him, can hide behind the fact that the Church orders him not to interpret the Bible on his own and that they should do the interpreting.
Gosh, this is so much fun!
Quote:Quote:...whether gay people are the spawn of Satan or not...
Another useless simplification: Religions don't talk about "gay people" but about homosexuality. Hate the sin, love the sinner.
Another in a long line of mistakes -- this one probably through his usual carelessness with composition.
The Bible -- or at least the Leviticus passage from the Bible -- speaks about homosexual CONDUCT -- not about homosexuality. And if "gay people" is a description of homosexuals -- it most assuredly does speak about homosexuals. It says that the god of the Bible told Moses that homosexual conduct is an abomination and that people who engage in homosexual conduct -- in other words, homosexuals -- are to be killed.
So the Bible does indeed talk about "gay people." And it most assuredly does not advise people to "love" the sinner if the sinner is engaging in homosexual conduct -- it tell people to kill them.
In any case, religions DO talk about "gay people" and Maliagar's contention that religions do not -- is ludicrous.
Quote:Quote:A lot of people do fine and behave quite ethically and morally without religion.
I agree. And I say that they have an implicit religion.
Yes, Maliagar sure does say that. But he has no logical reason for saying that except that he wants to paint everyone as needing, and being into, a religion. I guess that makes him feel better about his own dependency.
Supposing that everyone has a religion is a joke.