What is your opinion of Christianity?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

gr8 banter, m8

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It's the Jewish parts of the Bible that condemn homosexuality for the most part,

This is a genuinely dangerous untruth.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It's the Jewish parts of the Bible that condemn homosexuality for the most part,

This is a genuinely dangerous untruth.

[Citation Needed]

There are eight passages in the Old Testament (three in I Kings, two in Leviticus, and one each in Genesis, Deuteronomy, and II Kings) that could be construed as overtly anti-gay, and four in the New Testament (one each in Romans, I Corinthians, I Timothy, and Jude). The Old Testament is three times the length of the New Testament. The idea that it's "the Jewish parts" that "don't apply any more" that are focused on this issue is a misleading statistic at best and a straightforward (and tacitly antisemitic) lie at worst.

The Deuteronomistic Historian appears to have some reason for focusing on this topic, and Paul appears to have some reason for focusing on this topic. One of those writers is a writer of the Old Testament and one is a writer of the New Testament. Any analysis of which parts of the Bible discuss this issue and why has to start with that rather than with some lazy nonsense writing off the issue of Biblical homophobia as some sort of specifically Jewish or specifically Old Testament hobbyhorse.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It's the Jewish parts of the Bible that condemn homosexuality for the most part,

This is a genuinely dangerous untruth.

[Citation Needed]

There are eight passages in the Old Testament (three in I Kings, two in Leviticus, and one each in Genesis, Deuteronomy, and II Kings) that could be construed as overtly anti-gay, and four in the New Testament (one each in Romans, I Corinthians, I Timothy, and Jude). The Old Testament is three times the length of the New Testament. The idea that it's "the Jewish parts" that "don't apply any more" that are focused on this issue is a misleading statistic at best and a straightforward (and tacitly antisemitic) lie at worst.

The Deuteronomistic Historian appears to have some reason for focusing on this topic, and Paul appears to have some reason for focusing on this topic. One of those writers is a writer of the Old Testament and one is a writer of the New Testament. Any analysis of which parts of the Bible discuss this issue and why has to start with that rather than with some lazy nonsense writing off the issue of Biblical homophobia as some sort of specifically Jewish or specifically Old Testament hobbyhorse.

That is another issue I have with the Bible. The Jewish people, as the Israelites, are constantly depicted as HPs in the Bible.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The same as my opinion of all cults: An abusive indoctrination system that has wasted innumerable human lives with its insular delusions and anti-individualism. There were thousands of obscure desert cults in the ancient world, and the fact that this one happened to survive is the only reason why today we treat it any differently from Zeus or the moon goddess Nanna. It is a self-sustaining brainwashing organization that survives by emotionally abusing young people, making them feel as though they only have value as part of a greater community, and transforming them into unthinking, unquestioning followers of doctrine and scripture. The moment that we as a species banish it from our moral philosophy, our lives will be incomparably improved.

Eh, depends on what your angle is.

It's the Jewish parts of the Bible that condemn homosexuality for the most part,

This is a genuinely dangerous untruth.

[Citation Needed]

There are eight passages in the Old Testament (three in I Kings, two in Leviticus, and one each in Genesis, Deuteronomy, and II Kings) that could be construed as overtly anti-gay, and four in the New Testament (one each in Romans, I Corinthians, I Timothy, and Jude). The Old Testament is three times the length of the New Testament. The idea that it's "the Jewish parts" that "don't apply any more" that are focused on this issue is a misleading statistic at best and a straightforward (and tacitly antisemitic) lie at worst.

The Deuteronomistic Historian appears to have some reason for focusing on this topic, and Paul appears to have some reason for focusing on this topic. One of those writers is a writer of the Old Testament and one is a writer of the New Testament. Any analysis of which parts of the Bible discuss this issue and why has to start with that rather than with some lazy nonsense writing off the issue of Biblical homophobia as some sort of specifically Jewish or specifically Old Testament hobbyhorse.

That is another issue I have with the Bible. The Jewish people, as the Israelites, are constantly depicted as HPs in the Bible.

I can't tell if you're trying to be facetious.

You can't? Really?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The same as my opinion of all cults: An abusive indoctrination system that has wasted innumerable human lives with its insular delusions and anti-individualism. There were thousands of obscure desert cults in the ancient world, and the fact that this one happened to survive is the only reason why today we treat it any differently from Zeus or the moon goddess Nanna. It is a self-sustaining brainwashing organization that survives by emotionally abusing young people, making them feel as though they only have value as part of a greater community, and transforming them into unthinking, unquestioning followers of doctrine and scripture. The moment that we as a species banish it from our moral philosophy, our lives will be incomparably improved.

If anything, we see evidence that children are born religious and that it is non-religion that requires a self-sustaining system to maintain.  Furthermore, it is unclear that a non-religious society would have incomparably better morality.  Why was slavery uncontroversial in ancient Greece but was abolished due to the efforts of a society - be it in the USA or England - strongly influenced by Christianity? 

I hope you're not implying that ancient Greece was a non-religious society. It was non-Christian, but that's obviously not the same thing.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion is inherent in the constitution.  It's not Heaven or hell anymore, its nirvana v enlightenment. Jehovah Witness have eliminated eternal torment out of its philosophy and Buddhism and Hinduism as well. No one has to know your choice of religion, but whether you are secular or tolerant or status quo or traditional, religious humanitarian, like our political thoughts

Buddhism has a Hell, too. It's not unique to Christianity. I'm guessing traditional Buddhists in isolated areas in the East akin to hard-to-reach Appalachia in the US, experience fear and trembling as a result of this teaching.

One eventually reincarnates out of Buddhist hell, though, so it's correct to say that eternal torment is absent from Buddhist theology.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

What John is suggesting is a pretty common sociology/religious studies view of how religions form. As he says, whether it's inherently a bad thing or not is obviously going to depend on the religious preconceptions of the person assessing the concept, but suggesting that it's the case isn't necessarily a euphoric edgelord thing.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It's too soon to tell.

Is around 1970 years of existence Not enough time for you?

In the year Ten Million, according to Koradubian, there would be a tremendous house-cleaning. All records relating to the period between the death of Christ and the year One Million A.D. would be hauled to the dumps and burned. This would be done, said Koradubian, because museums and archives would be crowding the living right off the Earth. The million-year period to which the burned junk related would be summed up in history books in one sentence, according to Koradubian: Following the death of Jesus Christ, there was a period of readjustment that lasted for approximately one million years.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

What John is suggesting is a pretty common sociology/religious studies view of how religions form. As he says, whether it's inherently a bad thing or not is obviously going to depend on the religious preconceptions of the person assessing the concept, but suggesting that it's the case isn't necessarily a euphoric edgelord thing.

Sure that's not necessarily wrong. The edgelordy part is jumping between the academic definition of cult and the popular pejorative one.

Yeah, no argument there.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

What John is suggesting is a pretty common sociology/religious studies view of how religions form. As he says, whether it's inherently a bad thing or not is obviously going to depend on the religious preconceptions of the person assessing the concept, but suggesting that it's the case isn't necessarily a euphoric edgelord thing.

Sure that's not necessarily wrong. The edgelordy part is jumping between the academic definition of cult and the popular pejorative one.

I've never understood the 'edgelord' meme about atheists, probably because I don't actually know any religious people IRL. If I'd wanted to be edgy in secular California, I would've become an Evangelical.

That's rather remarkable consider you go to a town with almost as many churches per block as a typical Olde Southerne Town. The only differences is that those churches can vary from Catholic to Jewish Temples/Synagogues, from Buddhist Temples to Quaker Meetinghouses, to say nothing of the Temple Hill area over in Oakland.

There are certainly religious people in the Bay Area, but I wouldn't say that I *know* any religious people;

Am I a joke to you?!

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

A 2,000-year-old fairy tale that should not be believed anymore.

Its explainable thru the astral plane. The Death angel is God himself and your consciousness leaves your body after death. The body is nothing but a plot when you die.

The closest thing to the astral plane are aliens, whom are other life forms on other planets which are reachable with a star ship enterprise spacecraft which humans may need in the future. But, the closet thing to extra terrestrial life is astral plane, whether or not there is reincarnation is debatable and wont be known til we die.

Both sides have a point.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

As stated before, religion is based on philosophy blue and red divide runs political as well as religious. It's always been that way.

It really hasn't.