And while we're at it, is it sexist.

If you just want to quote endless scripture, and tell me/us why your interpretation of that is the 'correct ' one. Then please do me a favour, and move along. This is not the droids/thread your looking for. And no, thank you, I do not want a magazine and neither do I wish to go to bible study

Not all. Some religions are ok with it. Again, depends on the religion some maybe sexist, some not.

It all depends on what you allow yourself to believe..truth is we are all just making it up as we go along..it makes us feel like we actually know something..

Personally I find that many organized religions are often fundamentally both homophobic and sexist. Though they will of course not admit that. And will often go to great lengths in an attempt to justify an opinion that they deny they have.
You don't seem to get many female religious figure heads. And in many religions it is always god, that they refer to.
They never seem to refer to a female equivalent

Absolutely, in the sense that cultures are criminal phobic.

There are man's cultural and regional laws of what is acceptable and proper, and religion is no different. Ive always felt phobic was a therapist term to shame people for their expectations, as I am Christian but have no 'fear' of people breaking laws that dont cause death. I have no 'fear' of jaywalkers or shoplifters, but regional law dictates these things are crimes and therefore have consequence and are discouraged.

I have no fear of homosexuality or bisexuality or adultery or polygamy, but "biblical" standard dictates these things are sinful and therefore have consequence and are discouraged.


I think it has been oversimplified to demonize expectations and standards by making them negative parts of human life.

criminal phobic

Now that is an interesting concept.

Maybe we can start prosecuting you for your fears.

The fact is, we all have fears. It's part of the human condition.

I have become convinced that everything that humans do, can be recognized to reflect themselves. Religions are all logical extensions of basic common human behaviors.

Mainly, the core human effort to try to use their minds, to gain some recognizable step up from a purely reactive life.

Each religion reflects what the people who eventually became the most powerful advocates for it, wanted to see in everyone else, to reassure themselves that THEY were "on the right track."

So, if the early powerbrokers of a religion were homophobic, then the religion they guided would be as well.

There also seems to be something that I think of as a "fanatic acolyte" effect, where people who are eager to prove to the people in charge that they "get it," take the early general ideas, and change them from admonitions to commandments; and from worries to "sins," and from investigations and questions, to "eternal mysteries."

Everything gets exaggerated as time goes by, especially if religions build up administrative power structures of their own. That's how some religions that also have "forgiveness" as an original central idea, so often end up as complex rule systems that allow no room for ACTUAL forgiveness or understanding at all.

I agree. I believe, however, that the oversimplification that objecting to something has to do with 'fear' of it, is applied very inconsistently.

I dont approve of smoking, but am I 'afraid' of smoking of smokers? No. And I certainly dont hate them.

I dont approve of adultery, but am I 'afraid' of adultery or adulterers? No. And I dont hate them either.

if disapproval does equal 'fear', than why is it a bad thing, because just like everyone has fears, everyone has those things they disapprove of.


I shouldnt have to agree with everything anyone does, and I dont even agree with EVERY thing those I love choose to do, but the way that has been distorted into something that proves 'hate' or 'fear' ... is something that, for me, seems to do more damage than good and make people 'fear' speaking or feeling or God forbid, speaking about their feelings.

They lost my respect when the Council Of Nicea decided certain books should be included..

They seemed to have an agenda, and only included the books that agreed with their agenda.

Isnt that just editing though? They cant include everything.

Isnt that just editing though? They cant include everything.

Editing?

Not really..
If you read the Gnostic Gospels.....Lost Books Of The Bible...etc....it seems they left out the ones that had empowered women, that stuck to the "script" they wanting to put forth..

There's too many for me to list....you can read/ do the research on them for yourself.

A good start might be...
Internet Sacred Text Archive
http://www.sacred-texts.com/

a start, huh?

lol. I respect other views. I will however stick to what has been proven logical and just and true throughout my lifetime of experiences and observations.

It was a resouce reference if you need to research anything, personally, I don't.
I however have referenced some of these texts while trying to figure out how I believe compares to what others have written.
Since I live in the practical world of reality, most religions do not relate to my views but, there are some similarities of concept in many of them.

Nnnno.
The Councils at Nicea were VERY complex efforts to decide the entire nature and course of the evolution of Christianity.

The "editing" of the biblical texts, was crucial to deciding the very nature of God.

I used to be homophobic, until I became religious that is. Anyhow, worship is a powerful experience. Context is everything when one is hearing other perspectives and you have to think for yourself.

Interesting. So, how should they have decided which books to include? How long should the finished work have been? And wouldn't ANY decision in some way decide the 'nature' of evolution?

I dont see really how ANY choices they made would not have been criticized or disapproved of by some people or how any of them would have had everyone's approval. But I suspect a finished work of ALL writings may have added to an already lengthy and under read work.