Hey Religious guys, serious question (not a troll thread)

[Schneller 3er]

Back to the original question.

I believe some interpretations lead people to believe that they are responsible for their children, and accountable for what they allow their children to do.

Deu 24:16 "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."

and

John 9:1-3 "And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. 2. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? 3. Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

[Massive Lee]

His response, "God is all knowing.....God says its wrong.....And I think God judges countries........so if we condone it, I hope I don't have to answer for it when I die."

"Extremist" religious people (Jews, Christians and Muslims) will pass their own judgement as a legit interpretation of their holy book.

"God says..." is an hypocrisy, and an excuse for atrocities.

[z31maniac]

If you're implying that god is an idea and is therefore real I suppose you must be correct. Otherwise that's not a fair comparison.

No, I was just trying to figure out your stance on it.

[Ryann]

Is there anywhere in the bible that says, on judgement day/when you go to heaven/etc, you will have to answer for the actions OF OTHER PEOPLE. In other words, will you be judged for something that a friend, family or even your country does?

Worrying about one's fate at the Pearly Gates and whether or not the actions of fellow humans will endanger his chances of eternal bliss just seems so typically Christian.

[Turf1600]

wtf does a donkeys cock have to do with anything?

Yes I had to google (I've never read the bible) and this was the first thing to appear:

It's just semantics brah

[dirtysix]

wtf does a donkeys cock have to do with anything?

Yes I had to google (I've never read the bible) and this was the first thing to appear:

There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

[Turf1600]

I know what you're saying but there are civil union/partnership, domestic partnership etc with differing laws around the world, such as the UK where it seems that civil partnerships are for gay couples only.

In NZ's case it seems it probably is semantics.

It's semantics by definition regardless of the country.

Ezekiel 23:20

[dirtysix]

No, it really is semantics.

Let's call them "relationships," if in society (we aren't talking about God/Religion/here as marriage is now a legal institution), the same rights are granted to homo/hetereosexual couples.............as in LITERALLY the EXACT SAME rights.

How is it NOT semantics to say that it has to be labeled one way or another? It's a way to put a derogatory connotation on a relationship. By referring to it as a "civil union" is to imply that it is somehow less worthy of recognition than a "marriage."

I know what you're saying but there are civil union/partnership, domestic partnership etc with differing laws around the world, such as the UK where it seems that civil partnerships are for gay couples only.

In NZ's case it seems it probably is semantics.

[Turf1600]

So you don't believe in God anymore than the idea that humans created an "idea of perfection" to try to attain?

If you're implying that god is an idea and is therefore real I suppose you must be correct. Otherwise that's not a fair comparison.

[z31maniac]

Additionally, we were created in his image. Note also that humans evolve. We can logically deduct that God evolves as well if the latter is true. Can perfection evolve? Sure, because it's open to interpretation. Just like the bible. The reason god evolves? Because it's a creation of man and we change how we define him constantly. We're always created in god's image because we're constantly changing the idea of god to suit or wants and needs. Someone may as well write the newest testament.

So you don't believe in God anymore than the idea that humans created an "idea of perfection" to try to attain?

[Turf1600]

Back to the original question.

I believe some interpretations lead people to believe that they are responsible for their children, and accountable for what they allow their children to do.

As evidenced by Lot in the bible.

[Turf1600]

A bit of a side note here, but something that baffles me about Christians is that they worship a guy who lived a perfect life while trying to teach them how they should live and how they should treat each other. Then they ignore his teachings and say, "We can't possibly be that decent, because we're sinners. That's okay though, because when the Jews murdered Jesus it made it so that we don't have to live the way he repeatedly told us to live, because he died for our sins."

Additionally, we were created in his image. Note also that humans evolve. We can logically deduct that God evolves as well if the latter is true. Can perfection evolve? Sure, because it's open to interpretation. Just like the bible. The reason god evolves? Because it's a creation of man and we change how we define him constantly. We're always created in god's image because we're constantly changing the idea of god to suit or wants and needs. Someone may as well write the newest testament.

[87e30]

Back to the original question.

I believe some interpretations lead people to believe that they are responsible for their children, and accountable for what they allow their children to do.

[Ryann]

A bit of a side note here, but something that baffles me about Christians is that they worship a guy who lived a perfect life while trying to teach them how they should live and how they should treat each other. Then they ignore his teachings and say, "We can't possibly be that decent, because we're sinners. That's okay though, because when the Jews murdered Jesus it made it so that we don't have to live the way he repeatedly told us to live, because he died for our sins."

[z31maniac]

It's a little more than semantics though.

We have a civil union law, that couples of any persuasion can use, that gives them the same legal rights as married couples.

Some people just don't like the idea of marriage.

No, it really is semantics.

Let's call them "relationships," if in society (we aren't talking about God/Religion/here as marriage is now a legal institution), the same rights are granted to homo/hetereosexual couples.............as in LITERALLY the EXACT SAME rights.

How is it NOT semantics to say that it has to be labeled one way or another? It's a way to put a derogatory connotation on a relationship. By referring to it as a "civil union" is to imply that it is somehow less worthy of recognition than a "marriage."