I didn't know god hated gays.

[coopdog]

So at a swim meet about a month ago. This kid 15 or 16 comes up to me being a smart ass to get a laugh out of his friends. So he gets in my face and is like I like Gatorade. :confused: So I thought I would just give it back to him. So I said, Oh really you like Gatorade? So do I! And something along the lines of "we should get together and drink Gatorade ALL night long and have a good time, if you know what I mean." All this will a stereotypical "gay lisp." Then some of the guys on my swim team were like, "didn't you know this is gay swim team." He thought my friends and I weren’t kidding. So he freaks out, going off on how "you ****ing people, ****ing ******s, gays are going to hell and a disgrace of god." And he flips us off and walks away. We all started laughing.

Where does a teen pick up "gays are going to hell because they are a disgrace of god?" Parents/church?

So yesterday I was at another swim meet and saw this same kid. I was in the cool down pool and he was walking past will his team stuff on, The Tigers.
So I was like, "are you a tiger in bed too did the cat claw thing with my hand and winked at him. " I thought he was going to punch me. He just flipped me off really angrily and said some religious stuff about gays... Oh man was it funny. Then later another guy and I went over and he was wearing plaid pants. We did that stereotypical "gay lisp" and the hand movements and just went on about how he looked "super" in plaid and just what other stuff would look "fab" on him. Again same reaction. ****in' gay this, hell that, disgrace of god. It was just too hard to resist after the guys first reaction the month earlier.

What the hell do people teach their kids? He didn't come up with this on his own. I wish he threw a punch at me, I would have taken him down. What would his defense be? I tried to beat him up because he is gay? I know if I wasn't bigger than him he would have thrown a punch. By the way I'm NOT gay.

Jeez this kind of thing pisses me off.
I wonder if his church tought him this.

[jrv3034]

Originally posted by coopdog
Where does a teen pick up "gays are going to hell because they are a disgrace of god?" Parents/church?

Insane, isn't it? Of course this is learned behaviour, either from parents, teachers, or friends. I've never heard it straight from my priest's mouth that homosexuals are not loved by God, or that they will burn in Hell, or anything like that. They certainly don't encourage it either, though.:rolleyes:

I have news for everyone: We live in the Middle Ages. Hopefully, we'll see the light someday, but I'm not holding my breath.:(

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by coopdog
Jeez this kind of thing pisses me off.
I wonder if his church tought him this.

Its unfortunate, to say the least - but its not the 'church' that taught him this, it was an individual with a closed mind.

Best you just ignore him and not try and force any issue. Until he comes to better terms with this himself, he's just going to be an ass.

D

[agreenster]

He probably said that because there are several Biblical references to homosexuality being an abomination to God. Sodom and Gomorrah and all that jazz.

Google for them, and you'll probably find them

[Roger1]

God loves ALL of us. He just doesn't like what we do.

[rainman::|:|]

www.godhatesfags.com

evil, thy name is fred phelps.

paul

[solvs]

Maybe it's just me, but it's always been more fun to make fun of homoPHOBES than it is to make fun of homosexuals. I'm not gay, but I wouldn't want someone telling me I couldn't love someone because King James made some mistranslations. I mean, some of us are a little homophobic and can get uncomfortable, but I'm not going to get pissy about it.

Besides, we all know that guys who beat up gays are just in the closet.

"Honey, pulease".

[virividox]

jeez thats a crazy site...

[stoid]

Caution, this post contains religion :eek:

Hey, have any of you ever touched your Bibles?

In the book of Romans, written by Paul (the cornerstone and leader of the church after Jesus ascended into heaven), Chapter 1:
verses 26-27
"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

In Leviticus, the book of Laws written by Moses from the mouth of God (Yahweh), chapter 18:
verse 22
"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

These are two blatant condemnations of homosexual behavior in the very prevalent books of the NIV Bible used by all Christian religions. In an earlier thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=50551&perpage=1&pagenumber=22) I posted that I am not in a position to question the inner emotions of a person who proclaims and practices homosexuality. God is the final judge of the heart.

I do know that God has made it clear in his word that homosexual behavior is despicable and detestable in his sight, and homosexuals are unfortunately going to spend eternity suffering in hell for their sins against the flesh of God.

Whether or not the church will stand up for the God they serve or not, I will stand up for what is right. I know that I will probably get flamed for my 'conservative view,' but it's in the Bible, black-and-white. Society doesn't hate gays because they are different. Society hates gays because deep down inside, we know that it is a sinful wrong behavior. Unfortunately, the hatred of the sin is often becomes a hatred of the person, which is just as much a damnable sin.

In short, wherever this hatred has been learned, it certainly can be traced back to the command and law of God.

[revenuee]

By dismissing the idea of a God, an afterlife or any other religious "lore" i can eliminate the worry that an of my actions will lead me to hell. :D

[TommyLee]

Look, this might be hard to comprehend if your not a Christian, but God doesn't HATE anyone. These are ordinary people like you and me with opinions & interpretations of God's plan. THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT GOD. What's so had to understand about that?

I personally don't approve of "Bible Bashing"- I believe everyone's entitled to their own opinions. Which is why you shouldn't twist God's words. God doesn't "hate" anyone...

[revenuee]

Originally posted by TommyLee


I personally don't approve of "Bible Bashing"- I believe everyone's entitled to their own opinions.

i'm a confirmed catholic -- i can bash the bible all i want

[TommyLee]

Yes, you can. And you can do a lot of things, once you take advantage of "Free Will."

(There's no need to be a smartass)

[revenuee]

Originally posted by TommyLee
Yes, you can. And you can do a lot of things, once you take advantage of "Free Will."

(There's no need to be a smartass)

sorry ... i'm 19 ... and i've spent the last 13 years in catholic schools where "the word" was jammed down my throat, and i had to listen to the constant sermonizing of teachers and priests and older relatives ... It's made me very jaded toward religion.

[stoid]

Originally posted by TommyLee
God doesn't "hate" anyone...

EXACTLY!!

God hates evil and sin, but He loves and still gave His only son to die for those sins so that everyone could live in eternal paradise with Him.

[TommyLee]

I never go to church.- It sucks.

[revenuee]

Originally posted by TommyLee
I never go to church.- It sucks.

I agree

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by jrv3034
I have news for everyone: We live in the Middle Ages. Hopefully, we'll see the light someday, but I'm not holding my breath.:( goodness, i think you need to go live in the real middle ages. there's really no need to make an ass of yourself saying something that's basically the equivalent of saying "living in a democracy is like living in nazi germany."

think before you speak ;)

[revenuee]

Originally posted by shadowfax
goodness, i think you need to go live in the real middle ages. there's really no need to make an ass of yourself saying something that's basically the equivalent of saying "living in a democracy is like living in nazi germany."

think before you speak ;)

democracy isn't all that great ...

still a system based on the appetitive nature of man

[jrv3034]

Originally posted by shadowfax
goodness, i think you need to go live in the real middle ages. there's really no need to make an ass of yourself saying something that's basically the equivalent of saying "living in a democracy is like living in nazi germany."

think before you speak ;)

I have thought about this. A LOT. Yes, we're much more advanced than we used to be (I can't even imagine living in a world without indoor plumbing), but just because we have electricity, technology, modern medicine, and we don't have the inquisition on our butts, doesn't mean we're actually civilized.

The day an interracial couple can walk down the street and not get dirty looks; the day two people that love each other can get marriage recognized by the law; the day teenagers aren't beaten to death because of sexual orientation; THAT's the day we're not in the middle ages. Right now we have two kids walking into their high school with machine guns killing anyone in their paths; we have people all over the world DYING of hunger, and we complain that Macs don't have as many games as PCs.

Believe me, we are NOT a civilized society by any means. We just think we are.

[MacAztec]

I don't have a problem with gays. I just don't feel comfortable around them.

I would rather be around someone who shares the same interests as myself.

[iJon]

i agree with roger. it is wrong according to god and the bible, but so is many things and all sins are equal. and i have never heard any preacher come out and say that or not welcome a gay person into the church.

iJon

[JesseJames]

I believe in philosophy. The ancient Greeks were so on to something great. Unfortunately, the polis didn't see it that way. Look what they did to Socrates.
My cynicism is showing.
Imagine what the world would be like if philosophy was the way to a higher plane of thought instead of wanting to believe in life after death, and a deity that is "out there" to be worshipped and whose capriciousness is interpreted in scripture and verse by people who don't know any better than anyone else. They're just peddlers of comforting words.
I believe that religion just makes you more of what you are anyway. If you are a good person, you can use it that way. If you are an evil person who has a gift for demagoguery, then you can use it that way.

"Oh Hitler in a robe of truth, my emptiness has built your alter..." -- Ed Kowalcyk

I think wanting to believe in God comes from a basic truth.
All people want to feel that they are important. Something that flows from pride, which flows from the survival instinct.
The key is to be aware of this. Always. And not let lasciviousness be your avenue to whatever suffering or agony you shall surely endure.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by MacAztec
I don't have a problem with gays. I just don't feel comfortable around them.

I would rather be around someone who shares the same interests as myself.

What interests do you have that gays couldn't share (besides chasing skirts)?

[sethypoo]

Originally posted by Roger1
God loves ALL of us. He just doesn't like what we do.
D@mn straight.

[MacAztec]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
What interests do you have that gays couldn't share (besides chasing skirts)?

If I want to go out to a party, I want to go with other straight guys. I don't want a gay guy to get drunk and try to do something to me or another straight guy.

You know what I mean? I just wouldn't feel comfortable.

[pooky]

Originally posted by Roger1
God loves ALL of us. He just doesn't like what we do.

And you know this how? Have you been talking to him? Seems a bit arrogant of any human to assume to know what God thinks/likes/hates/wants. Who the hell are you (not you specifically, you meaning anyone who says such things) to tell anyone what God thinks or wants?

[parenthesis]

I would like to point out this site on Tolorence (http://www.religioustolerance.org/homosexu.htm).

I did an essay in my college comp class about gay rights (for them, as I am gay) and this site helped add support for my paper.

As long as you ignore the banner ads (every site needs to make money) it is a very logical and (I think) complete site about this, and many other topics.

[Dippo]

I agree that God loves all his creation.
We should love everyone just as we are loved by God,
But we shouldn't condone people's bad behavior which includes sex with the same sex (or anyone/thing else that we are not married to)

[stoid]

Originally posted by pooky
And you know this how? Have you been talking to him? Seems a bit arrogant of any human to assume to know what God thinks/likes/hates/wants. Who the hell are you (not you specifically, you meaning anyone who says such things) to tell anyone what God thinks or wants?

There's this amazing nonfiction book about this deity that created a wonderful and beautiful world for those He made in His image to live in happily. Unfortunately, those he made in His image were seduced by sin and evil and corrupted His likeness that He gave them. He had a plan though. He sent His only precious Son to save that creation from their sin. He did this because while the sin was detestable and drove His people from Him, He still loved them unconditionally! I can claim to know that God loves His people, while hating their sins because He told me so in the book He wrote. I may not talk to Him as often as I ought to considering that he has given me everything that I have, but I hear Him talking to me everyday in the beauty of life and the world around me if I just shut my stupid mouth and listen.

[whocares]

First things first: has stated by many posters, God hates nobody. Or should I say, what 'God represents' hates nobody (I'm a non-believer).

What many don't seem to grasp is the Bible. Two questions:

*How can people be sure that the Bible contains the truth? (open to debate)

*How can you be sure that the writings have been translated and passed through generations being fully truthful to the original content? (*not* open to debate)
It has been translated and 'updated' so many times that its content has been influenced by its numerous contemporarys (2000 years worth of them) and was/is a potential tool for controlling people (think integrists).


All this to say that you should decide what is right or wrong based on what you believe (be it God or anybody/anything else), not what other people think/want you to think (the Bible, the pope, a narrow-minded teacher, ...).

[stoid]

My faith is based on the Bible, and my argument for the Bible's infallibility is that the God I believe in is almighty and all powerful. I believe that He would not allow for His Word to be changed to the point at which it's testimony is false. Since He is all powerful, it is certainly well within His power to control that.

[Dippo]

Originally posted by whocares
All this to say that you should decide what is right or wrong based on what you believe (be it God or anybody/anything else), not what other people think/want you to think (the Bible, the pope, a narrow-minded teacher, ...).

And that is what you think/want everybody to think? Right?

[whocares]

But you do believe the Earth is round, right?
That it may be a couple of bilion years old, the the Earth isn't the center of the Universe, and that mankind is/descends from some primate. (I know this last point is widely debated in the US, but not accepting the possibility of evolution is being narrow-minded, just like not accepting gay people.)

This in itself clearly shows that the Bible is not infaillable, but please continue reading. By infaillable I mean that it represents -amongst other things, the knowledge and beliefs of when it was written. These may be wrong or evolve with time (the pope for intence has finally admitted that the Earth isn't flat). What is infaillable is what it represents for you: your belief in God. IMHO the Bible isn't a book to be read litteraly, but a book to be read between the lines: what does it really mean? For instance:

God loves every person on the planet, the gays, the criminals, persons of different confessions, 'normal' people, non-believers, everybody.
The Bible says: homosexualty is to be dispised.
What is the most important here? The fact that gays should be hated or the fact that God loves everyone. I think the answer is pretty obvious!

[whocares]

Originally posted by Dippo
And that is what you think/want everybody to think? Right?

Rather than telling them what to think, yes!

Education should be about morals and ethics, not about telling people what they should think. Telling kids that gay people should die and go to hell isn't educating them? Pointing out to them that the Bible allegedly disapproves of them, whilst some people don't care, is educating them. Let them make their own minds up!

[Dippo]

Originally posted by whocares
God loves every person on the planet, the gays, the criminals, persons of different confessions, 'normal' people, non-believers, everybody.
The Bible says: homosexualty is to be dispised.
What is the most important here? The fact that gays should be hated or the fact that God loves everyone. I think the answer is pretty obvious!

According to you, the Bible says that homosexuality should be despised. Homosexuality is not a person.

[whocares]

Originally posted by Dippo
According to you, the Bible says that homosexuality should be despised. Homosexuality is not a person.

What's your point? Are you invalidating my argument because of poor English?

I shall rephrase: "homosexuals should be despised". I you would now care to react to the content of the post and not its form, that would be nice :rolleyes:

[scem0]

Originally posted by Dippo
According to you, the Bible says that homosexuality should be despised. Homosexuality is not a person.

I'm not defending his argument, but you can despise something abstract. I despise homework. I despise movies. etc.

scem0

[stoid]

Originally posted by whocares
I shall rephrase: "homosexuals should be despised". I you would now care to react to the content of the post and not its form, that would be nice :rolleyes:

That re-phrasing is NOT in the Bible, therefore, I do not believe that is what God would want of His people. Homosexuality is to be despised but NOT homosexuals.

And the Pope is a man, and therefore fallible. I am not Catholic (and would not convert to Catholicism for this reason) but I will also not judge Catholics, or anyone else for that matter.

I will not and cannot judge the fate of a homosexual person, however, I know that God judges homosexuality as a sin.

There is a very important distinction between the behavior and the person.

[tofi]

GAys are against the human nature


come on how can a men love a men this is against religion all 3 monotheiste religion ....
the kid is right sry for that ..
BUt this is what should parent teach there children because the gay society gets bigger wich is unacceptable .

and for the one ho is questionning the bible he has really not understood it ...
What makes a religion is the faith (questionning is part of the faith) ..

god bless you
you have the right to be gay if it is your conviction but we must fight for the boys and educate them not to be gay
thats it
sry for offences but this is what is happening and this is what people should fight for i think women( parents ) must be the leaders in this fight .

if i see a gay i will respect him but never qill get involved with him unless it is business

all gays just wake up

[tofi]

Gay Christians - What Does the Bible Say?
Openly gay men appointed to high office in the church - is this something Christians should be shocked by, or a cultural openness we should all embrace? There was a time when the very idea would have been treated with alarm and denial, but today the numbers of people who claim to love Christ while living in homosexuality are growing. What is the truth? What does God have to say about gays and gay Christians?

Can a person love God and disobey His Word? And is homosexuality an act of disobedience? What does the Bible really say? The Bible consistently tells us that homosexual activity is a sin (Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27; 1Corinthians 6:9). Romans 1:26-27 teaches specifically that those who fall into homosexuality do so as a result of denying and disobeying God. When a person continues in sin and disbelief, God "gives them over" to even more wicked and depraved sin in order to show them the futility and hopelessness of life apart from God.

Gay Christians - How Great a Sin?
Homosexuality is just one of many possible sins we can be mastered by. 1 Corinthians 6:9 proclaims that homosexual "offenders" will not inherit the kingdom of God. Homosexuality is not a "greater" sin than any other. All sin is offensive to God. Homosexuality is just one of the many things listed in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 that will keep a person from the kingdom of God. God's forgiveness is just as available to the homosexual as it is to an adulterer, idol worshipper, murderer, thief, etc. God also promises the strength for victory over sin, including homosexuality, to all those who will believe in Jesus Christ for their salvation (1 Corinthians 6:11; 2 Corinthians 5:17). The key is to believe His Word, believe He has a perfect will and purpose for your life, to acknowledge wrong thoughts, attitudes and behavior, to ask Him for strength to resist temptation and then to act on that faith.

Gay is a word that used to mean joyfully happy - and for those "gays" who turn to Christ and repent of this lifestyle, gay can mean joyfully happy again! Genesis 1:26&27 tell us that God created mankind (that means all people) in His own image. Revelation 4:11 tells us that God's motivation for creating all the things He created was because… He wanted to! All mankind was created by and for the pleasure of God. He loves us that much! These words testify to the fact that every single individual matters to God.

With that in mind, when the Bible takes a strong stand against a particular behavior, attitude or action, we need to pay special attention! God is our loving Creator and Heavenly Father. His purposes are never to divide us or cause us to turn away from Him, but are always to show us the way to wholeness and health. Many say that the Bible is a guidebook for life, an owner's manual if you will. Why would an owner's manual tell you not to use a certain grade of motor oil unless that motor oil would damage the engine? It's the same with God's Word, but with infinitely greater, vastly eternal consequences.

Gay Christians - What's Wrong with Welcoming All Lifestyles
Today's trend to accept all lifestyles and behavior as OK is not OK with God. We all want to feel like we are normal and worthy of love - so consider who or what is really telling us that anything we want to do is OK, and then consider the consequences: broken homes, abused, confused children, shattered lives. Is that what a loving Father would want for His children? God loves us and He knows what will hurt us. He is a protective Father who does not want His babies to be hurt! Listen to His Word. If you are caught in this sin or any other, consider carefully what He is saying to your heart.

Gay Christians - What Do You Think?
Are you a gay Christian? Are you a believer who is trapped in homosexuality? Do you think it's OK? Think again, please, for your own sake and for the sake of those who love you. Consider the Word of God. He did not make us male and female for no reason. Look at the way life is created, whether it is an electric current, a kitten or a baby boy or girl. It takes both components, the male and female, connected, to make life.

Don't you want to know why you're here? Don't you want to know what your purpose in life is? Then please don't be blinded by the lies of a clever enemy whose only goal is your destruction. Come to the Savior who gave His life to set you free from all sin.

[Dippo]

Originally posted by whocares
I shall rephrase: "homosexuals should be despised". I you would now care to react to the content of the post and not its form, that would be nice :rolleyes:

We should all be despised but God loves us anyway.

[whocares]

Originally posted by stoid
There is a very important distinction between the behavior and the person.

That's a very good point stoid, and my rephrasing was meerly to make a point with Dippo and not what I believe of think the Bible believes.

I appolagize for un-intentionally implying you were Catholic, but my point was that in some ways the Bible is faillable. (the pope was thrown is to show that some of Jesus'/God's followers change their minds from time to time...).

The point here is: how can you be so sure that God consideres homosexuality as a sin? What you believe to know that God thinks is what has been taught to you by the Bible and the Church. Maybe some guy, some where was a raving homophobic and by some way got it in the Bible, thus changing what people believe God thinks. You said you thought God would be able to control this, then why shouldn't he be able to control other sins and sinners?

Also all forms of sexualty have been considered by many as sins, all the way since the original one. From a physiological (not physical) point of view, there is no difference between straight sex and 'non straight' sex. The same applies to masturbation, in which I find it difficult to see a sin.

[whocares]

Originally posted by Dippo
We should all be despised but God loves us anyway.

I don't feel I should be despised. I have a clear conscience :eek:

-tofi
I find your views very narrow-minded and very offensive:

*the monotheiste religions? What the hell are they? (no pun) I sure hope you not thinking Christianity, Islam and Judaism. They all have the same roots and are not representative of all mankind. Maybe you should considered the view of other religions such hindouism, buddhism, etc. I hear quite a few people are into them, maybe a couple of billion...

*Juste because being gay is a against your religion, doesn't mean it's bad. Many gay people may be atheists and are thus not concerned about what God/the Bible says.

*People should have to choice of their religion of lack of. Raming homophobic BS down their thoats ins't the best way to give them that liberty.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by MacAztec
If I want to go out to a party, I want to go with other straight guys. I don't want a gay guy to get drunk and try to do something to me or another straight guy.

You know what I mean?

No. Not at all.

At a job a few years ago, I worked with a gay guy. We got along very well. He thought I was cute even though he knew I was straight. No big deal, thinks I.

I went to a party he and his friend had at his place with a bunch of other gay guys and got absolutely 100% ****faced with them. Guess what happened to my straight ass?

Nothing, because everyone knew I was straight. We all had a blast as friends. There's no need to inject sexuality into it unless both people want to. The same thing happens with a chick who doesn't want anything to do with you sexually. She'll not reciprocate any slight advances and you (shouldn't) won't get any bolder the more she rebuffs you.

[Dippo]

Originally posted by whocares
I don't feel I should be despised. I have a clear conscience :eek:

*Juste because being gay is a against your religion, doesn't mean it's bad.

I would much like to know what your definition of "bad" is.

Originally posted by whocares
*People should have to choice of their religion of lack of. Raming homophobic BS down their thoats ins't the best way to give them that liberty.

Do you have freedom of religion where you are from?

Your "homophobic BS" doesn't have to be based on religion, a logical Darwin argument would provide a similar result.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by tofi
GAys are against the human nature

Really? There have been enough of them throughout the ages that it would seem to be a natural phenomenon.

come on how can a men love a men

I guess I should stop loving my brothers.

BUt this is what should parent teach there children because the gay society gets bigger wich is unacceptable .

You can't teach a child his/her sexuality. You might as well try to teach your child to be a professional football linebacker. If he grows up to be 5'5" 130 lbs, he's not going to make it.

and for the one ho is questionning the bible he has really not understood it ...
What makes a religion is the faith (questionning is part of the faith) ..

Faith does not require questioning.

god bless you
you have the right to be gay if it is your conviction but we must fight for the boys and educate them not to be gay
thats it

What about "fighting for the girls" or are lesbians acceptable? Again, how do you educate someone to go against their nature? If I like blondes, jazz, broccoli and Guinness, can I be educated to like brunettes, rap, spinach and Coors Light?

sry for offences but this is what is happening and this is what people should fight for i think women( parents ) must be the leaders in this fight .

Why are women the only parents specified?

if i see a gay i will respect him but never qill get involved with him unless it is business

all gays just wake up

Goddamn. That is the most homophobic rant I've read on here in quite some time.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Dippo
Your "homophobic BS" doesn't have to be based on religion, a logical Darwin argument would provide a similar result.

If evolution breeded out homosexuals there would be none left. Homosexuality has been around for millenia.

Try again.

[Dippo]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
If evolution breeded out homosexuals there would be none left. Homosexuality has been around for millenia.

Try again.

I guess homosexuality is not genetic then?

[whocares]

Originally posted by Dippo
I would much like to know what your definition of "bad" is.


Exaclty my point. I'm suggesting here that your definition of 'bad' may come from your religion (maybe not, I dunno). Mine for instance, while possibly influenced by religion (as I was brought up in a Christian country), comes from what my parents taught me and from my personnal experience. I define something as being bad if it goes against my morals and ethics as well as against the laws of the society in which I live. For instance:
*Killing someone is against the law and somewhat against my morals: bad
*Stealing from the rich is against the law but not morals: bad
*Reducing children to slavery in China to make cheap clothes is not against the law but against my morals: bad.
*Being gay is not against the law and not against my moral: not bad.
*etc

Originally posted by Dippo

Do you have freedom of religion where you are from?


I take it that's a cheap shot at me living in France. Well yes, we have freedom of religion in France, more so than in many countries in thisz world. You obviously have no idea of what your talking about here.

Originally posted by Dippo

Your "homophobic BS" doesn't have to be based on religion, a logical Darwin argument would provide a similar result.

Granted. But chimpanzees also exhibit homosexuality (and rape and pedophilia) and presumably so did their ancestors, yet they evolved into human beings (the ancestors, not the chimpanzees). Darwin simply notes that the most adapted to their environment survive. He never said there was anything wrong/bad/sinful with the individuals that aren't the most adapted. And being gay doesn't stop who from spreading your genes (sperm bank, etc...)

[themadchemist]

Originally posted by stoid
Caution, this post contains religion :eek:

Hey, have any of you ever touched your Bibles?

My bad, I forgot to let the missionaries convert me! Yep, I missed the Bible passin' out ceremony. Sorry, I guess I, erm, don't really have a Bible.

Well, I s'pose I'll just have to stay Hindu. I know it's a crazy cult, accepting that all religions are different paths to the same truth and what not. Yeah, I know it's a mistake, but what can I do?

I guess I'll just go chill in Hell with all the gays and the Infidels who took Israel. Bastards.

[whocares]

Originally posted by Dippo
I guess homosexuality is not genetic then?

Why should homosexuality be genetic? Is being a christian genetic? Or is just the result of your experiences in life? :rolleyes:

[Dippo]

Originally posted by whocares
I take it that's a cheap shot at me living in France. Well yes, we have freedom of religion in France, more so than in many countries in thisz world. You obviously have no idea of what your talking about here.

Actually that was an honest question. I never researched the laws of France.

Not a cheap shot, even though you do live in France :)

[Dippo]

Originally posted by whocares
Why should homosexuality be genetic? Is being a christian genetic? Or is just the result of your experiences in life? :rolleyes:

Honestly, it is neither :)

[whocares]

Originally posted by themadchemist
My bad, I forgot to let the missionaries convert me! Yep, I missed the Bible passin' out ceremony. Sorry, I guess I, erm, don't really have a Bible.

You don't have a Bible? Hell that's worse than being gay :eek: :rolleyes: :p :p :p

Cheap shot. I'm sorry ;)

[whocares]

Originally posted by Dippo
Honestly, it is neither :)

Well that's debatable.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you're a Christian, right? May I ask what made you a Christian?

I was baptised a Roman Catholic, but now consider myself to be an atheist. I 'converted' if you like because of what my experience taught me.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Dippo
I guess homosexuality is not genetic then?

Not in the sense of the Darwinist "logic" you tried to apply it isn't.

Try again. Find a valid reason you can say "homosexuality is bad" based on something other than your personal beliefs.

[coopdog]

Originally posted by tofi
Gay Christians - What Does the Bible Say?
Openly gay men appointed to high office in the church - is this something Christians should be shocked by, or a cultural openness we should all embrace? There was a time when the very idea would have been treated with alarm and denial, but today the numbers of people who claim to love Christ while living in homosexuality are growing. What is the truth? What does God have to say about gays and gay Christians?

Can a person love God and disobey His Word? And is homosexuality an act of disobedience? What does the Bible really say? The Bible consistently tells us that homosexual activity is a sin (Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27; 1Corinthians 6:9). Romans 1:26-27 teaches specifically that those who fall into homosexuality do so as a result of denying and disobeying God. When a person continues in sin and disbelief, God "gives them over" to even more wicked and depraved sin in order to show them the futility and hopelessness of life apart from God.

Gay Christians - How Great a Sin?
Homosexuality is just one of many possible sins we can be mastered by. 1 Corinthians 6:9 proclaims that homosexual "offenders" will not inherit the kingdom of God. Homosexuality is not a "greater" sin than any other. All sin is offensive to God. Homosexuality is just one of the many things listed in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 that will keep a person from the kingdom of God. God's forgiveness is just as available to the homosexual as it is to an adulterer, idol worshipper, murderer, thief, etc. God also promises the strength for victory over sin, including homosexuality, to all those who will believe in Jesus Christ for their salvation (1 Corinthians 6:11; 2 Corinthians 5:17). The key is to believe His Word, believe He has a perfect will and purpose for your life, to acknowledge wrong thoughts, attitudes and behavior, to ask Him for strength to resist temptation and then to act on that faith.

Gay is a word that used to mean joyfully happy - and for those "gays" who turn to Christ and repent of this lifestyle, gay can mean joyfully happy again! Genesis 1:26&27 tell us that God created mankind (that means all people) in His own image. Revelation 4:11 tells us that God's motivation for creating all the things He created was because… He wanted to! All mankind was created by and for the pleasure of God. He loves us that much! These words testify to the fact that every single individual matters to God.

With that in mind, when the Bible takes a strong stand against a particular behavior, attitude or action, we need to pay special attention! God is our loving Creator and Heavenly Father. His purposes are never to divide us or cause us to turn away from Him, but are always to show us the way to wholeness and health. Many say that the Bible is a guidebook for life, an owner's manual if you will. Why would an owner's manual tell you not to use a certain grade of motor oil unless that motor oil would damage the engine? It's the same with God's Word, but with infinitely greater, vastly eternal consequences.

Gay Christians - What's Wrong with Welcoming All Lifestyles
Today's trend to accept all lifestyles and behavior as OK is not OK with God. We all want to feel like we are normal and worthy of love - so consider who or what is really telling us that anything we want to do is OK, and then consider the consequences: broken homes, abused, confused children, shattered lives. Is that what a loving Father would want for His children? God loves us and He knows what will hurt us. He is a protective Father who does not want His babies to be hurt! Listen to His Word. If you are caught in this sin or any other, consider carefully what He is saying to your heart.

Gay Christians - What Do You Think?
Are you a gay Christian? Are you a believer who is trapped in homosexuality? Do you think it's OK? Think again, please, for your own sake and for the sake of those who love you. Consider the Word of God. He did not make us male and female for no reason. Look at the way life is created, whether it is an electric current, a kitten or a baby boy or girl. It takes both components, the male and female, connected, to make life.

Don't you want to know why you're here? Don't you want to know what your purpose in life is? Then please don't be blinded by the lies of a clever enemy whose only goal is your destruction. Come to the Savior who gave His life to set you free from all sin.

Hey it's Shrek! :p

I can't believe what some people (you) believe. I think that the bible is no more true or factual than a book of fictionalized stories like "tall tales" or urban myths.

None of the bible's extraordinary stories have EVER been proved or reproduced. Why aren't there any people walking on water or parting seas today?

The way I see it:
Back then things traveled by word of mouth, no cell phones, IMs, video or pictures. So some followers of Jesus see Jesus walking on a mirage. So, "It looked just like Jesus was walking on water!" After it goes from one person to another it turns into "Jesus was walking on water!" Then it get gets marked down in the Bible as Jesus walked on water. I believe that EVERY extraordinary thing in the bible was based on fact and then by word of mouth was made into an extraordinary long story. How is this any different then urban myths?!

It's human nature to exaggerate things. Just like the cliché "the fish was this big." I think this would happen even more/faster if you believed that the person that it was about was the son of god or your savior.

I could never base any aspect about my life on something like religion. I have NO idea how people can base their lives around religion and especially kill themselves or others for a god they can't see.

Religion has motivated more killings then ANY other thing EVER.

[Dippo]

Originally posted by whocares
Well that's debatable.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you're a Christian, right? May I ask what made you a Christian?

I was baptised a Roman Catholic, but now consider myself to be an atheist. I 'converted' if you like because of what my experience taught me.

For clairity, I consider a Christian to be someone that has been "saved". Which means that one has been forgiven of all sins (past/present/future).

We cannot save ourselves, only God can save us, and when he saves us, we will know that Christ died & rose from death to take the punishment for those sins.

[themadchemist]

Originally posted by stoid
There's this amazing nonfiction book about this deity that created a wonderful and beautiful world for those He made in His image to live in happily. Unfortunately, those he made in His image were seduced by sin and evil and corrupted His likeness that He gave them. He had a plan though. He sent His only precious Son to save that creation from their sin. He did this because while the sin was detestable and drove His people from Him, He still loved them unconditionally! I can claim to know that God loves His people, while hating their sins because He told me so in the book He wrote. I may not talk to Him as often as I ought to considering that he has given me everything that I have, but I hear Him talking to me everyday in the beauty of life and the world around me if I just shut my stupid mouth and listen.

Sorry for the double post, but I would like to respond to you with a few things.

As I mentioned earlier, I am, of course, going to Hell, where I'm sure to meet Gandhi, Vivekananda, Buddha, and some other naughty, naughty folks. So you might not want to listen to me, but I'll give it a go.

Now I'd like to preface this by saying that the Bible's a great book, it really is. First class. And Jesus. Well, he was a great guy. Really, one of the greatest. He was awesome. And he did an incredible job of spreading a very good message about tolerance and love and a lot of other good, clean, family-fun sort of stuff. It worked real well, too, especially right there in Europe. Why? Because he was culturally assimilated into his population.

But isn't kind of short-sighted to think that God, Who created a pretty large universe, would send this one guy down with no planes or trains or cars, and put him in Israel and expect Him to convince the entire world of something? I mean, it's marketing, and I believe that God is an excellent marketing professional. Probably the best. My mistake, definitely the best.

So God's sitting there thinking, I would assume, "Hmm, now Jesus is doing a great job in Israel. those Israelis really like him a LOT. But clearly, you drop this white dude down in Mesopotamia, and they're not gonna buy it. So how about I throw down this guy named Mohammed, who can lead his people. It'll work pretty much like it did when I sent down Rama and Buddha and the gang. To each society, I'll send righteous people to spread My message in a culturally acceptable way. And that should work pretty well."

By God, it did. He was right. It was a great strategy. You've got more than one Messiah, but since those cultures were cut off from each other, they didn't know it. And to them, their guy was the One.

Only problem? Well, we're jerks. We start arguing. I'm like, "Oh, my Holy Incarnation could take your Holy Incarnation any day of the week. I'll put the smack down on you, punk. Your guy's gonna get the BEAT DOWN!" And you say something quite similar to me. And then we wage a war. And then we kill each other. And then we die. And then someone's alive and says, "Woohoo! We won. God sure loves us now!"

Someone forgot the message, I think. So we've all got our Prophets, and they all had some divine understanding, and they all worked for their audience.

Now how about holy books? These things probably started out great. Kernels of Truth. Holy words like no other. And then somebody heard it. And misinterpreted it. Then told somebody. It got distorted. Then somebody wrote it down. It got misinterpreted some more. Plus, he said, well I really don't like it when those women act all uppity, we better go ahead and say that God doesn't like it when you do that. That'll shut 'em up. That'll keep my wife in line. You know, I go out every day tryin' to write things down that people say, and I come home, and all I ask for is a little dinner and a little sweet lovin'. Is that too much? Yeah, this one'll teach her. Oh yeah.

So now our scribe takes his book to the king, through whose approval everything can be disseminated. The king says, hmm, I've been having some problems with people getting, I don't know, a little anarchist, let's go ahead and add something that can take care of that. OK?

So the book gets changed some more. Now some foreigner reads the book. He says, oh, this is very good. But, say, his Greek is kind of rusty, and he kind of BSes his way through the translation. "Well, this book is good, and something is better than nothing. Oh, fish, how do you say fish...Hmm, fish, fish, oh yes, 'All homosexuals are evil and should die right now.' That's how you say it."

And the process continues, with alterations, purposeful or accidental, for centuries to come.

And now you've got your book. And you think it's perfect? The second it touched human hands and the human mind, buddy, it became quite less than perfect.

Now what about religion itself? We keep quibbling and telling people they're going to Hell because they didn't get dropped in some holy water or what not. These are just practices, institutions, and societal constructs to keep us in line and keep us disciplined. Seriously. They are important, and they are holy, and I'm sure most of them have a lot of meaningful, transcendental power to them. They are ancient and mysterious. But no one of them is uniquely powerful, nor is any indispensible. Religion is a tool. Some people like to use it as such to find their way through a lonely, harsh world. It is a beacon by which to guide one's path toward some Higher Truth. That Truth is what we're searching for, and in religion we can find a road to that Truth. Religion itself will not take us there, but it can help. Some people don't need religion to find the path. For them, atheism is perfectly fine. I honestly don't think that God is so vain as to say, "Oh, well, you didn't pray to me a thousand times today. You're going to suffer eternally, hahaha!" I believe that He does help us when we cry out for help and have done everything we can, but I don't think that he punishes us for trying to find our own path to the Truth, to what I believe is Him. I am trying to find my path through Hinduism. Perhaps you'll find yours through Christianity. But in searching, if religion leads you away from the fundamental principles of humanity, then it has led you off the right path. If it tells you to hate a person's inherent nature, if it tells you to attack what another holds dear, if it tells you that what you believe is the only Truth, if it is exclusivist and violent, judgmental and accusatory, then you or someone else is misinterpreting its inherent kernel of Truth. If such totally human constructs seem to be invading your holy religion, then you can be sure that someone's tainted it. Try to find the fundamentals, the universals, and then, I think, you'll be fine.

But what do I know. I'm just a stupid kid like anyone else.

[whocares]

Originally posted by Dippo
For clairity, I consider a Christian to be someone that has been "saved". Which means that one has been forgiven of all sins (past/present/future).

We cannot save ourselves, only God can save us, and when he saves us, we will know that Christ died & rose from death to take the punishment for those sins.

Well that is *extremeley* debatable and centered on your point of view. I for instance do not believe in God, nor in life after death, and thus don't need to be saved my anyone. I just need to enjoy life while I'm alive, and that includes the occasional 'sin' and not going to church.

Believing that you yourself have been saved is fine, but saving people who don't want to be saved isn't. Anyhoo you just admitted that you're a Christian because of your experiences in life:
*if you haden't sinned, you wouldn't need to be a Christian ;)
*your experience in life taught you that you needed to be saved.

[themadchemist]

Originally posted by whocares
You don't have a Bible? Hell that's worse than being gay :eek: :rolleyes: :p :p :p

Cheap shot. I'm sorry ;)

No, no, no. You're right. I better go get a flame retardant suit.

Oh, what does it matter, they say you can't take it with you, right?

[Dippo]

Originally posted by whocares
Well that is *extremeley* debatable and centered on your point of view. I for instance do not believe in God, nor in life after death, and thus don't need to be saved my anyone. I just need to enjoy life while I'm alive, and that includes the occasional 'sin' and not going to church.

It would be interesting to know what you think is the so called "meaning of life".

Originally posted by whocares
Believing that you yourself have been saved is fine, but saving people who don't want to be saved isn't. Anyhoo you just admitted that you're a Christian because of your experiences in life:
*if you haden't sinned, you wouldn't need to be a Christian ;)
*your experience in life taught you that you needed to be saved.

I can't even save myself, I certainly can't save anyone else.

[themadchemist]

Originally posted by Dippo
It would be interesting to know what you think is the so called "meaning of life".

Wow, you've got to be pretty arrogant to have an opinion on the 'meaning of life' and actually believe it.

[whocares]

Originally posted by Dippo
It would be interesting to know what you think is the so called "meaning of life".

Meaning of life? Easy.

From a darwinistic point of view: do as much screwing as I can to spread my genes as broadly as possible.

From a philosophical point of view? Well the meaning of life is to find the meaning of life. Some food for thaught there.

From a more day to day point of view: have fun and make the most of the 60-70 years we have to live.

[Neserk]

Originally posted by tofi

With that in mind, when the Bible takes a strong stand against a particular behavior, attitude or action, we need to pay special attention! .

There are exactly 2 references in the bible that *could* refer to same sex contact between two consenting adults. One is in Leviticus, the other in Romans. Neither one comments on that situation within a committed relationship. The comments are only made in the context of an extra-marital relationship.

I wouldn't consider this a "strong stance" considering how long the bible is and how many times it talks about things like murder, adultery, greed, gluttony, gossip, hate, etc.

Seems to me that many are paying attention to the wrong things.

[Dippo]

Originally posted by whocares
From a more day to day point of view: have fun and make the most of the 60-70 years we have to live.

Let's just pray that we have the 60-70 (or more) years to enjoy it!

[candan9019]

It's too bad that people have to live there lives based on a book of riddles. So many people are told here this book will tell you everything you have to know about life don't listen to what experience tells you just belive what the book tells you.

I could care less what a book has to say about what I should belive. I am going to belive in things through experincing life and talking to people, understanding who they are.

Unfortunetly many people have to be told what to do and how to think. We have religion for this reason. People need to think for themselves, but that will never happen.

Humans are doomed! Yay.

[whocares]

Originally posted by Neserk
There are exactly 2 references in the bible that *could* refer to same sex contact between two consenting adults. One is in Leviticus, the other in Romans. Neither one comments on that situation within a committed relationship. The comments are only made in the context of an extra-marital relationship.

I wouldn't consider this a "strong stance" considering how long the bible is and how many times it talks about things like murder, adultery, greed, gluttony, gossip, hate, etc.

Seems to me that many are paying attention to the wrong things.

Well this is some of the most interesting insight into the Bible so far (and not just because it concurs (sp?) with my opinions). Thanx!

[whocares]

Originally posted by Dippo
Let's just pray that we have the 60-70 (or more) years to enjoy it!

And Alleluia to that!

[whocares]

Originally posted by candan9019
Humans are doomed! Yay.

Serves them right for destroying the planet :D

[themadchemist]

Originally posted by Neserk
There are exactly 2 references in the bible that *could* refer to same sex contact between two consenting adults. One is in Leviticus, the other in Romans. Neither one comments on that situation within a committed relationship. The comments are only made in the context of an extra-marital relationship.

I wouldn't consider this a "strong stance" considering how long the bible is and how many times it talks about things like murder, adultery, greed, gluttony, gossip, hate, etc.

Seems to me that many are paying attention to the wrong things.

I agree! Very true!

But on a lighter note, if we're going to condemn people to eternal suffering, why can't we at least do a better job of referencing. All I hear is Leviticus and Romans, Leviticus and Romans, Leviticus and Romans! Even for a half-way decent college paper, two references is just not enough...Take into account the fact that they are from the same text, and well, that's downright unacceptable. I doubt that it would hold water academically to deal out eternal damnation on that skeletal citation.

Bring back a long Works Cited list and then we'll talk.

[Dippo]

Originally posted by Neserk
There are exactly 2 references in the bible that *could* refer to same sex contact between two consenting adults. One is in Leviticus, the other in Romans. Neither one comments on that situation within a committed relationship. The comments are only made in the context of an extra-marital relationship.

I wouldn't consider this a "strong stance" considering how long the bible is and how many times it talks about things like murder, adultery, greed, gluttony, gossip, hate, etc.

Seems to me that many are paying attention to the wrong things.

Here they are if anyone wants to read them,

Leviticus 18:22
Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

1 Corinthians 6:9
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

I am still looking for the Romans reference

[whocares]

Originally posted by themadchemist
Bring back a long Works Cited list and then we'll talk.

May I remind you that you don't have a Bible and should thus not post here?

Oooops, I don't have a Bible either. Maybe I should leave? :p

[stoid]

I would like to apologize for those people of non-Christian religions that I have offended in my posts. I was hideously ignorant to assume that people reading this thread would all share at least a similar religion to me. I was not implying by that rhetorical question that everyone should be Christian, or that I can judge that non-Christians are going to spend eternity in hell. Rather I was expressing a frustration at so many people who claim to be Christian but have never read their own holy book!

I am going to leave one final reply (yes, I mean final, I'm not going to post on this thread or even continue to read it since it is obviously spiraling further and further off topic)

Regarding the nature of the Bible:

God has endowed all of his people with free will to accept or reject Him. However, God's word goes out, and does not return to Him empty. God has shown that he will intervene when man tries to overstep his bounds. Tower of Babble, raising Lazurus, sending His son to redeem. Paul says in Revelation, that damnation awaits those who would change only one letter of meaning in the book. This leads me to believe that any man that would hope, or inadvertently, change the meaning in the Bible would be overstepping their bounds, and God would intervene.

Also, madchemist, all paths do not lead to them same place, and all religions are most certainly NOT the same. If you cannot see that, then you seriously need to study world religions much much better. My religion leads me to faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ and to everlasting paradise with Him. When I die, I will be in heaven equally with all the saved, there is one level of heaven. I will also not be reincarnated. My toil in this alien world away from my home in heaven will thankfully come to an end when I die. Also, I am not in service to my God because I must and He will strike me down if I don't. I worship Him wholly because I know that He has given me everything I have. Of all the world religions, Christianity (at least as I see it, as I don't think any of the Christian denominations have the picture exactly right) is the only religion based totally and completely on the fact that God is love and only love. All other religions serve their gods. I worship my God because He serves me.

Note: If anyone does have a strong objection or misunderstanding of my beliefs, please PM me. I am not judging anyone else when I state my beliefs, and I am not going to tell you that you are wrong. I will simply tell you that God is love, and He sent His only Son to die for you and your sins, and pray that the Spirit will work in you so that you may celebrate with me in heaven for all eternity. However, I refuse to get involved in the piss battle that this thread is turning into.

stoid signing off: May the Lord's peace, love, and understanding be with you all.

[whocares]

Originally posted by Dippo
Here they are if anyone wants to read them,

Leviticus 18:22
Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

<bad, disrespectful humour>

So if gays go about it 'doggy style' (and thus don't lie) is it ok?

</bad, disrespectful humour>


Sorry, couldn't resist! :p

[VirtualInsanity]

tofi:
I find your views offensive and embarassingly ignorant. Your opinion is specifically the type of narrow-minded bigotry that degrades the good in the world.

I am not homosexual but I was fortuante enough to attend an "art" highschool where the atmosphere is open-minded enough to allow gays to be "out" without fear of being harassed by the insecure and dull-witted. I became friends with a gay person in my senior year and never in any of the times we went out did he hit on me or any of my straight friends, he was and is a great guy, fun to be with and talk to. Which is to be expected...who CARES if he is gay, his orientation is not something any of us really though about. What people have to realize is that being gay is not a big deal, its just something that IS, like the colour of your skin.

Homosexuality seems perfectly natural in my opinion because not only has it been recorded in humans for thousands of years but there are many MANY documented cased in animals, even intelligent animals like dolphins. This alone suggests that its not a choice, or based on culture but a simple, biological, NATURAL path a human may take.

Furthermore, I am not strictly religious but there are things that are obvious to me regardless of this: homosexuals are just people they are good and bad, they have flaws and triumphs like everyone els... God wouldn't hate one because they are gay. That statement is ridiculous. God being benevolent and all knowing, and certianly wise enough to be free from prejudice would not discriminate because of someones sexual orientation. I dont understand, a gay and great person goes to hell but an average straight person goes to heaven if they just believe in jesus? :confused:

Finally, the bible is open to interpretation. If everything in it were true then everyone who has ever had a divorce would be heading off to hell. People have to stop clinging to dated interpretaions of this inspiring book and try to see the messages as they were meant to be...treat every human with respect and dignity and love, not prejudice, hate and ignorance. I think that not only is this what God wants but it is what we as people should embrace in order for our civilisation to truly become civilised.

when Gandi was asked what he thought of modern western civilisation, he replied:
"It would be a good idea" ;)

Humans have to work together to make it reality. Peace
D.

quote from madchemist: "if religion leads you away from the fundamental principles of humanity, then it has led you off the right path. If it tells you to hate a person's inherent nature, if it tells you to attack what another holds dear, if it tells you that what you believe is the only Truth, if it is exclusivist and violent, judgmental and accusatory, then you or someone else is misinterpreting its inherent kernel of Truth. If such totally human constructs seem to be invading your holy religion, then you can be sure that someone's tainted it. Try to find the fundamentals, the universals, and then, I think, you'll be fine."
I think he is spot on

[Dippo]

Originally posted by Neserk
There are exactly 2 references in the bible that *could* refer to same sex contact between two consenting adults. One is in Leviticus, the other in Romans.

Neserk, do you know where the reference in Romans is?
I looked but I can't find it.

Thanks

[Dros]

Originally posted by Dippo
Here they are if anyone wants to read them,

Leviticus 18:22
Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

1 Corinthians 6:9
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

For Leviticus, that seems quite specific that women should sleep with women and not men. I am surprised that is in the Bible!

In Corinthians, I think the use of the term "homosexual offenders" is interesting. If it was written "heterosexual offenders", the first thing that comes to my mind would not be a blanket condemnation of all heterosexuals, but something more specific.

I just did a little web surfing...
"The original Greek text describes the behaviors as "malakoi". Although this is often translated by modern Bibles as "homosexual," we can be fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey. If he had, he would have used the Greek word "paiderasste." That was the standard term at the time for male homosexuals."

I'm sure other people with other agendas can find appropriate scholarly works making it clear that the meaning is to condemn homosexuality. Too bad the unerrant Word has been written in so many ways... it is confusing!

[Dippo]

Originally posted by Dros
I'm sure other people with other agendas can find appropriate scholarly works making it clear that the meaning is to condemn homosexuality. Too bad the unerrant Word has been written in so many ways... it is confusing!

Well in the Kings James Version:

1 Corinthians 6:9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

Leviticus 18
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

provides a little contrast

[themadchemist]

Originally posted by stoid
I would like to apologize for those people of non-Christian religions that I have offended in my posts. I was hideously ignorant to assume that people reading this thread would all share at least a similar religion to me. I was not implying by that rhetorical question that everyone should be Christian, or that I can judge that non-Christians are going to spend eternity in hell. Rather I was expressing a frustration at so many people who claim to be Christian but have never read their own holy book!


Thanks for the apology, but condemning us to Hell is exactly what you did...Well, if you had the power to do so.

Originally posted by stoid

Also, madchemist, all paths do not lead to them same place, and all religions are most certainly NOT the same. If you cannot see that, then you seriously need to study world religions much much better. My religion leads me to faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ and to everlasting paradise with Him. When I die, I will be in heaven equally with all the saved, there is one level of heaven. I will also not be reincarnated. My toil in this alien world away from my home in heaven will thankfully come to an end when I die. Also, I am not in service to my God because I must and He will strike me down if I don't. I worship Him wholly because I know that He has given me everything I have. Of all the world religions, Christianity (at least as I see it, as I don't think any of the Christian denominations have the picture exactly right) is the only religion based totally and completely on the fact that God is love and only love. All other religions serve their gods. I worship my God because He serves me.


Whoa, buddy. Now I hope that you do come back and read this, because the world religions lesson I'm about to give you is going to be great. I'll PM this to you, also, but I'm throwing it up here to teach anyone else who is more abashed about his/her own ignorance. I'll also be covering philosophy a bit in this lecture, and though my opinions are my own, I suggest you take notes.

First, though, we'll analyze what you have to say.


My religion leads me to faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ and to everlasting paradise with Him. When I die, I will be in heaven equally with all the saved, there is one level of heaven. I will also not be reincarnated.

The first sentence I am going to take as a parochial approach to your most excellent religion. Faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ is the path. Understanding some higher Truth and achieving the state of eternal bliss that is heaven.

Now by saying that when YOU die, you will be in heaven equally with all the saved is suggesting that my religion has some sort of hierarchical approach. Now, Hinduism is a very varied religion that has no central doctrinal requirements, which suggests that many paths lead to the same end. No major thread, though, says anything about a hierarchical heaven. So wherever you read that, it's orientalist and wrong.

Now my favorite line though is, "I will also not be reincarnated." You speak of this as if it is the one defining characteristic of my religion. Reincarnation. Fun. That's it. That's the whole shebang. Five thousand years and that's all we came up with. I believe that you also used it as a way to show that you know more about my religion than I know about yours. I would disagree very, very much.

You see, here's what reincarnation is. It means that you don't go to Heaven until you UNDERSTAND. So I believe I won't go to Heaven until I understand whatever it is there is to understand. That's my take on it, and believing so is perhaps a motivation to seek such understanding. Now that I have that motivation, I can follow along with lots of societal constructs and a good deal of introspection to help myself along the way. You see, I still want to get to Heaven. I still want to comprehend God.

Oh, and by the way, you don't know that you won't be reincarnated. Why? Because you haven't yet died. Actually, I don't know that I will. Why? Because I haven't yet died. It's really quite simple.

Also, I am not in service to my God because I must and He will strike me down if I don't. I worship Him wholly because I know that He has given me everything I have. Of all the world religions, Christianity (at least as I see it, as I don't think any of the Christian denominations have the picture exactly right) is the only religion based totally and completely on the fact that God is love and only love. All other religions serve their gods. I worship my God because He serves me.

NOW WHERE DID THIS COME FROM? From your vast knowledge of world religions? Perhaps I should look into YOUR library to find out a little bit more about my religion. Let's start with Christianity's fellow Western religions. These are Islam and Judaism (I consider Islam 'Western' because it shares texts with the other two and is part of the same Judeo-Christian heritage). Now, last time I checked, Judaism and Islam weren't based on God's wrath. Well, at least, not any more than Christianity. I will refer you to Puritanical sermons to hear all about how God will strike you down because you are evil and hated. I will also send you to your own religious references, in which it is clearly stated that certain practices are abominable and point to a disrespect for God: That disrespect, in turn, is deserving of death. Apparently, you believe that God said this. If He did, then boy, he sure sounds wrathful to me. You better be scared.

Now, it is highly debatable whether all of Christianity believes that God is love and only love. My remarks above suggest that He has other aspects to Him, as interpreted by Christianity.

Now, of course, your remarks were more meant to say that Hinduism, a pagan and barbaric religion, is based on idolatrous worship of statues, upon arcane rituals, and upon this idea that 'gods' will come down and show their wrath. This, my friend, is called Orientalism, and sadly misses the beauty and complexity of my preferred religion, a religion of subtlety and variety. It especially misses the philosophical bhakti tradition, which emphasizes universality of belief.

Now, if you cite the Bhagavad Gita, as I will now:

"ye tu sarvani karmani mayi sannyasya mat-parah
ananyenaiva yogena mam dhyayanta upasate
tesam aham samuddharta mrtyu-samsara-sagarat
bhavami na cirat partha mayy avesita-cetasam"

"But those who surrendering all activities unto Me, being attached to Me, meditating on Me with exlusvie worship by the science of uniting the individual consciousness with the Ultimate Consciousness in devotion; O Arjuna, of these persons whose minds are absorbed in thoughts of Me, I become their deliverer without delay from the ocean of death in the material existence."

I pray not out of fear of God. I pray to attain the Ultimate Truth...To be saved. Actually, in practicality, I also pray to thank God for all the things that I have been given, because nothing can occur without being in accordance with God's Will (in the opinion of my religion and me).

You say that 'all other religions serve their gods.' First, I take offense to the idea that different religions have different gods. It can be assumed that, if you believe in God, you believe that some singular entity (or group of entities) created the universe. Even if I my approach to worship is wrong, God is God. There aren't different gods. Hinduism doesn't have a God who produces Hindus. It doesn't work like that. Religion is a human development.

Now, let's get to the meat of this statement. And what a statement it is. Now, you don't serve your God? I mean, clearly, you don't give Him strawberries on a silver platter. Neither do I, in anything but a metaphorical sense. You do worship, that is YOUR way of serving God. It is also my way of serving God, it's about all I can do. Yes, my religion teaches that one should dedicate his activities to God and should follow some moral path.

Of course, you most certainly don't worship your God only because He serves you. If you do, that's very capitalist of you. So, if suddenly your life went to crap, you'd say "God, you're not serving me well. I'm not going to pray as much." Probably not. You worship God because He is Ultimate in your view. Same here. Your statement has no support in central doctrinaire to Christianity. None whatsoever. Christians speak all the time about serving God in whatever means they can.

Really, I'm having a difficult time arguing with you, because you're making things like serving God sound like backward and strange...You're trying to put me on the defensive about serving God. You're spouting nonsense and I thought I was angry because you were being stereotypical. No, what you're saying is fine. Yes, most religions do mention serving God. One of those is Christianity. What I don't like is that you're making claims to Christianity's greatness based on inscrutable reasoning, or lack thereof. Now to some more of that:

I don't quite know what this has to do with believing that God is pure love. I believe that God is everything. You, me, everything in the universe. That is part of God. Now, somehow this precludes me from worshipping God because I believe God loves me and because I wish to thank God for his grace? I doubt that. So that really didn't make much sense on your part to argue.

In the many complex facets of the incomprehensible God, Hinduism certainly considers love as one of them.

[themadchemist]

(continued, due to length)

You noted that all religions aren't the same. Please tell me when I said they were. They are different, very different, influenced by societal constructs. There can't be just one road to God, I would think, because it seems pretty unloving of a loving God to forsake all those born before the birth of Christ. And, as the Christian poet Dante asks of the divine Eagle in the Sphere of Jupiter in Heaven, what of those who live on the banks of the Indus, who have never heard the name of Christ? Indeed, God's creation is so complex that it is hard to believe that spiritual understanding comes one-size-fits-all.

Committing yourself to one book and believing that there is nothing else seems somehow limiting. I would argue that different people can approach this problem of what is the Truth in different ways. Hinduism helps me, because I am grounded within a certain cultural conditioning. It also suits my way of thinking well. Christianity works for you.

I would note that even Christ was influenced by other teachings. There is record that for a brief period, Christ was not present in Israel. During the same period, Buddhist monks' records note the appearance of an angelic-looking, pale-faced stranger, who came to study with them. Christ's teachings, so this research states, were altered by Buddhist influence and the difference can be seen between before and after the departure.


So, religions are a little more similar than perhaps one might have thought? They are syncretic, adopting practices and beliefs from all over. And they all have the same fundamental truths, about being moral, just, and kind, and about loving one's fellow man, and about loving and honoring God. The specifics are different, the representations of God are different, and God's earthly representatives are different. But if you look at how each one of those prophets operated, the similarities are astonishing.

I'm very tired and your post is very frustrating. It makes no sense. I don't think you understand Christianity and I know you don't understand any other religion. You're trying to claim superiority through unique characteristics to which Christianity either does not conform or does not conform alone.

[ColoJohnBoy]

Originally posted by MacAztec
If I want to go out to a party, I want to go with other straight guys. I don't want a gay guy to get drunk and try to do something to me or another straight guy.

You know what I mean? I just wouldn't feel comfortable.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! That's funny.
You have an awfully high opinion of your powers of attraction. But given your attitude, I can guarantee you're not my type.

Originally posted by stoid
Hey, have any of you ever touched your Bibles?

Yes, as a matter of fact, I have. As a matter of fact, I've read five different versions of the bible.
-New International Version (2x)
-King James Version (3x)
-The American Standard Version (1x)
-The Vulgate of St. Jerome, Douay-Rheims English (1x)
-Good News Translation (1x)

Before taking the Bible as the absolute and final word of God, you need to realize one extremely important point: The bible is a human book. Yes, it was interpreted, translated, and sometimes misrepresented by people like you and me.

You quoted the New International Version. But guess what? The NIV is a translation of a translation of a translation of a translation of the few select gospels that St. Jerome was allowed access to, and even then only those he felt appropriately taught the principles he believed in as a follower of the Antioch catholics, catholics who managed to draw the ire of the Bishop of Rome (later known as Pope) by advocating radical extremist doctrines.

What I'm saying is that when you read the Bible, and feel compelled in whatever capacity to impose its teaching on others, understand where it came from, the true nature of the words you have read.

Let's assume, though, that you are a person that doesn't bother to do this. Let's look at the Book of Leviticus. If we're going to heed that law, we might as well heed the others. Like Leviticus 11:1-12, where all unclean animals are forbidden as food, including rabbits, pigs, and shellfish, such as oysters, shrimp, lobsters, crabs, clams, and others that are called an "abomination."_ Leviticus 12:1-8 declares that a woman is unclean for 33 days after giving birth to a boy and for 66 days after giving birth to a girl and goes on to demand that certain animals must be offered as a burnt offering and a sin offering for cleansing. Leviticus 18:19 forbids a husband from having sex with his wife during her menstrual period._ Leviticus 19:19 forbids mixed breeding of_ various kinds of cattle, sowing various kinds of seeds in your field or wearing "a garment made from two kinds of material mixed together."_ Leviticus 19:27 demands that "you shall not round off the side-growth of your heads, nor harm the edges of your beard." The next verse forbids "tattoo marks on yourself."

As for Romans... well, Paul's writings have been taken out of context and twisted to punish and oppress every identifiable minority in the world: Jews, children, women, blacks, slaves, politicians, divorced people, convicts, pro choice people, lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transsexuals, religious reformers, the mentally ill, and the list could go on and on._ Paul is often difficult and confusing to understand._ A lot of Paul's writing is very difficult to translate._ Since most of his letters were written in response to news from other people, reading Paul can be like listening to one side of a telephone conversation._ We know, or think we know, what Paul is saying, but we have to guess what the other side has said._ As 2 Peter 3:16-18 points out, we have to be on guard against using Paul's writings in unhealthy and destructive ways.

Before you use the Bible to condemn other people, before you tell them that they are wrong, that they born with this sin absolutely inherent, study it, study everything about it, and realize that it may not have the levity you think it has.

Originally posted by iJon
and i have never heard any preacher come out and say that or not welcome a gay person into the church.

Have you ever been to my church? Well, formerly my church. It was my church until my bishop (I'm LDS, Mormon) learned that I was gay, that I was sexually active, and that I was "unrepentant", and told me I was no longer welcome at services there. It certainly isn't representative of every church or every preacher everywhere, but it does happen.

Originally posted by Dippo
we shouldn't condone people's bad behavior which includes sex with the same sex (or anyone/thing else that we are not married to)

Perhaps we shouldn't condone, but we do need to accept that another person's bad behavior is his own, it is his choice, and that, though we may disagree with and indeed find it abominable, we must accept its existence, accept that it is not ours to judge nor control, and live our lives and only our own lives according to the dictates that we as individuals see fit.

In essence, I won't make you live a gay lifestyle or subject you to it, so long as you don't force me to live a Christian lifestyle, and subject me to it.

[MrMacMan]

Originally posted by paulwhannel
www.godhatesfags.com

evil, thy name is fred phelps.

paul

Ah man...

I have a question... they have a 'memorial page' for the gay people who were killed... and then on a page remembering a person 'who was sodomized to death' they quote "Tho Shall Not Kill"

How can you praise someone for killing a homosexual... and yet say stuff like 'killing is wrong'.

Originally posted by stoid
EXACTLY!!

God hates evil and sin, but He loves and still gave His only son to die for those sins so that everyone could live in eternal paradise with Him.
Which is worse?
Living in "sin" (not saying that it is a sin to be homeosexual) or killing a person?

I thought "G-D" Doesn't use the word hate, that is since its such a strong word.

Argument "G-d loves everyone, execpt when you break the rules... then YOU ARE GOING TO HELL"... it baffles me.

I read the Old Testament... (torah) yet somehow I am able to accecpt that things like Slavery were accecpted back in Jesus' day and Moses', but does that make it OK?

Originally posted by MacAztec
If I want to go out to a party, I want to go with other straight guys. I don't want a gay guy to get drunk and try to do something to me or another straight guy.

You know what I mean? I just wouldn't feel comfortable.
Then just don't go to a gay bar... :rolleyes:

Originally posted by stoid
My faith is based on the Bible, and my argument for the Bible's infallibility is that the God I believe in is almighty and all powerful. I believe that He would not allow for His Word to be changed to the point at which it's testimony is false. Since He is all powerful, it is certainly well within His power to control that.
How do you account for the fact that their are hundreds of different versions of the Bible?

How's that if G-D is do All Powerful he doesn't give me a message, like a prophet (my name is Jeremiah...) and I can go and preach that Homeosexuality is a sin?

Or how about this, why couldn't G-d just kill all homeosexual people? Why not? Why not stop 9/11 or other bloody wars?

Faith, faith is questionable. Faith must be able to change, faith must answer these claims.

Originally posted by tofi
GAys are against the human nature
...
all gays just wake up
First... its YOUR interpretation of the bible.

I can pull out a passage which has no meaning and then say "HA, this PROVES my Point !"... but that would be a Load of BS.

Originally posted by whocares
You don't have a Bible? Hell that's worse than being gay :eek: :rolleyes: :p :p :p

Cheap shot. I'm sorry ;)

Errrrr.
Thanks for killing off every other religion there...

Where does G-D say that? Judaism, Islam... Hindu ... errrr.

Originally posted by Dippo
1 Corinthians 6:9
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders


Tell me, back in ancient text there was a word for 'homeosexual offenders' geez, I never knew god was so specific. Thats what I mean when it have been interpreted. It could have meant something different, it could have meant something else. (Is pedophile wrong in the bible? I never saw a reference, but I sure hope it is.)


The Bible was never a 'black and white' text, did G-D send down a book, and that book's name was "The Bible" (by G-d).


As for the ROM 1:27 Quote... bah!
'And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. '
I like the wording... "Natural use of the woman"... Gotta love how G-d views women as tools... SOMETHING SOCIETY HAS CHANGED OVER THE LAST 2000 YEARS!!

--MrMacMan-- [Love the Debate, Hate the Debate]

[Dippo]

Originally posted by MrMacman
As for the ROM 1:27 Quote... bah!
'And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. '

Thanks, I was looking for that reference.
Here it is in the NIV:

Romans 1:27
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Here's another:

Romans 1:26
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.

[Edot]

I find it very puzzling that so many people claim to base their beliefs and decisions off of an extremely old book of outrageous stories and tales. The #1 authority of many of these people is not the Bible. It is the government in which you have agreed in a contract with the others around you to obey an overwhelming power. Many people decisions are based on laws formed by the people themselves, and not only the people before them. This is one reason that I don't understand why the constitution has not been re-written or amended entirely. Times change, people change, ideas change, so the way people live there lives must also change if we are to survive. I believe that we are moving in the direction of believing in ourselves as a method of deciding what things are right and wrong, and not a supernatural being that is fabled in stories. This transition mostly been made if you look at the government of this country and throughout the world. Not all countries have agreed with this and are still so unstable that people fear for there lives, and seem to be in a "state of nature". I am not saying that our country is one that does not have qualities of the "state of nature", but I believe that we have realized a way to escape that state. The government may have qualities of todays religion, but it also is unique to a point that I believe makes it a superior choice to base the way we live our lives.

I don't want people to think I am condoning religion or saying that it does not have a place in our lives, but I think that the acceptance and practice of religion is not one that is conscious or justified. It seems to me that the acceptance and practice of religion is usually the product of a naive child that is reliant of his or her parents for knowledge about how to survive. When you are young you regurgitate what your parents tell you, and an example is communication and language. This reliance of youth seems to explain the reason that religion and certain customs have lasted so long, especially when some people practicing them have realized that they do not believe what they are doing is right.

I think everyone should take a philosophy course so you can see different ways of looking at different questions, and to develop methods of thinking of different views and conclusions on different subjects. There are a lot of things that have not yet been accepted by the majority of the people as a justification of why things are the way they are. Religion and ethics are some of those that still provoke huge amounts of thought and ideas. Maybe instead of deciding which things are right and wrong we should work to develop a method of deciding what is right and wrong that everyone can agree on. I think that we are working towards that with government, but much still has yet to be done.

Just my thoughts. Nice to see this discussion has been carried out with respect and tolerance for all ideas.

[Dippo]

Originally posted by Edot
I think everyone should take a philosophy course so you can see different ways of looking at different questions, and to develop methods of thinking of different views and conclusions on different subjects.

I took my philosophy courses in college, and it came to only strengthen my beliefs in God and Christ.

Originally posted by Edot

we should work to develop a method of deciding what is right and wrong that everyone can agree on.

As nice as that would be, we probably couldn't get everybody to agree that grass is green, much less something controversial.

[virividox]

every once in a while a topic like this comes and up stirs up a big hornets nets, i dnt think they will ever figure out a real answer, but i know the real motive behind this kind of thread, it allows people to boost their post count
hahahah

[Dippo]

Originally posted by virividox
every once in a while a topic like this comes and up stirs up a big hornets nets, i dnt think they will ever figure out a real answer, but i know the real motive behind this kind of thread, it allows people to boost their post count
hahahah

You think that is this was the case, then people would use less words. Not that I am complaining :p

[encro]

Originally posted by revenuee
sorry ... i'm 19 ... and i've spent the last 13 years in catholic schools where "the word" was jammed down my throat, and i had to listen to the constant sermonizing of teachers and priests and older relatives ... It's made me very jaded toward religion.

ditto, except I'm 27, Uniting Church and still feel the same way as you Revenuee.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Originally posted by MacAztec
If I want to go out to a party, I want to go with other straight guys. I don't want a gay guy to get drunk and try to do something to me or another straight guy.

You know what I mean? I just wouldn't feel comfortable.

I think you may have been reading too many Penthouse Forums or something along that line.

This as much like saying a drunk straight guy will try to do something to a woman that she doesn't want.

And how do you know that you've never been out drinking with a gay guy? It's not like gays are tattooed or forced to wear triangles any more.

[kettle]

Originally posted by Edot
Maybe instead of deciding which things are right and wrong we should work to develop a method of deciding what is right and wrong that everyone can agree on.

Ha Ha!

I'm not contributing to a load of "self certificated know it alls" to sit around for the remaining part of the human race, just in case thet stummble upon the answer to a problem that makes us what we are. We are because if we don't like it we destroy it. The Human will die trying to win, there is no compromise except for a slow decline into a degenerate mess of sub species.

Stop trying to fight it and kill it.

Of course I'm not that brave and would prefer the slower, relatively less painful death.

I vote compromise and cooperation just like Seaseme Street taught me.:)

see you all in hell:p

[Chip NoVaMac]

Originally posted by stoid
My faith is based on the Bible, and my argument for the Bible's infallibility is that the God I believe in is almighty and all powerful. I believe that He would not allow for His Word to be changed to the point at which it's testimony is false. Since He is all powerful, it is certainly well within His power to control that.

But does not the Bible support the notion of slaves?

Did not people use the Bible to deny "mixed race" marriages?

Don't get me wrong; Faith is a wonderful thing. It seems to the only thing that keeps the world from going into total chaos.

Yet blind faith is dangerous. Witness the death and destruction that have been done under God's name. And that is the new light of day were misguided and far from God's word and love.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
If evolution breeded out homosexuals there would be none left. Homosexuality has been around for millenia.

Try again.

You raise a good point. There are those that feel Homosexuality is a learned behavior. Science is showing that it much deeper than that. Homosexuality has been shown to exist within most any species of mammal.

There are two levels of Homosexuality. The "natural" as defined by ones genes. And the "situational" Homosexual. That being when men or women are placed in a long term "isolation" with each the need for sexual release may open ones self up to the person at hand (prison, boarding schools, and the such).

It raises the question of what sort of God do we have. If AIDS is God' punishment to gays and drug abusers; why does he want to punish those that these "sinners" love? Why would God want to punish the wife of closeted man that has Homosexual sex, gets AIDS and passes it on to his wife?

Murder is wrong under God's eye, and under the law. But for someone that is suffering a serious psychotic defect, and kills someone. What sort of God allows some one to be denied their free will to choose what is right and wrong to take away one of his other Children?

[Chip NoVaMac]

Originally posted by whocares

I was baptised a Roman Catholic, but now consider myself to be an atheist. I 'converted' if you like because of what my experience taught me.

I too was Baptized within the Roman Catholic Church. Yet if you are like me that choice was made by my parents, God parents, and the Church; at an age that I did not have a choice.

Fast forward to my early 20's. I lived in a gay "enclave" in DC. Fitting since I am gay. There were many churches in the area. One church was based on basic Christian beliefs of doing what was right for God and His children. Right or wrong they looked at the Bible as both God's word, and man's attempt during the 2000+ years to fit man's own needs.

I choose to be Baptized within that church. Accepting Jesus as my Savior. Knowing that He died for my sins. Knowing that if I took and try to live my God's loving words that I might find a place in Heaven.

As Catholics you and I were taught to go to church every Sunday. Yet is it not wrong in God's eyes to go to church when our hearts and mind are not open to His word?

[Chip NoVaMac]

Originally posted by coopdog
Hey it's Shrek! :p

I can't believe what some people (you) believe. I think that the bible is no more true or factual than a book of fictionalized stories like "tall tales" or urban myths.

None of the bible's extraordinary stories have EVER been proved or reproduced. Why aren't there any people walking on water or parting seas today?

The way I see it:
Back then things traveled by word of mouth, no cell phones, IMs, video or pictures. So some followers of Jesus see Jesus walking on a mirage. So, "It looked just like Jesus was walking on water!" After it goes from one person to another it turns into "Jesus was walking on water!" Then it get gets marked down in the Bible as Jesus walked on water. I believe that EVERY extraordinary thing in the bible was based on fact and then by word of mouth was made into an extraordinary long story. How is this any different then urban myths?!

It's human nature to exaggerate things. Just like the cliché "the fish was this big." I think this would happen even more/faster if you believed that the person that it was about was the son of god or your savior.

I could never base any aspect about my life on something like religion. I have NO idea how people can base their lives around religion and especially kill themselves or others for a god they can't see.

Religion has motivated more killings then ANY other thing EVER.

More importantly you have to look at the times. People had little education other than the skills to provide food and shelter. Since the common factor that the people of the time were willing accept was Faith, it was easier for the more "educated" to tie religious beliefs with the basic laws and desires for the time.

If you look at the Jewish custom of the kosher cooking, these can be looked at early food handling laws that govern our restaurants today.

One can look at the prescriptions against Homosexuality as being a way to ensure the survival of the population. War, disease, famine, and the lack of healthcare led to a very short life span for most. The people in charge of the government saw that to keep the population strong, needed to assure that man and woman procreated. Homosexuality went against that need.

Today with the over population in the world this is one worry that we don't have.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Originally posted by virividox
every once in a while a topic like this comes and up stirs up a big hornets nets, i dnt think they will ever figure out a real answer, but i know the real motive behind this kind of thread, it allows people to boost their post count
hahahah

I didn't even know about the post count (being a newbie here). I enjoy occasional threads like this for what I do learn about each others perspectives. And sometimes there is a good education to be had (thanks themadchemist).

I do apologize for the number of posts grouped together. I came into this late, and tried to answer only those posts that i felt that I had something to add.

[mkaake]

Originally posted by coopdog

Jeez this kind of thing pisses me off.
I wonder if his church tought him this.

makes me mad too...

any real church that reads the bible didn't teach him that - what they would have taught him is that homosexuality is wrong but God loves us all anyways...

of course, a church that is actually willing to stand up and state their position on homosexuality is rare, and half of those that do condone it...

matt

[mkaake]

Originally posted by Chip NoVaMac
But does not the Bible support the notion of slaves?

Did not people use the Bible to deny "mixed race" marriages?

Don't get me wrong; Faith is a wonderful thing. It seems to the only thing that keeps the world from going into total chaos.

Yet blind faith is dangerous. Witness the death and destruction that have been done under God's name. And that is the new light of day were misguided and far from God's word and love.

1. the bible does not support the notion of slaves
2. people who use the bible to deny mixed race marriages don't read the bible very carefully. what it says is about mixing yoke, which reffers to marrying non-christians. the race thing is ridiculous for anyone who says they are a christian to argue - we're all from one seed (adam)... i could go on and on and on, but i'm short on time


matt

[mkaake]

Originally posted by coopdog
Hey it's Shrek! :p

I can't believe what some people (you) believe. I think that the bible is no more true or factual than a book of fictionalized stories like "tall tales" or urban myths.

None of the bible's extraordinary stories have EVER been proved or reproduced. Why aren't there any people walking on water or parting seas today?

The way I see it:
Back then things traveled by word of mouth, no cell phones, IMs, video or pictures. So some followers of Jesus see Jesus walking on a mirage. So, "It looked just like Jesus was walking on water!" After it goes from one person to another it turns into "Jesus was walking on water!" Then it get gets marked down in the Bible as Jesus walked on water. I believe that EVERY extraordinary thing in the bible was based on fact and then by word of mouth was made into an extraordinary long story. How is this any different then urban myths?!

It's human nature to exaggerate things. Just like the cliché "the fish was this big." I think this would happen even more/faster if you believed that the person that it was about was the son of god or your savior.

I could never base any aspect about my life on something like religion. I have NO idea how people can base their lives around religion and especially kill themselves or others for a god they can't see.

Religion has motivated more killings then ANY other thing EVER.

blah... where to start. it's pretty sad (for me) to see people who think like this, cause i understand why you do - for too long christians haven't been teaching the bible, they've been reading it. instead of showing modern science where it fits in with God's word, we turn a blind eye and say, oh, well, just believe! and that doesn't cut it.

now, to actually look at what you've said here:
"I can't believe what some people (you) believe. I think that the bible is no more true or factual than a book of fictionalized stories like "tall tales" or urban myths."

first of all, i think it's important to note that nothing has ever been disproven about the bible. in fact, people who have gone to try to disprove it have only found evidence to the contrary and converted.
in fact, there's been plenty of evidence to the contrary (things like a flood...), but that sort of thing is often not front page news (cause we're getting to the point in society where most people don't want to believe the bible is true)
third - miracles like walking on water aren't re-created because they were miracles... :rolleyes:

"None of the bible's extraordinary stories have EVER been proved or reproduced. Why aren't there any people walking on water or parting seas today? "
1) See above.
2) how many groups of tens of thousands of Godly people are being chased by a dictator who is keeping them in slavery that suddenly have found themselves trapped between a big sea and an army? *cough*

again, there's tons of room for people to doubt the bible, cause the church hasn't stepped up and had the balls to show poeple that the bible does fit in with science, and is actually a great reference for science, anthropology, and the like. and since we don't do that (and most churches still don't), how can we expect people to ever see the bible as anything more than bedtime stories?

now my daughter, even though she is only 4, will grow up knowing why the bible is true, how it's been proved, and will also know where people have claimed the bible is false (and where their arguments fall apart).

matt

[mkaake]

Originally posted by pooky
And you know this how? Have you been talking to him? Seems a bit arrogant of any human to assume to know what God thinks/likes/hates/wants. Who the hell are you (not you specifically, you meaning anyone who says such things) to tell anyone what God thinks or wants?

first off, sorry everyone, i'm working backwards through this post...

while i'm not the one who posted what you replied to, the answer would most likely be yes - we talk to him through prayer, and he responds mainly through the bible...

and there are things that are very very very clearly pointed out in the bible - like the fact that he loves us all despite our sins...

[mkaake]

Originally posted by whocares
But you do believe the Earth is round, right?
That it may be a couple of bilion years old, the the Earth isn't the center of the Universe, and that mankind is/descends from some primate. (I know this last point is widely debated in the US, but not accepting the possibility of evolution is being narrow-minded, just like not accepting gay people.)

This in itself clearly shows that the Bible is not infaillable, but please continue reading. By infaillable I mean that it represents -amongst other things, the knowledge and beliefs of when it was written. <snip>

hmm... well christians shouldn't be closed minded - we should be able to look at you and tell you why evolution is false. there are very many chrisitans out there who make their living out of researching evolution (they just don't believe it's true, and as time goes on, they give us more reasons why it isn't true).

and we should 'accept' gay people, but we're not supposed to 'accept' their lifestyle - it's wrong...

anyhew, you guys should check out answersingenisis.org if you wonder why we don't believe evolution... and they have some good ones on what's wrong with homosexuality... http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tj_v9n1_homosex.asp

matt

<edit>

forgot your other point - the bible doesn't represent the thoughts and beliefs of the time it was written - it represents the the thoughts and beliefs of God - his laws. it was inspired by him and written by those he choose...

matt

p.s. there are books of the bible (read: psalms) that are the thoughts of the author, reflecting on what God has done in his life...

[mkaake]

there seems to be a lot of confusion floating around in this thread... people who think one thing or another about a religion and how they think/believe.

i really recommend that if you're going to have such a passion in your arguments that you research what you're so fed up about and don't believe - it'll allow you to have better arguments, and you may learn a thing or two.

personally, i'd start off at answers in gensis... they (in my mind) do the best job of aknowledging the churh's lack of attention to science, and do the best job of picking up the ball and showing where science and the bible line up (and they line up perfectly...)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

you can search, and it'll brush up on a lot of topics, from the big bang, to evolution, to homosexuality, etc. it also lists the 20 most common questions about the validity of teh bible (like where cain's wife came from). very good site...

anyhew, its always a good idea to research before you get really fired up about something... and starting off at the right resources is important...

matt

[Roger1]

Boy, this thread has heated up. I've even been accused of being arrogant. (me??) Anyway, I will keep this post short, since my last post dissapeared somehow (IE6 on a pc-choked on the submit button) Anyway, I know it says somewhere in the bible that God loves us-ALL of us-but he hates sin. I will look for the passages about God loving us and hating sin. When I find it, I will post it. :)

[iMeowbot]

Originally posted by Dippo
I guess homosexuality is not genetic then?

Honestly, no one really knows where it comes from. It's known from identical twin studies that if one twin is gay, it's much more likely that the other twin will also be gay than compared with the population at large; so it's likely that DNA at least influences it. It's not a 100% correspondence, so clearly there are other factors too. No one really knows if those other factors are slight differences in early growth and development, environment, or something else that hasn't been looked into. It's the uncertainty about where it comes from that leads to long silly threads like this one :)

[revenuee]

As i see it ... Christianity ended when Constantine made it the official Religion of Rome.

It fell to hell (pardon the pun) and we see the reformation.

Now we have dozens of "christian" divisions (Catholic, Lutheran, Mormon) arguing over who's got the right idea for salvation.

For the argument with quotes from the old testament ... i think your missing a very important factor ... Christian based faiths are based on the new testament that is what is meant to be considered truth in the eyes of christians ... the old testament was meant to be treated as a moral guide ...

The old testament is used by Jewish devisions as a guide - Torah or Talmud ... and even then only the Orthodox Jews follow it strictly ... the rest (conservative, reform, reconstructive) use it as a moral guide and traditions.

[Roger1]

Originally posted by TommyLee
I never go to church.- It sucks.

Maybe you just need to find a church you like? Iwent (off and on) to church with my wife for years and never "got it" (she's catholic). One day my friend and his wife invited me to their church, and I now "get it". And I enjoy it.

Just a thought :)

[coopdog]

I think this thread will be closed down soon. ;)

[SiliconAddict]

What!?!? Didn't you read your Bible close enough?!?!

It says:
God loves everyone*


* except gays and those who fall outside the parameters of what is socially acceptable.

Religion can be a wonderful life affirming thing and a colossal mess in the same 30 second period. How many slaughters throughout history have been done in the name God or a God (Pick your religion.) Ya know 6 months ago I was at the MN zoo and found the someone had gone around sticking 6 page Christian propaganda flyers around on everyone’s car. (When I say propaganda I really mean it. There was stuff in there that REALLY scared the piss out of me. Stuff I’ve NEVER heard.) I spent ½ hour picking that crap up from people’s cars/trucks/etc. Later on I was at the mall, came out and found some of the same people distributing the same exact crap onto the cars there. I basicly told him what I did earlier and told him to stop spamming people’s freaking cars. His response: I was doing Satan’s work and I’m going to burn in hell for it. So much for loving thy neighbor as thy self. I was more then a little shocked that a Christian would have the audacity to say such a thing simply because I don’t feel the need to force feed some weird version of Christianity down someone’s throat.

I came to realize one thing. Bible thumpers use the burning in Hell excuse just as bush uses 9|11. As a way to push their agenda. Telling someone they are going to burn in Hell is just as easy as telling someone to **** off.
Moral of the story? Take it with a grain of salt.

[iGav]

I really don't see the problem with Homosexuality myself...

But I'm tolerant and accepting of every persons rightful decision to lead the life they want to lead as long as it doesn't harm or hurt others, without fear of being discriminated against, marginalised or condemned for who they are.

Variety is the spice of life and all.... ;)

[Roger1]

Originally posted by SiliconAddict

I came to realize one thing. Bible thumpers use the burning in Hell excuse just as bush uses 9|11. As a way to push their agenda. Telling someone they are going to burn in Hell is just as easy as telling someone to **** off.
Moral of the story? Take it with a grain of salt.

Oh, boy. Now we have politics mixed in. Any minute now people.
:D

[iGav]

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
I was doing Satan’s work and I’m going to burn in hell for it. So much for loving thy neighbor as thy self. I was more then a little shocked that a Christian would have the audacity to say such a thing simply because I don’t feel the need to force feed some weird version of Christianity down someone’s throat.

unreal... :rolleyes:

I've had those door-to-door salesmen/and women that feel the need to sell their religion like Avon ladies, call me a sinner to my face, on my own doorstep... and they don't even know me... I must just have one of those faces... heheheheh

[kettle]

Originally posted by coopdog
I think this thread will be closed down soon. ;)

best make the most of it with another couple of pointless posts. :)

-daddy?
--yes son...
-where do babies come from?
--...ask your father.

he he:p

[SiliconAddict]

Originally posted by Roger1
Oh, boy. Now we have politics mixed in. Any minute now people.
:D

It’s a legitimate analogy. Many if not all of Bush’s policies are based off of the results of 9|11. If 9|11 didn’t happen there wouldn’t be a war in Iraq, if 9|11 didn’t happen there wouldn’t be such high security in the airport, and on and on.

Similarly saying that one is going to burn in Hell pushes an agenda that if you are X or if you don’t do Y you are going to be in agony for eternity.

This isn’t a jump to politics it’s a comparison of practices.

[revenuee]

Originally posted by iGAV
unreal... :rolleyes:

I've had those door-to-door salesmen/and women that feel the need to sell their religion like Avon ladies, call me a sinner to my face, on my own doorstep... and they don't even know me... I must just have one of those faces... heheheheh

"Insult me that'll get me to convert" ... LOL

[kettle]

I honestly think the worst is over...
you know what, this thread may just make it through the night.:)

[iGav]

Originally posted by revenuee
"Insult me that'll get me to convert" ... LOL

the door-to-door type are the most scary...

My last retort when it happened (and it was awhile ago, cos' I haven't opened the door to them in a long time, because I don't want to waste the oil on my door hinges) was...

"if it's a choice of going to Heaven and listening to that harp crap or going to hell and rocking with Jimi, then I'll see you all in the red room..."

Then I slowly closed the door, slamming isn't good... it ruins the effect. ;)

[whocares]

Originally posted by mkaake
hmm... well christians shouldn't be closed minded - we should be able to look at you and tell you why evolution is false. there are very many chrisitans out there who make their living out of researching evolution (they just don't believe it's true, and as time goes on, they give us more reasons why it isn't true).

It's not about believing evolution from a Darwinistic point of view is true, it's about accepting thet genesis and the bible are/may be wrong.

Research is all about comming up with hypothesis is then conforming them or not through experimentation. Prooving evolution to be a wrong hypothesis DOES NOT, and I stress does not, proove the hypothesis of genesis and the bible to be right.

There is a lot of scientific evidence out there that takes a massive bite out of the credibility of genesis. Just accept it! However it doesn't affect what it represents...

I'm not going to point out links to such evidence because there's just so much of it. Try a first year university course in biology, geology or molecular biology/genetics. There is some pretty strong evidence that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, that humans and chimpazees share a lot of DNA, the whole of mankind can't descend from A&E (we would be real retards by now!), etc, etc, etc...

If you have some strong, circumstanciated (sp?) and impartial (ie independant) evidence of the correctness of genesis/bible, I'd be more than pleased to considered it. Until then, I'm sticking with Science.

[whocares]

From the www.answersingenesis.org (http://www.answersingenesis.org/) website:

Answers in Genesis is a Christian apologetics ministry that equips the church to uphold the authority of the Bible from the very first verse. The thousands of articles and media programs on this site answer questions about creation/evolution, dinosaurs, and much more.

This clearly states its total lack of objectivity IMHO.

People who believe something is so infaillably true loose all scientific credibility and thus research they might produce also looses credibility.
Science is about open-mindness and above all accepting that previous knowledge may be wrong and continuously challenge it. Bible and Science DO NOT mix. The bible is all about in believing every word of something even if it's been prooven wrong whereas science is about believe nothing until it's prooven true (to the extent of available knowledge and understanding).

[Fukui]

Originally posted by revenuee
As i see it ... Christianity ended when Constantine made it the official Religion of Rome.

It fell to hell (pardon the pun) and we see the reformation.

.....

Yea, I agree.


The old testament is used by Jewish devisions as a guide - Torah or Talmud ... and even then only the Orthodox Jews follow it strictly ... the rest (conservative, reform, reconstructive) use it as a moral guide and traditions.

Well, when you realize that Jesus' philosophy directly contradicted the ideas etc. of the tora, I wonder why they are even in the same book...

[revenuee]

Originally posted by Fukui

Well, when you realize that Jesus' philosophy directly contradicted the ideas etc. of the tora, I wonder why they are even in the same book...

You kinda need the old testament to understand why there was a need for a Messiah ... In school i was taught to treat it a forward to the story.

[Fukui]

Originally posted by revenuee
You kinda need the old testament to understand why there was a need for a Messiah ... In school i was taught to treat it a forward to the story.
Well, I understand that point.

But personally, for me, I don't remember anywhere Jesus claming he was a messiah...I'm not trying to flame...:(

[rainman::|:|]

Originally posted by whocares
People who believe something is so infaillably true loose all scientific credibility and thus research they might produce also looses credibility.
Science is about open-mindness and above all accepting that previous knowledge may be wrong and continuously challenge it. Bible and Science DO NOT mix. The bible is all about in believing every word of something even if it's been prooven wrong whereas science is about believe nothing until it's prooven true (to the extent of available knowledge and understanding).

You are exactly right. If you're going to believe the bible, fine, don't try and back it up with science-- you'll come out looking like a fool (like saying that god created the earth 6,000 years ago, despite all scientific proof that that cannot be the case). i've only heard one viable argument to combine science and the bible, and it involved completely rewriting the bible to comply with science. in which case, why bother.

i wish people would just realize that if you claim that the bible is literal, you're going to be at a rather massive disadvantage in any relating argument, because you're arguing faith against truth.

paul

[revenuee]

Originally posted by Fukui
Well, I understand that point.

But personally, for me, I don't remember anywhere Jesus claming he was a messiah...I'm not trying to flame...:(


well the Jews don't see Jesus as a Messiah ... nor does Islam

Only the Christian portion of Abraham religions treat him as the Messiah ... they feel that it is implied ... and in hear lies the problem ... interpretations can often lead to you farther from the truth.

The Jews are still waiting for theirs
and Islam acknowledges Jesus as a Prophet, who was killed by the Jews and wasn't given the full information ... thats why there was a need for Mohammed.

[Fukui]

Originally posted by revenuee
well the Jews don't see Jesus as a Messiah ... nor does Islam

Only the Christian portion of Abraham religions treat him as the Messiah ... they feel that it is implied ... and in hear lies the problem ... interpretations can often lead to you farther from the truth.

The Jews are still waiting for theirs
and Islam acknowledges Jesus as a Prophet, who was killed by the Jews and wasn't given the full information ... thats why there was a need for Mohammed.
Wow, thanks for that explanation. It defiantly...explains things. It gets so confusing with so many different interpretations of stuff out there...;)

[revenuee]

Originally posted by Fukui
Wow, thanks for that explanation. It defiantly...explains things. It gets so confusing with so many different interpretations of stuff out there...;)

I'm glad to have been able too

As far as how to lead your life.

There is only very important thing that the basic teaching is ...

"God judges" -- it is your job to lead a life you think is good, and then hope that it's what God wants.

To many of these tradition feel like that should be judging everyone before God gets to them.

The catholics with the inquisition
and islam with Jihad (the real Jihad not the CNN version of it)

[MrMacMan]

Originally posted by mkaake
1. the bible does not support the notion of slaves
...matt

I don't remember anything to the affect of 'thou shalt not own another man'...

I never heard 'if thou takes another man as property the owner has commited a sin'...

Originally posted by mkaake
... the answer would most likely be yes - we talk to him through prayer, and he responds mainly through the bible...
No no no no no.

This can't be possible.

The bible is a solid matter, by many Christians "black and white" (not what I believe, but whatever)... but its impossible for printed material to answer your prayers.

I praied for my friends mother to be cured of cancer, you know what, I'm Jewish, but that doesn't matter right now, should be looking in the bible looking for an answer to my prayer? '... and then HE saved a person who had cancer'. No. NO.

You can't respond through a text "which doesn't change".



As a man of science I don't believe that the '1 day' it took to create man was equal to a current 24 hour period.

Its a scientific fact that the earth was created a good billion years ago... but whats the point of trying to argue with that, its a Fact, not a theory. You don't see Christians trying to say "No God did create humans in one day" because that is impossible with the scale '1 day' = 24 hours. Please this argument is based on Fact, scientific evidence, and its been proven. If you can dis-prove this, you win, Christians win. I lose. Prove me and science wrong.


P.S mkaake -- if you want to quote posts... just make ONE post and just Copy/Paste then into ONE box like I have done... a billion back to back posts aren't needed.
--MrMacMan

[Neserk]

Originally posted by Dippo
Here they are if anyone wants to read them,

Leviticus 18:22
Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

1 Corinthians 6:9
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

I am still looking for the Romans reference

I don't have my Greek New Testament at my finger tips but I believe the verse from Corninthians is talking about male prostitutes and those who used young boys for sex.

Many of the reference people use to condemn homosexuality have nothing to do with homosexuality (Sodom and Gomorrah is about hospitality-- it is referred to twice after the event, once by Jesus, and both times the lack of hospitality is what it is condemened for). In the New Testament the condemnation is against the use of male prostitutes (usually in pagan worship rites), and what we would today call. pedophilia.

Absolutely NOTHING in the bible adresses the concept of two people of the same sex being in a committed relationship and have a sexual relationship. The concept would be completely foreign to the writers of both the Hebrew Bible and Greek New Testament. Regardless of your religion you married and had children. Very important in that time considering the infant mortality rate was very high. There was no concept of marriage being about between two people who were in love with each other and *not* producing children. Men even divorced there wives if they could not conceive.

[Neserk]

Originally posted by revenuee
You kinda need the old testament to understand why there was a need for a Messiah ...

the concept of a messiah or savior exists in cultures where there is great persecution. It is a hope that someone will come and save the people who are faithful through persecution. You won't see it in periods where religious folk are left alone and allowed to do what they want, religiously.

[Neserk]

Originally posted by mkaake
hmm... well christians shouldn't be closed minded - we should be able to look at you and tell you why evolution is false.


go figure... It was the Christians I went to college with who helped me come to the understanding that in fact the basics of Evolution are *NOT* false. Keeping in mind it is a theory that has to be tweaked.

[Neserk]

Homosexuality seems perfectly natural in my opinion because not only has it been recorded in humans for thousands of years but there are many MANY documented cased in animals, even intelligent animals like dolphins. This alone suggests that its not a choice, or based on culture but a simple, biological, NATURAL path a human may take.



In truth we are all bisexual to a degree. In time past we have needed to express our heterosexuality because of the need to populate. I believe in the future our descendents will be more inclined to express their homosexuality due to overpopulation. And heterosexuals will become the minority.

It is just my theory. I have not proof. And will probably not live to see it.

[Neserk]

Originally posted by stoid
I would like to apologize for those people of non-Christian religions that I have offended in my posts. I was hideously ignorant to assume that people reading this thread would all share at least a similar religion to me. I was not implying by that rhetorical question that everyone should be Christian, or that I can judge that non-Christians are going to spend eternity in hell. Rather I was expressing a frustration at so many people who claim to be Christian but have never read their own holy book!

I am going to leave one final reply (yes, I mean final, I'm not going to post on this thread or even continue to read it since it is obviously spiraling further and further off topic)




Darn it! You can't post all this stuff, read what I wrote, and then leave w/o responding! Get your self back here!

:X I hate it when people bow out of a discussion like that!

[revenuee]

Originally posted by Neserk
the concept of a messiah or savior exists in cultures where there is great persecution. It is a hope that someone will come and save the people who are faithful through persecution. You won't see it in periods where religious folk are left alone and allowed to do what they want, religiously.

Well the Jews have quite a history :)

[Roger1]

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
It’s a legitimate analogy. Many if not all of Bush’s policies are based off of the results of 9|11. If 9|11 didn’t happen there wouldn’t be a war in Iraq, if 9|11 didn’t happen there wouldn’t be such high security in the airport, and on and on.

Similarly saying that one is going to burn in Hell pushes an agenda that if you are X or if you don’t do Y you are going to be in agony for eternity.

This isn’t a jump to politics it’s a comparison of practices.

I understand now. Just to let you know, my post was supposed to be a dose of humor. :cool:

[Neserk]

Originally posted by whocares
It's not about believing evolution from a Darwinistic point of view is true, it's about accepting thet genesis and the bible are/may be wrong.



It isn't so much a matter of the bible being wrong but rather people taking it the wrong way. The creation story was never meant to be taken literally. Do a search on ancient Hebrew Poetry. One may have to go so far as to actually read some journal articles on it. It is quite fascinating to study the bible when one can look at it objectively.

[Neserk]

Originally posted by revenuee
Well the Jews have quite a history :)

Indeed they do! As do Christians. Specifically when the NT was written. It is no wonder they were looking for a Messiah!

[rainman::|:|]

Originally posted by mkaake
i really recommend that if you're going to have such a passion in your arguments that you research what you're so fed up about and don't believe - it'll allow you to have better arguments, and you may learn a thing or two.

anyhew, its always a good idea to research before you get really fired up about something... and starting off at the right resources is important...

Originally posted by mkaake
the bible does not support the notion of slaves

You might want to take some of your own advice there. The bible not only condones slavery, but it sets up rules on owning slaves-- specifically telling you whom you may take as a slave.

If I remember right, you're allowed to take slaves from any neighboring nation, meaning that we in the USA could enslave canadians and mexicans...

paul

[Neserk]

Originally posted by paulwhannel
You might want to take some of your own advice there. The bible not only condones slavery, but it sets up rules on owning slaves-- specifically telling you whom you may take as a slave.

If I remember right, you're allowed to take slaves from any neighboring nation, meaning that we in the USA could enslave canadians and mexicans...

paul

Paul is correct. It also means that Canada and Mexico could take US Citizens as slaves.

[mkaake]

well you're right about the slavery - should have looked harder at that one. i meant more on the basis of race, which is how most people view it (black vs white) which makes me blush a little bit, and also makes me think about something - i'm not equipped enough to get into a full on debate that's running with tons of passion - i just don't know my bible well enough.

as for the tons of things that i really wanted to reply to, i'll try to hit them here:

there was a person nocking answersingenisis.com because it's a christian resource. that's a shame, cause it really has some good stuff there... seriously, you should take some time to read it if you're going to nock it.

*daughter just started talking and i lost my train of thought*

i'm sorry, but could you point me to some resources that say the earth is millions of years old? even if you wanted to point to carbon dating (which is about as accurate as my daughter just randomly picking a number), carbon dating is only 'acurate' to 50,000 years, at which point, there should be no detectable carbon 14 left in an object. of course, just recently, a piece of the dome of mount st helens was carbon dated (the dome was freshly formed some 25 years ago after it errupted) and came back with a date of 35000 years + old.

but honestly folks, can i get my intentions strait here? i really don't want to turn this into a debate of the historical accuracy of the bible (you can pm me if you want to do that, but to be honest, i'm just starting to reach the tip of the iceburg of studying it myself). and i don't really want to see this thread in the wasteland. my original intention was to let the author know that God does not hate gays. he really doesn't. the rest i wrote happened cause it made me pretty sad to see people feeling the way that they do about God, the bible, and religion (of course, if it was up to me, there would be no religion - christianity is not supposed to be about a 'religion', but simply a faith that jesus saved us from eternal damnation in hell).

that said, again, i totally understand why people have these thoughts and feelings, cause today's church has formed the basis for people to doubt.

but can i ask you one last time to check out that site? it really does have some good info (i can picture the replies right now, quoting that and saying 'no'. ;))

oh, and sorry for the multiple posts earlier - i was reading through the thread starting at page 4 and working back, so each time i finished writing somethin, i found something else i wanted to reply to - not the best way to go about looking at it...

thanks for listenin, even if you don't agree in the slightest :)

matt

[tpjunkie]

Just a clarification, carbon dating is only useful for dating fairly recent organic material. For dating the earth, Uranium-238 is used, with a half-life of 4.5 billion years. It's decay product is Lead-207, which is stable.

Thus, the mathematical expression that relates radioactive decay to geologic time is called the age equation and is

[wdlove]

Originally posted by tpjunkie
Just a clarification, carbon dating is only useful for dating fairly recent organic material. For dating the earth, Uranium-238 is used, with a half-life of 4.5 billion years. It's decay product is Lead-207, which is stable.

Thus, the mathematical expression that relates radioactive decay to geologic time is called the age equation and is

I'm very impressed tpjunkie. Do you have an answer to Earth's geologic time?

[whocares]

Originally posted by wdlove
I'm very impressed tpjunkie. Do you have an answer to Earth's geologic time?

Well using radio-isotope methods amongst other methods, the Earth is about 4.55 billion years old. That is, give or take a few days :p

That age corresponds more or less to the age of the solar system, the planets having formed quite rapidly after the birth of the sun (planets result from the accretion of the dust orbiting the sun after its birth - kinda like the rings around Saturn).

The Universe is much harder to date, as you can't measure it (with isotopes, for eg). Theory has it to be about 15 billion years old. Before then? Who knows!

[Durandal7]

If I were God I would hate every last one of us.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Durandal7
If I were God I would hate every last one of us.

If I were God I'd hate it when people took it upon themselves to worry about who other people decided to ****.

I'd be pleased that they were at least enjoying the equipment I gave 'em

[pooky]

Originally posted by mkaake

i'm sorry, but could you point me to some resources that say the earth is millions of years old? even if you wanted to point to carbon dating (which is about as accurate as my daughter just randomly picking a number), carbon dating is only 'acurate' to 50,000 years, at which point, there should be no detectable carbon 14 left in an object. of course, just recently, a piece of the dome of mount st helens was carbon dated (the dome was freshly formed some 25 years ago after it errupted) and came back with a date of 35000 years + old.



Now that's just inane. Really I'm tired of people who know nothing about how carbon-14 dating works attacking it as inaccurate. It is increadibly accurate (I believe to +/- 500 years, maybe less) so long as a few critical assumptions hold true. Those assumptions include a constant background carbon-12/14 ratio (almost always valid), an ORGANIC source (i.e. not a volcano), and a long enough time period for a measurable decay. 25 years is not enough. There are reasons for this that I will not go into here, but it has to do with probability theory and the nature of atomic decay. Trying to use the St. Helens example above to discredit carbon dating is like pointing an unloaded gun at someone, pulling the trigger, and using that as evidence that all of particle physics is sadly misguided.


The Universe is much harder to date, as you can't measure it (with isotopes, for eg). Theory has it to be about 15 billion years old. Before then? Who knows!

You can date the universe, and it's incidentally one of the greatest pieces of evidence suggesting that creation could not have happened 6000 years ago. How do you date the universe? You use a powerful telescope to look far away. The farther away you look, the longer it has taken for the light to reach that telescope lens. The fact that we can see things that are 12 billion light years away forces one to accept one of the following alternatives (listed in decreasing order of plausibility for your convienience):

1. The universe is at least 12 billion years old, due to the fact that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum as far as we know.

2. The universe is not 12 billion years old, and the speed of light has changed. If light was faster in the past than it is now, the universe could be less than 12 byo. Slower light in the past leads to an older estimate. I can think of no reason to believe that the speed of light has changed.

3. That object was created 6,000 years ago at a distance of 12 billion light years. For some inscrutable purpose, this creator also created the light emitted from that object in a solid sphere around it extending from the star to a distance of 11,999,994,000 light years, so that from earth, it would appear to have been shining 12 billion years ago.

4. Other alternatives even less likely than 2 or 3.

[tpjunkie]

Actually, there's a better way to date the universe then seeing how far back in time (distance) we can see. The temperature of the universe gives an indication to how old the universe is, because we can estimate how much it has cooled since the big bang based on its rate of expansion, and thus, how long it has taken to cool to its current temperature.

[whocares]

Originally posted by pooky
Those assumptions include a constant background carbon-12/14 ratio (almost always valid), .

Not quite true. 12C/14C ratio as varried in the past due to variation of amount of C in atmosphere (amongst other factors) but is well documented (eg. ice cores). What should be taken into to determine 14C dating accuracy is the accuracy of the estimation of the 12C/14C ratio at time of death of the organism.


Originally posted by pooky
I can think of no reason to believe that the speed of light has changed.


There is indeed no obvious reason for the speend of light (in a vaccum) to change. However looking a stars far away only gives a *minimum* age of the Universe. Big Bang theory puts it back to 15 billion years, for reason I don't know. Maybe there's an astrophysicist somewhere in here who would care to join the party? :p

Edit:
And thanks tpjunkie for posting the answer while I was posting this!

[Dippo]

Originally posted by tpjunkie
Actually, there's a better way to date the universe then seeing how far back in time (distance) we can see. The temperature of the universe gives an indication to how old the universe is, because we can gauge how much it has cooled since the big bang.

Even better would be to build a ship that can go faster than the speed of light. We could travel out so far that we could look back and see the universe being created.

[SiliconAddict]

Originally posted by Neserk
Indeed they do! As do Christians. Specifically when the NT was written. It is no wonder they were looking for a Messiah!

Windows NT? OMG! That has to be it! The only reason Windows NT, 2K, and XP are the only good version of Windows out there! God didn't want to continue to see the people suffer and lo Gates went to the mountains and returned carrying 2 CD's of source code.

[tpjunkie]

originally posted by dippo
Even better would be to build a ship that can go faster than the speed of light. We could travel out so far that we could look back and see the universe being created

Well, sure if we're just gonne disregard relativity...

[whocares]

Originally posted by Dippo
Even better would be to build a ship that can go faster than the speed of light. We could travel out so far that we could look back and see the universe being created.

That's nice from a philosophical point of view. But may I remind you that it is impossible for any particle (by particle I mean something with a mass greater than 0, eg. a ship) to travel at, faster or even close to than the speed of light?

[Dippo]

Originally posted by whocares
Big Bang theory puts it back to 15 billion years, for reason I don't know.

The date of the big bang is calculated from the accerlations of galaxies from the center of the universe. As the universive expanses, the rate of expansion decrease due to the gravitational forces attracting everything back to the center.

This is also why it is said that the universive will enventually collaspe back upon itself.

The Big Bang is a nice theory but I still don't believe it.

[tpjunkie]

this thread is growing way too fast, we both just sort of replied to the same thing...

EDIT: ack! too fast! anyway, the big bang theory only indicated a "big crush" if the rate of expansion was under a certain rate, there was a certain amount of mass in the universe, and the universe was a certain size.

[Dippo]

Originally posted by whocares
That's nice from a philosophical point of view. But may I remind you that it is impossible for any particle (by particle I mean something with a mass greater than 0, eg. a ship) to travel at, faster or even close to than the speed of light?

According to our current understanding of Physics this is mostly true, but our understanding of Physics changes ever 20 years or so.

There are some particles that have a very small mass that can exceed the speed of light.

[whocares]

Originally posted by Dippo
The date of the big bang is calculated from the accerlations of galaxies from the center of the universe. As the universive expanses, the rate of expansion decrease due to the gravitational forces attracting everything back to the center.

This is also why it is said that the universive will enventually collaspe back upon itself.

The Big Bang is a nice theory but I still don't believe it.

Science, and thus truth, is not a matter or believing. It's a matter of finding evidence to either confirm or infirm hypothesis.

Religion is a matter of belief.

If you think (note: not believe) that Big Bang theory is wrong, please provide some evidence. If not, leave Science and truth to scientists and continue with your beliefs. In any case don't dismiss a theory based on belief.

[whocares]

Originally posted by Dippo
According to our current understanding of Physics this is mostly true, but our understanding of Physics changes ever 20 years or so.

There are some particles that have a very small mass that can exceed the speed of light.

This seems both interesting and surprising. Do you have any evidence of this (references to a published paper in a respectable journal).

Your above statement is quite true about our knowledge continuely changing. This also applies to the bible: it was written with the knowledge of 2000 years ago and hence needs updating a tad.

[tpjunkie]

Originally posted by Dippo

There are some particles that have a very small mass that can exceed the speed of light.

according to current theory, the only particles could exceed the speed of light would have no mass, and would actually always have to travel faster than light.

[Dippo]

Originally posted by whocares
Your above statement is quite true about our knowledge continuely changing. This also applies to the bible: it was written with the knowledge of 2000 years ago and hence needs updating a tad.

Truth never changes

[Dippo]

Originally posted by whocares
Science, and thus truth, is not a matter or believing. It's a matter of finding evidence to either conform or infirm hypothesis.

Religion is a matter of belief.

If you think (note: not believe) that Big Bang theory is wrong, please provide some evidence. If not, leave Science and truth to scientists and continue with your beliefs. In any case don't dismiss a theory based on belief.

The definition of theory is:
a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"

The Big Bang is a theory and not truth. Thus we can believe that the theory is truth or not, simple as that.

[Dippo]

according to current theory, the only particles could exceed the speed of light would have no mass, and would actually always have to travel faster than light.

Actually it does have an imaginary mass

[whocares]

Originally posted by Dippo
Truth never changes

I will re-iterate for the god-knows-how-many-th time:

the bible is belief and not truth

Science gives us truth.
Religion gives us belief.

I never said Big Bang theory is true. I meerly ask you to proove it wrong...

Originally posted by Dippo
Actually it does have an imaginary mass

Please define 'imaginary mass'. It's an interesting concept... :eek:

[tpjunkie]

Originally posted by Dippo
Actually it does have an imaginary mass

actually, it has an imaginary rest-mass. The values work out that trying to calculate the mass of the particle results in a nonsense answer. It doesn't matter anyway, these theorized particles wouldn't ever be at rest, and wouldn't interact with normal matter through the electromagnetic or gravitational forces.

[Dippo]

Originally posted by tpjunkie
actually, it has an imaginary rest-mass. The values work out that trying to calculate the mass of the particle results in a nonsense answer. It doesn't matter anyway, these theorized particles wouldn't ever be at rest, and wouldn't interact with normal matter through the electromagnetic or gravitational forces.

Well since it's a completely theoretical particle and has never been detected. I guess it doesn't really matter.

[tpjunkie]

Just because it hasn't been detected doesn't mean it doesn't matter...the W and Z force carriers weren't detected until the past 20 years, and if they didn't exist neither would matter, as atomic nuclei wouldn't be held together.

[Dippo]

Originally posted by whocares
I never said Big Bang theory is true. I meerly ask you to proove it wrong...

As soon as someone can tell me where all the mass and the energy came from in the first place (before the big band). Then I might reconsider.

[whocares]

Originally posted by Dippo
Well since it's a completely theoretical particle and has never been detected. I guess it doesn't really matter.

Pun intended? :p :p :p

[whocares]

Originally posted by Dippo
As soon as someone can tell me where all the mass and the energy came from in the first place (before the big band). Then I might reconsider.

This thread is going too fast!

Does it really matter? Maybe from a previously imploded Universe (probably unlikely). Such question are what made people come up with religion in the first place to deal with questions without answers. Science is another way of dealing with this.

In any case, its tend to proove that the Earth is more than 6000 years old...

[Dippo]

Originally posted by tpjunkie
Just because it hasn't been detected doesn't mean it doesn't matter...the W and Z force carriers weren't detected until the past 20 years, and if they didn't exist neither would matter, as atomic nuclei wouldn't be held together.

Also, the neutrino was always believed to not have mass, but after the found that it oscillates between it's different types, they realized that it has to have some mass.

I never have too much trust in the first theory. Only time will be able to offer more complete answers.

[Dippo]

Originally posted by whocares
Does it really matter?

I think is does matter where all the matter came from because if it didn't matter than we wouldn't matter because nothing would matter. :p

It's a central question in my view. The universe might have come from a big bang but that doesn't explain where the big bang came from.

[whocares]

Originally posted by Dippo
I think is does matter where all the matter came from because if it didn't matter than we wouldn't matter because nothing would matter. :p

It's a central question in my view. The universe might have come from a big bang but that doesn't explain where the big bang came from.

It is a central question. But does the lack of answer proove Big Bang theory to be wrong? I don't think so.

[revenuee]

Here is a question...

Why do you NEED a God?

[Dros]

Originally posted by mkaake
anyhew, you guys should check out answersingenisis.org if you wonder why we don't believe evolution... and they have some good ones on what's wrong with homosexuality... http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tj_v9n1_homosex.asp


mkaake, I took the time to read this site. I would like to knw what parts particularly impressed you? Frankly, it was written in a scholarly tone, with references to different parts, but to me all the conclusions were based on strange leaps.

For example, they talks about how homosexual behavior is unhealthy. First, they say non-promiscuous heterosexual sex rarely has any health issues. Then, they say homosexual behavior does. As evidence of this, they say "During homosexual behaviour, sperm can penetrate the partner’s colon wall. When inside the body, the sperm adversely effects the immune system, resulting in the person being more vulnerable to disease." That part is unreferenced, and sounds somewhat bizarre. Also, they make the mistake of equating gay sexual habits with promiscuous sexual habits, and heterosexual sexual habits as non-promiscuous (and apparently, only involving penis-in-vagina sex). So altogether, it was not the most impressive bit of writing I have seen.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Originally posted by mkaake
1. the bible does not support the notion of slaves
2. people who use the bible to deny mixed race marriages don't read the bible very carefully. what it says is about mixing yoke, which reffers to marrying non-christians. the race thing is ridiculous for anyone who says they are a christian to argue - we're all from one seed (adam)... i could go on and on and on, but i'm short on time


matt

In regard to the Bible and slaves this site might be worth visiting:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/slavery.htm

More direct links:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/slavery.htm

As to the mixed marriage mention. I was not looking at todays climate. Sure such hatred still exists. But I was mentioning more from prior to the 1970;s when attitudes did start to change.

[kylos]

Originally posted by whocares
It is a central question. But does the lack of answer proove Big Bang theory to be wrong? I don't think so.

Ok, I got in here late, but here goes.

Maybe it doesn't prove it wrong, but it's a question you should want to be able to answer before staking your faith in it. The issue is, you claim that science is fact, and yet you believe in a theory that is challenged by such a simple question without providing any sort of logical explanation. The best attempt you gave was to say that another imploding universe might cause the Big Bang. One question, where did that Universe come from?

[whocares]

Originally posted by Kyle?
Ok, I got in here late, but here goes.


Welcome to the party!

Originally posted by Kyle?

Maybe it doesn't prove it wrong, but it's a question you should want to be able to answer before staking your faith in it. The issue is, you claim that science is fact, and yet you believe in a theory that is challenged by such a simple question without providing any sort of logical explanation. The best attempt you gave was to say that another imploding universe might cause the Big Bang. One question, where did that Universe come from?

Never did I state my faith in the Big Bang theory, of if I did it was un-intentionnaly. What I maybe didn't make clear is that I accept the theory for the lack of nothing better. Nothing better in the sense of scientific evidence. Give me another theory with better evidence and I'll accept it. Faith ain't got nothing to do with it.
And the lack of answer to the question does not proove the theory wrong. Not knowing where matter/mass comes from does not invalidate the theory of gravity.

Edit:
I've just gone through my previous posts on this page, and never did I state I believed in Big Bang theory.

[hulugu]

Originally posted by stoid
My faith is based on the Bible, and my argument for the Bible's infallibility is that the God I believe in is almighty and all powerful. I believe that He would not allow for His Word to be changed to the point at which it's testimony is false. Since He is all powerful, it is certainly well within His power to control that.

But didn't God give us free will? If we have the will to kill to ignore god, to accept idols, etc. than why wouldn't it be beyond us and our ability to make our own choices regarding the translations of the bible. This book was written and collected over more than 3000 years in several different languages. It was under the control of a vast number of people, from the Romans under Constantine to the Borgias Popes of 16th Century Italy, all of whom could have forced changes into the Bible to their whims.
Furthermore, the Bible contradicts itself in numerous instances and changes and evolves from book to book.
Reading the Bible literally is an act of faith, and you are fully justified in doing so, however you must be considerate of the possibility that the Bible is not the literal work of God and therefore may contain elements, including its view of homosexuality, that are not part of the true work. To ignore this possibility is dogmatic and dangerous.
More violence and hatred, more acts of genocide, rape, and war have been commited under the red flag of Christians who thought the Bible literal, or who used it to justify their own conquests.
Be mindful.

[iindigo]

Originally posted by stoid
Caution, this post contains religion :eek:

Hey, have any of you ever touched your Bibles?

In the book of Romans, written by Paul (the cornerstone and leader of the church after Jesus ascended into heaven), Chapter 1:
verses 26-27
"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

In Leviticus, the book of Laws written by Moses from the mouth of God (Yahweh), chapter 18:
verse 22
"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

These are two blatant condemnations of homosexual behavior in the very prevalent books of the NIV Bible used by all Christian religions. In an earlier thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=50551&perpage=1&pagenumber=22) I posted that I am not in a position to question the inner emotions of a person who proclaims and practices homosexuality. God is the final judge of the heart.

I do know that God has made it clear in his word that homosexual behavior is despicable and detestable in his sight, and homosexuals are unfortunately going to spend eternity suffering in hell for their sins against the flesh of God.

Whether or not the church will stand up for the God they serve or not, I will stand up for what is right. I know that I will probably get flamed for my 'conservative view,' but it's in the Bible, black-and-white. Society doesn't hate gays because they are different. Society hates gays because deep down inside, we know that it is a sinful wrong behavior. Unfortunately, the hatred of the sin is often becomes a hatred of the person, which is just as much a damnable sin.

In short, wherever this hatred has been learned, it certainly can be traced back to the command and law of God.

DITTO DITTO DITTO THANK YOU STOID

[tpjunkie]

Originally posted by iindigo
DITTO DITTO DITTO THANK YOU STOID

thanks for a constructive post...:rolleyes:

[g5man]

Originally posted by iindigo
DITTO DITTO DITTO THANK YOU STOID

Hey there are more conservatives that are in macrumors. What a surprise.;)

[kettle]

Originally posted by g5man
Hey there are more conservatives that are in macrumors. What a surprise.;)

I am not sure which form of English that was but I gather from it you believe that anyone who doesn't agree with you must be against you, is it any wonder that these sort of discussions fail at the first.

[wwworry]

Originally posted by iindigo
DITTO DITTO DITTO THANK YOU STOID

what about the new testement? I thought you were christians?

[dave1234]

Love the sinner, Hate the sin.

[vwcruisn]

why is their so much "hate" in religion?

makes me glad im not religious... ;)

[wwworry]

personnally, I always thought the New testement was about concentrating on one's own behavior, love, forgivness, kindness and giving etc. rather than worrying about the sins of others: love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek, let he who is without sin cast the first stone etc.

I think if these Christians could concentrate and work on their own Christianity we would not have all this gay-bashing stone throwing homophobic old testement rhetoric. God put all kinds on this earth. Your duty is not to question the workings and will of God's creations but to love them as you would have them love you.

OK?

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by revenuee
democracy isn't all that great ...

still a system based on the appetitive nature of man ROFL. i hope you were joking.

every system is based on the apetitive nature of man, and every system that isn't traces that nature as it's ultimate downfall.

[IJ Reilly]

I've got another question. Why do all of the flame-fests get moved from wherever they started to the politics section?

Believe it or not, the politics board is actually pretty well-behaved these days. Maybe Macrumors should have section where people who like to pummel each other senseless can have their recreation and not bother anybody else.

[whocares]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Believe it or not, the politics board is actually pretty well-behaved these days. Maybe Macrumors should have section where people who like to pummel each other senseless can have their recreation and not bother anybody else.

It's does, it's called the Political/War Discussion :p

[Taft]

Originally posted by Dros
mkaake, I took the time to read this site. I would like to knw what parts particularly impressed you? Frankly, it was written in a scholarly tone, with references to different parts, but to me all the conclusions were based on strange leaps.

I think "crap science" sums the site's content up pretty well.

My girlfriend is an HIV prevention researcher. Her job is to know what the facts about sexual behavior are and teach kids to practice safe sexual behavior.

As such, I've learned more than I ever wanted to know about STDs, contraceptives, etc.

For example, they talks about how homosexual behavior is unhealthy. First, they say non-promiscuous heterosexual sex rarely has any health issues. Then, they say homosexual behavior does. As evidence of this, they say "During homosexual behaviour, sperm can penetrate the partner’s colon wall. When inside the body, the sperm adversely effects the immune system, resulting in the person being more vulnerable to disease." That part is unreferenced, and sounds somewhat bizarre.

Not just bizarre, but completely unfounded. The reason sexual relations are so dangerous is because the skin and various membranes on our sexual organs is very "thin" in terms of its exposure of blood to the surface. Most of the tissue is very much able to receive viruses, organisms and deseases. This includes the membrane of our anal cavity. Secondly, the fluids excreted by our sexual organs are generally very rich in whatever deseases or viruses which our body is carrying.

The only thing differentiating anal sex vs. sexual intercourse in terms of risk is that the membrane of the anus is more likely to have small cuts and scratches or be damaged during sex. Condoms will also break more frequently during anal sex as a result of the physical size of the opening.

But this doesn't make anal sex completely unsafe. It is very much possible to have safe anal sex (in relative terms of safety, of course).

It would also be disingenuous to say that anal sex is significantly more dangerous than traditional sex. Both methods of sex allow for the transfer of fluid which could very well infect you with an STD, cold or variety of other viruses.

Also, they make the mistake of equating gay sexual habits with promiscuous sexual habits, and heterosexual sexual habits as non-promiscuous (and apparently, only involving penis-in-vagina sex). So altogether, it was not the most impressive bit of writing I have seen.

This is a common tactic of those who wish to demonize homosexual behavior. Even if you could prove that statistically homosexuals engage in more risky sexual behavior than heterosexuals on average, that doesn't mean that it is impossible to have safe homosexual sex.

The bottom line is that, whether you are in a population of homosexuals or heterosexuals, some people will have monogamous relationships and practice safe sex, and others will have sex with a lack of descretion and practice very unsafe behavior. But as long as you remain committed to practicing safe behavior, it is always possible to have safe sex, no matter what population you may be a part of.

You are right: this site is quite unimpressive. From a scientific standpoint, they have their heads in the sand.

Taft

[agreenster]

It seems to me that the debate here has turned into whether or not the Bible is credible as the word of god. Regardless of whether it is or isnt, Christians believe that it is, and most of them believe every word. So thats why they believe that homosexuality is wrong in god's eyes.

Now, whether or not the bible is the credible word of god is left to be debated.

Oh, and by the way, I dont think saying that since homosexuality has been around for a millenia, it must be normal, "good" and natural. People have been mudering, raping, killing, molesting children, stealing, lying, and being going all sorts of awful things since the dawn of man. SO that probably isnt a good arguement.

Now dont get me wrong, I agree that homosexuals have every right to do what they want with a willing partner. Its a free country. To me, it is victimless and frankly none of my concern. Its the same as any other form of sexuality. What me and my wife consentually do in our bedroom is our business and no one else's, as long as there is no victim involved, and the same goes for gays.

Where I have disagreements is when homosexuals seem to demand acceptance of their lifestyle from society, government, and people in general. (especially to my face, its just rude)

I guess I dont know why people feel this way, and I cant explain it, because I have the same feelings. I think most people, even non-religious fanatics, still see homosexuality as deviant behavior, even though its apparently victimless. Its a strange conumdrum. It really is, and often times I feel guilty for feeling this way, but I just cant help it.

Then I go and watch Finding Nemo, love every second of it, caring 0% that Ellen DeGeneres is gay, and all of the other cast+crew who could be. What a brilliant movie. So I guess its fair to say that I oppose government sanctioned gay marriages, but dont oppose gay PEOPLE. I think it they get married, its fine. But it just shouldnt be recognized by the federal government.

Why?? I dont know. Why are gay people gay? I dont know either. I guess deep down I just still believe that (please dont flame me, its just how I feel) homosexuality is something that comes and goes in society. I think its brought on by social boredom (seriously) and pushes the envelope just a bit, and people find it exciting. I dont think it is a positive force in the grand scheme of things, and is just an offshoot of sexual boredom/deviance. (deviance, in its original form, doesnt have a negative connotation, it just means different) I dont necessarily think its WRONG, and I dont think god hates gays (because in my opnion, god hates EVERYONE)

I hope my post doesnt offend, because it wasnt meant to. I think too many straight people simply resort to name-calling and using cliches when what they really feel is confused, uncomfortable, and angry. The honest truth is, I dont know why I oppose homosexuality. I just do. Do I like gay people? As much as I like straight people. (which is not at all ;)) I think its one of those things that will just take time to resolve.

[wwworry]

I've had gay bosses, gay apartmentmates, gay best friends, gay teachers, read gay writers, seen gay films, have gay relatives and after a while have realized "who cares?". You just need to get out more to get over it. They are not bad. They are not weird. They pay taxes. They are just like anyone else.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Dippo
It would be interesting to know what you think is the so called "meaning of life".

The meaning of life is 42. Go look it up.

;)

[Chip NoVaMac]

Originally posted by agreenster
<snip>

Now dont get me wrong, I agree that homosexuals have every right to do what they want with a willing partner. Its a free country. To me, it is victimless and frankly none of my concern. Its the same as any other form of sexuality. What me and my wife consentually do in our bedroom is our business and no one else's, as long as there is no victim involved, and the same goes for gays.

Very well said.

Originally posted by agreenster

Where I have disagreements is when homosexuals seem to demand acceptance of their lifestyle from society, government, and people in general. (especially to my face, its just rude)


How do you define acceptance? Are you saying that in the marriage debate that marriage is a religious institution? If it both a religious and civil institution, then should not Homosexuals have a right to equal treatment under civil law?

Is the issue of Gay Rights really any different that African-Americans demanding acceptance of their right not be be considered property, or a sub-class? Or women demanding acceptance of their right to vote?

Originally posted by agreenster

<snip>
So I guess its fair to say that I oppose government sanctioned gay marriages, but dont oppose gay PEOPLE. I think it they get married, its fine. But it just shouldnt be recognized by the federal government.

<snip>


Then why should the federal or state governments even be involved in sanctioning of marriages? Most of the arguments point to the Bible to support the definition of marriage. If marriage has a religious history then any benefits of marriage should be church based and not given by the laws of the federal and state governments.

I have not taken offense to your post or even yourself. Hopefully in debates like this we all come away a better understanding of each others views and concerns.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Originally posted by wwworry
<snip>They pay taxes. They are just like anyone else.

And as taxpayers we should be able to enjoy full access to all benefits granted by the federal and state governments for those that wish to live a committed relationship.

Get rid of inheritance and probate laws that benefit a married couple upon one of their deaths. Let all interested parties in an estate fight it out over the will.

Make everyone get a power of attorney to make healthcare decisions when you can't. Allow anyone that states "relationship" to visit the ill in the hospital.

Eliminate the ease of a married couple in getting a joint mortgage. Eliminate the ability to have survivorship in mortgages.

One thing that some may not complain about is eliminate joint tax returns and the "married' filing status. Have everyone file single tax returns.

[agreenster]

Originally posted by Chip NoVaMac
Is the issue of Gay Rights really any different that African-Americans demanding acceptance of their right not be be considered property, or a sub-class? Or women demanding acceptance of their right to vote?

I dunno. I guess its just hard to lump homosexuals in with african americans and women. Its not quite the same thing. Homosexuals are defined by their actions, not their biology. And until there is discovered an actual homosexual gene, I wont believe it.

I guess since the definition of marriage includes the terms: opposite sex, then it has to stick to that. I mean, what if (seriously) thousands of people in this country wanted to legally marry their pets? Or their sister? Or their Mother? The federal law also requires you to be at least further than a first-cousin away from your spouse before it is legally binding. I doubt the law would be changed fo them either.

To me, its kinda the same silly request. People marrying the same sex? I just dont get it. Hey, if you want to ***** your dog, thats fine with me. But dont ask me to "pay for it" with my taxes, and dont expect me to say its right.

I would still love dogs, and I would still love people, but people and dogs getting married "just aint right." (best Hank Hill voice I can muster)

[hulugu]

Originally posted by agreenster
But dont ask me to "pay for it" with my taxes, and dont expect me to say its right.

Huh? Pay for what? A law that allows or rather does not descrimate against homosexual marriage would cost you what exactly? The separate amount of tax dollars because they have to file separately? Higher insurance premiums? I don't think gays are asking for special treatment, I think they're asking for the same view under the law as straight unions. The fact is marriage is not sacred and hasn't been since Henry VIII got his seven divorces. How can you tell me that marriage is some how more sacred and more meaningful between a man and woman when it can be done in a drive-thru in Vegas, or when any one of those marriages ends in divorce. Elizabeth Taylor is the poster child for why marriage is not a sacred/sanctified act, instead it is a legal union. That legal union is what gays are asking for and I can't see why that is dangerous or wrong-headed.
I don't want my government to tell me who I can or cannot be with; I pay my taxes, I expect certain benefits regardless of my sexual orientation, race, gender, nationality, religion.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Originally posted by hulugu
The fact is marriage is not sacred and hasn't been so for a very long time, the minute that Henry VIII got his seven divorces the jig was up. You can tell me that marriage between is some how more sacred and more meaningful between a man and woman when it can be done in a drive-thru in Vegas, or when any one of those marriages ends in divorce. Elizabeth Taylor is the poster child for why marriage is not a sacred/sanctified act, instead it is a legal union.

I would love to hear what yo have to say about Brittany Spears and her recent "marriage".

[hulugu]

Originally posted by Chip NoVaMac
I would love to hear what yo have to say about Brittany Spears and her recent "marriage".

Just another case in point I would say, but I can understand the guys POV. If Britney asked me to marry her I'd say yes and find the closest chapel before she changed her mind; then see if we could 'consumate' :D

[Neserk]

Originally posted by mkaake


there was a person nocking answersingenisis.com because it's a christian resource. that's a shame, cause it really has some good stuff there... seriously, you should take some time to read it if you're going to nock it.



Knock it because it is a "Christian" source? Hardly. Knock it because it is ridiculous! I've been to that web site several times and it scares me that thinking people actually buy into what it says. This is what happens when we leave ourselves uneducated. We believe what we are told without question. I was a diehard creationists when I was 11. Then I went to college when I was (almost) 19 and discovered that Evolution and Christianity (ie the Christian bible) do not contradict each other. I wouldn't call the webiste Christian because it is full of lies. All truth comes from God. And no truth comes from that website.


but can i ask you one last time to check out that site? it really does have some good info (i can picture the replies right now, quoting that and saying 'no'. ;))



good for cracking jokes :P

You are certainly entitled to your opinion but expect it to be contradicted by those of us who are more educated than those who wrote the site.

[Neserk]

Originally posted by hulugu
Huh? Pay for what? A law that allows or rather does not descrimate against homosexual marriage would cost you what exactly? The separate amount of tax dollars because they have to file separately? Higher insurance premiums?

Excellent points. I was going to say this but you beat me to it. Let me highlight! Married couples pay higher taxes than they would if they were single (eg you are taxed at $70,000 a year if you each make $35,000 vs. each being taxed at $35,000 a year) so that isn't going to cost you. The more people who have health insurance the better off society is in general. And the marriage license, weddings, and honeymoons alone would generate a lot of money. So our friend wouldn't be paying anything. He would be benefitting financially.

[Neserk]

Originally posted by agreenster


Where I have disagreements is when homosexuals seem to demand acceptance of their lifestyle from society, government, and people in general. (especially to my face, its just rude)



I'm sorry, I don't understand this. What exactly is a "homosexual lifestyle?" and what do you mean by demanding you accept it to your face?

[revenuee]

Originally posted by shadowfax
ROFL. i hope you were joking.

every system is based on the apetitive nature of man, and every system that isn't traces that nature as it's ultimate downfall.

Aristocracy in it's truest definition is not based on the appetitive ...

unfortunately no one has been able to have it

The closest anyone has ever gotten to it are the first 4 Confusion Emperors.

Plato theorizes about the perfect state in the republic and the Laws ...

had i lived during his time i would of definitly jumped that band wagon

[wwworry]

I have a friend who says he is not going to marry his girlfriend until they reform the unjust discriminatory marriage laws and let gay people get married too. I do not know of any hetero marriages harmed by gay marriage but I do know of one hetero marriage harmed by laws agaisnt gay marriage. !

And to bring up the point about marrying dogs is disingenuous because marriage is a contract between consenting individuals. A dog is not known to be able to understand the legal ramifications.

[Dont Hurt Me]

i bet his girfriend is happy about that. now thats a new reason not to get married. hope all you bachelors out there remember this one in case you need it.

[revenuee]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
i bet his girfriend is happy about that. now thats a new reason not to get married. hope all you bachelors out there remember this one in case you need it.

I sure as hell wrote it down

[whocares]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
i bet his girfriend is happy about that. now thats a new reason not to get married. hope all you bachelors out there remember this one in case you need it.

Ditto that.
We may even be able to refuse marriage and come out wining :eek: :eek: :p :D :D

[kylos]

I apologize for responding so late, but I work during the day, and that not at a desk, so I'm not able to access a computer, like so many others who keep these posts flying.

Originally posted by whocares
Welcome to the party!



Never did I state my faith in the Big Bang theory, of if I did it was un-intentionnaly. What I maybe didn't make clear is that I accept the theory for the lack of nothing better. Nothing better in the sense of scientific evidence. Give me another theory with better evidence and I'll accept it. Faith ain't got nothing to do with it.
And the lack of answer to the question does not proove the theory wrong. Not knowing where matter/mass comes from does not invalidate the theory of gravity.

Edit:
I've just gone through my previous posts on this page, and never did I state I believed in Big Bang theory.

You never directly stated you believe in the Big Bang. But here's the real issue: the scientific method starts with an observation and then proceeds to a hypothesis, and after much rigorous testing, finally proceeds to theory. The Big Bang (and some other scientific research) never can get past hypothesis because it is not testable. You can't recreate a Big Bang. Sure, you might be able to prove a process hypothesized in the Big Bang Theory, but until you can actually recreate a Big Bang sequence, and test it again and again, you can't give such an idea any more credence than what you would give any other hypothesis.

That's why I emphasized that you have faith in the Big Bang hypothesis. You can't just accept it as you would a fact or a theory, you have to believe it without proof. It has no more scientific value than the creationist belief. Those who claim objectivity over creationists because they believe in Big Bang are indeed no more objective. Both are trying to prove a belief through scientific observation.

I don't actually mind people trying to interpret scientific observation toward a specific outcome. What I do mind is when some claim objectivity while doing so. That's why I have no problem with answers in genesis. They understand the scientific process so much better than the so many who swear by science as the answer to all questions. Science, for all the knowledge it brings, can never do such a thing. Those who give these undeserved powers to science by claiming that it is the antidote to faith-based knowledge, have ironically put undue faith in the thing they say will destroy faith.

[whocares]

Originally posted by Kyle?
I apologize for responding so late, but I work during the day, and that not at a desk, so I'm not able to access a computer, like so many others who keep these posts flying.

(...)

Those who give these undeserved powers to science by claiming that it is the antidote to faith-based knowledge, have ironically put undue faith in the thing they say will destroy faith.

That's a valid point you make there, but...

I beg to differ. If I had faith in the Big Bang, or evolution, or relativity, or gravity, or ..., it would be difficult/impossible to change my beliefs when a new theory with better evidence was put forth. Give me such a new theory and I'll consider it and most likely accept it. Go see a christian, a jew, a buddhist, a whatever-you-want, and offer him a different theory than the Bible, the Tora, whatever Buddha wrote, ... and he'll have great difficulties accepting it. That my friend is faith.

The theory of the Big Bang does not indeed have any more intrinsic scientific value than creationism: all hypothesis are equal and worthy of being testing through experimentation. However in 6000 years+ of science, more experimental evidence can credited be to Big Bang/non-biblical theories than to opposing biblical theories. If you/anyone were capable of racking-up sufficient evidence that creationism is a valid theory, then fine, I'll accept it. But I'm still waiting.

Give me evidence that all was created in 7 (was it sevan?) days, that A&E were the first humans, etc, etc. Hell, proove to me that Jesus was even born. Does anyone have a birth certificate, a passport, a SSN? He most likely was, but still proove to me that he was the son of god and not some deluded fanatic thinking that he was. Christianity probably started as something we might just consider a sect nowadays... And no, the Bible does not qualify as evidence. Because I have it from my neighbour who was tip of by the postman who himself heard in on the subway that the earth is flat...

Ok. Looks like I'm gonna get flamed real bad here! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

But what do I care? I live on 666 Hellstreet :cool:

[LimeiBook86]

Originally posted by coopdog
.....Jeez this kind of thing pisses me off.
I wonder if his church tought him this.

I think this was funny. You should do it more, let him attack you and then you should beat the poo out of him. That way you get a free fight without getting in trouble. Like you said he can't expalin that he hit you because you were gay. That isn't a good excuse

[whocares]

Originally posted by LimeiBook86
I think this was funny. You should do it more, let him attack you and then you should beat the poo out of him. That way you get a free fight without getting in trouble. Like you said he can't expalin that he hit you because you were gay. That isn't a good excuse

And may I add he (the jerk) would have the shame of being betten up by a gay guy :p :p :p :p

No that there is any reason for someone to be ashamed of not being as strong as a gay guy, but can imagine that that kind of jerk would think there is...

[bousozoku]

You really do have to have faith that the bible is true to god's intentions. Actually, you have to have faith that there's only one god.

I can appreciate faith. Humans have to believe in something to get them through the day. They need reassurance that there is meaning and that they have approval for their actions. Even people you think don't care or are self-assured are just as susceptible to these needs.

As most people familiar with multiple languages know, older languages were not always well-defined. Some lacked the notion of number--singular is plural. God = Gods. There are also cultural idioms that don't translate well. Translation is also based on experience. If you have no idea what a certain item or concept is, how can you translate it?

It takes great faith to believe that the bible, especially the old testament was recorded accurately by a group of ignorant people who barely had any education and certainly, did not have a supreme being's knowledge. Maybe God used small words. It also takes great faith to believe that each person who translated it or presided over the translation did not influence it with his own beliefs.

Even when I was immersed in Christianity, I could not believe the bible as it was, no matter what I wanted to believe. Now, I believe that it is a book that was written by men to keep men in power and to marginalise anything that didn't fit into their mindset. I seriously doubt that the book of Ruth was written by a woman. It's more likely it was written to silence the women. I've heard "Oh, it has a woman's touch.", so maybe it was written by a gay man but it would seem that they've done everything to trivialise women.

When the "New" versions were introduced in the 1970s, they certainly were more pleasant, as if Christianity had been re-written to be more popular.

God was created in man's own image and exists to be whatever is convenient. God can hate, love, smite, and bless all at the same time.

I have faith that in another three or four thousand years, if we survive, we'll be a little closer to true understanding and then, even God will love gays.

[whocares]

Originally posted by bousozoku
I've heard "Oh, it has a woman's touch.", so maybe it was written by a gay man but it would seem that they've done everything to trivialise women.

I hope you've stacked up on plenty of burn-relieving cream. After that post I have true faith in that you are gonna get flamed real bad! A gay guy writting the bible? What next? maybe god likes the occasional same-sex fantasy? (euuuh... can you spare me some of that cream? :p )

bousozuku, that was a great post that summerizes some of what many others and I have been trying to get across, in vain. Thanx.

[bousozoku]

Originally posted by whocares
I hope you've stacked up on plenty of burn-relieving cream. After that post I have true faith in that you are gonna get flamed real bad! A gay guy writting the bible? What next? maybe god likes the occasional same-sex fantasy? (euuuh... can you spare me some of that cream? :p )

bousozuku, that was a great post that summerizes some of what many others and I have been trying to get across, in vain. Thanx.

That was just about the book of Ruth, nothing else.

I have been flamed in the past but I hope that people know that I care and that I'm not saying things to upset people--only to make them think.

[wwworry]

kyle? one can reproduce the tests that support the big bang hypothesis. It's really the testing amd the method of testing that people trust.

You can't test for God. (nor would you want to, I think) That's what makes the big bang theory worthy of inclusion in textbooks. To proceed otherwise would mean including things like:
"the New York Giants are a better team then The Minnesota Twins and better for the country"

why?

because more people say so

(the giants play football and the Twins play baseball)

[numediaman]

Do we have a motion to close this thread and move on?

(I'm not trying silence anyone, its just kind of painful of see so many people bang their hands against the wall.)

By the way, I got an e-mail from God this morning. He said "look for new Macs soon". I e-mailed back "how soon?". He replied "soon, he he he". I don't know what to make of that.

[wwworry]

god told me gays were alright. It's left handed people he's worried about. sinister...

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by wwworry
god told me gays were alright. It's left handed people he's worried about. sinister... yeah, god loves happy people just fine. it's homosexuals we're talking about...