PlaneShift
Fan Area => The Hydlaa Plaza => Topic started by: Androgos on November 09, 2004, 07:33:35 pm
-
Hi!
I have a wierd homework to do that all in my class where given, kinda a poll or discussion to bring some graphs up.
Translated: How do you think homo/bi sexuals fit in the social life?
What\'s your oppinion on these \"directions\"?
I understand if ppl find this offensive or something but that\'s not my intention, and please tell me as much as you can :)
Thanks!
-
so... were supposed to tell you our oppinion?
-
Originally posted by Altharion
so... were supposed to tell you our oppinion?
I would appriciate it yes.
-
I see nothing wrong with that -> I think they fit nicely. Well, why are we even asking ourselves this? Shouldn\'t it be the other way round - what, are they causing trouble ... It seems to me like the 200yrs dead practice of someone being guilty until proven innocent.
And it has nothing to do with their fitting (they do), but how people interpret them (the other way round); nothing much is wrong with them, but with the rigid underpowered mind of the developed world. I repeat, I see no threat ergo no sense in this from my point of view. And I am pretty sure it would be hard to convince me otherwise - the arguments I\'ve heard are just plain small-minded. But if there is some reasonable explanation why they should be banned/burnt/shipped to a new continent, then tell me, so I can protect myself, my genus and the world!! :P
-
My opinion on the matter is really simple. I feel that in no way should you discriminate in anyway against someone because of their Race, Religion or Sexual Preference etc.
If you are referring more towards social groups then what is the diffrence between one group and another. If they do not cause harm to myself or others in my life then I don\'t see an issue.
-
Sex was meant to be had between one man and one woman. I don\'t care if everyone else accepts their lifestyle choice, I don\'t like it. This does not mean I hate them as people, just their lifestyle choice. Further, I definitely believe they should not be allowed to legally marry. Marriage is a sacred vow between one man and one women. Homosexuals should not be allowed to marry or to receive the benefits of being married.
This talk about people being born homosexual is a load. Nowhere has science even begun to prove this, and plenty of homosexuals go straight. Enough that it is obvious it is 100% the person\'s choice to be homosexual.
*waits to be flamed
-
heh Well I have encountered many homosexuals, but none that I have had any problems with aslong as they don\'t touch me I am fine (Touch as in sexually touch). Besides they can\'t say no to what they truly are, so just leave them be.
-
Originally posted by ArcaneFalcon
Sex was meant to be had between one man and one woman. I don\'t care if everyone else accepts their lifestyle choice, I don\'t like it. This does not mean I hate them as people, just their lifestyle choice. Further, I definitely believe they should not be allowed to legally marry. Marriage is a sacred vow between one man and one women. Homosexuals should not be allowed to marry or to receive the benefits of being married.
This talk about people being born homosexual is a load. Nowhere has science even begun to prove this, and plenty of homosexuals go straight. Enough that it is obvious it is 100% the person\'s choice to be homosexual.
*waits to be flamed
Meant by who/what? And this also raises the polygamy questions. The way I see it, sex is just a way of reproduction. BUT since humans and some other advanced animals do have sex with non-reproductory goals, the definition could be expanded.
Like marriage needs protection, just look what came out of it - so many divorces etc. And why not just redefine the term? Or just call not straight weddings something else?
I agree about the being born part.
-
I\'ll just say that it is my impression that everyone is born with a random amount of homosexuality, just like with everything else. The difference is that ppl. fear that they could try to \"get close\" to them, but OTOH, what about women? They have a really good reason to have these fears all the time... just because it\'s the other gender doesn\'t mean it\'s any better (in fact, it\'s even worse because they might be forced to have a baby, in addition to everything else).
Also, the polygamy issue is an important thing, because technically you\'d try to reproduce with as many partners as you can in order to spread your genes. However, monogamy is being practised, for various reasons that are not given through birth (but not necessarily invalid), so where is the difference anyway?
The way I see it is that ppl. just need to use common sense, respect and fairness in what they do, no matter what preferences they have, which really is the same as with music and religion.
So yes, I think that homosexual marriages should be treated the same as heterosexual ones, because along with the benefits there also come the duties. I\'m not forcing you to listen to my preferred music...
Edit: AFAICS, the idea behind marriage is not reproduction, since this would work perfectly well without marriage, but it is forming a stable bond, caring for your partner, and all these things that get promised upon marriage. Does the priest ask you \"Will you reproduce?\"? No, he doesn\'t, but he asks the \"good and bad times\" question. Therefore, marriage isn\'t for reproduction, but for social behaviour, which can be there regardless of what gender both partners are. In fact, if you\'d force homosexuals to marry straight, these relations will probably be less social because they don\'t actually like the partner, so this would in fact be unethical.
-
I\'d just like to ask how allowing homosexual marriage is going to harm anyone. Is it going to destroy your future marriage, ArcaneFalcon? Do you feel threatened that the gays are going to take over? Marriage is a personal thing. You do yours, let them do theirs. For some it is sacred. For others, it is important only for the benefits it provides (i.e., joint insurance policies for home, auto and health, inheritance automatically in the absence of a will, status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent, etc.). Why would you let a male and a female get these benefits, but not a male and a male, or a female and a female?
You are certainly free to disagree with their lifestyle. No one is going to bash you over the head for the way you think. But you -will- be bashed if you try to limit someone else\'s happiness when it doesn\'t affect you in the slightest.
-
What\'s this homework for anyways? Kind of curious now ;)
Anyway, it seems my opinion rests with the majority of people here so far. In my mind, homo/bi-sexual people have just made a lifestyle choice, so it makes them no different from the rest of people as far as socially goes.
As for my opinion on that \"direction\" they are taking in life, it doesn\'t really bother me. Basically, as I see it, if it doesn\'t hurt anyone, people are allowed to express themselves as they wish.
-
Personally I don\'t understand the question. It\'s no different from asking someone how a man fits into social life or a child.
I think the reason anyone pays attention to a person\'s sexual identity is because most people are stuck listening to the teachings of a 2000 year old religion.
Homosexuals do not give off gay cooties. And they don\'t inspire \"gayness\" in people. People single them out simply because they are ignorant.
ArcaneFalcon: In my opinion that\'s no different from saying only white people were meant to procreate with whites. And blacks with blacks. Humans may have evolved to the state of only being able to reproduce between different sexes, but we live in a time now that hardly verges on the edge of extinction. Partnership between same sexes is in no way going to affect anyone, in short or in the long run.
And I do believe that a person is born straight or homosexual. Nature not nuture. No person would willingly choose out of the blue to lead a life that would single them out and cast a dark shadow over them. Those that do go back and forth between sexuality are simply dealing with confusing emotions and do not yet know which walk of life they should be taking.
Marriage is a sacred vow between one man and one women
Again you are forcing religious beliefs on how other people live their life. Marriage is not always Christian. If so how do you think those billions that aren\'t got married?
Marriage is a bond of union between two people who love each other. Anyone who denies homosexuals that right does not deserve to be called human. And any religion that would condone such an act deserves the same fate.[/COLOR]
-
When knowledge of their sexuality gets out they usually dont fit in well, apart from those friends they already have. Humans fear what they do not understand, and the human way of getting rid of that fear is not a kind one.
-
In what perspective should this homework be placed? (like type of course and stuff) And why is it a weird question? That might make it easier to answer.
ArcaneFalcon: Being gay has been scientifically proven to be a born abnormality.
Now i know you\'re going to ask me for a source, i don\'t have one at hand nor do i want to search for it right now. So if you don\'t want to believe me on my word that is fine, i wouldnt either.
For the rest i go along with the others.
btw should we start talking about male monkeys having sex?
furthermore about the marriage thing: As often (at least here) a couple is married both by the government officials and a religios person. So why not make public marriage open to all and let the religions decide for themselves whom they do or don\'t marry.
Seems most fair to me, no lifestyle/belief is forced on others and religions can still live out their views. Fits in with the seperation of religion and government.
-
I know this is long (sorry), the last paragraph is a summary.
To say that another\'s marriage doesn\'t effect you is just plain ignorant. You think the government can hand out marriage benefits with absolutely no social or financial cost? Absolutely not! If they could, then they wouldn\'t worry about what diseases a person has, they wouldn\'t worry about how closely related people were, and they wouldn\'t worry about how many people you decide to marry (as in fact all 3 of those cases are also heavily regulated - at least in America). The fact is, allowing anyone and everyone to marry is simply too much of a strain on society. Only couples that will in some way give back to society should be allowed to marry. What to normal heterosexual marriages give back to society? They give back 2.3 children with at the least some high school education who are ready to take their places in society. What do homosexual couples give back for their benefits? _Nothing_. And don\'t give me the \"they can adopt\" argument. I don\'t need to spend my time persuading that homosexual couples produce screwed up kids as there have been tons of studies (by non-religious institutions) that can do all the persuading for me. The simple fact is that homosexual couples running around with marriage benefits is just too much a strain on society (of which I am a part of), just like there is too much strain to have first cousins running around producing handicapped children, too much strain to have people with certain diseases getting married and spreading the disease to others, and also too much strain from having two males and three females get married.
And I do believe that a person is born straight or homosexual.
Why? Why do you believe that? I\'ll tell you why I don\'t believe it. I don\'t believe it because there has not been one shread of scientific evidence that there is some \"homosexual gene\" or \"homosexual hormone\" or \"hormone imbalance\" that produces a homosexual person. None. Nothing. The only reason people believe this is because someone suggested it, and it sounds like a good argument even though it has absolutely no truth to back it up. Why do so many homosexuals start out straight, dating people of the opposite sex. Why do so many homosexuals turn straight later in life, going on to marry and have a normal family? Wouldn\'t this homosexuality that they were born with be with them for all of their life?No person would willingly choose out of the blue to lead a life that would single them out and cast a dark shadow over them.
They would choose to become homosexual because there are social and other influences that tell them that it is not only ok, but even that it is better for them. You\'re right, no person would willingly choose a path that would lead them to be a social outcast. But then again, choosing to be a homosexual doesn\'t do this (just look at how many of you support them).
Homosexuals do not give off gay cooties. And they don\'t inspire \"gayness\" in people. People single them out simply because they are ignorant.
Since when has anyone suggested that homosexuals give off \"gay cooties.\" I\'ve no idea what you are even getting at here. People don\'t single out homosexuals because they are ignorant. People single them out because they are a threat to society, because they attack the institution of marriage, and for many (including me) it goes against their morals and beliefs.
In summary, I don\'t support homosexuality, so called \"gay rights\", or homosexual marriage for the same reason I don\'t support abortion, euthenasia, self mutilation ( \"cutting\" ), or the legalization of all substance abuse. It destroys society, a society that I, along with my (hopefully) future wife and children children will have to live in also.
:emerald:
Edit: Androgos, you\'d better thank us for doing your homework! :P
-
>>>Only couples that will in some way give back to society should be allowed to marry.<<<
How can you tell if they will give back to society? Is there a contract they have to sign?
>>>They give back 2.3 children with at the least some high school education who are ready to take their places in society.<<<
Is this a proven fact? What of those who never plan to have children, as I don\'t? Will that mean I\'m not going to be allowed to marry? And what of those who give back to society rapists, murderers, and thieves? What of those who marry, then are abusive to their children? What of children that suffer from neglect?
What perfect little world do you live in, ArcaneFalcon, and can you share your sercret path?
>>>What do homosexual couples give back for their benefits? _Nothing_.<<<
Oh really? So if a couple doesn\'t have children, then they are meaningless to society? There is nothing else they can achieve, no greatness they can share with the world? Is that what relationships are - baby-making agreements?
>>>Why do so many homosexuals start out straight, dating people of the opposite sex.<<<
Maybe because that is what society teaches them?
Why do so many atheists start out as theists?
>>>Why do so many homosexuals turn straight later in life, going on to marry and have a normal family?<<<
Maybe because that is what society wants of them, so they repress their own urges and think that they are \'normal\' and happy?
>>>People single them out because they are a threat to society, because they attack the institution of marriage, and for many (including me) it goes against their morals and beliefs.<<<
You know what the real threat to society is? Closed thinking.
*edit* Reading ArcaneFalcon\'s post again, it shows just far too many faults to ignore. Homosexual marriage stressing society? Come on! And what if they \"turn straight\" later and marry? Same amount of people, same received benefits, just different sexes. Ridiculous argument.
-
Originally posted by ArcaneFalcon
They would choose to become homosexual because there are social and other influences that tell them that it is not only ok, but even that it is better for them. You\'re right, no person would willingly choose a path that would lead them to be a social outcast. But then again, choosing to be a homosexual doesn\'t do this (just look at how many of you support them).
This may be a valid argument today, but its not as though people have been homosexual only when it was more of an accepted practice. People have been hiding/trying to cover it up for well over a hundred years.
Leaving the genetic argument behind, it contradicts what you said (about choosing a social outcast lifestyle).
-
To answer the question ?how do you think homo/bi sexuals fit in the social life??
I live in the Netherlands, one of the most homo friendly countries. But whenI look at the situation of homo?s I know, they have had struggles to give it a place anyway. First they are in doubt of what kind of preference they really have. Then they discover they are homo but keep it secret during the time they need to get sure. Then they have to decide about and presumably plan a ?coming out?. All those thoughts, decisions and doubts may cause instability in the puberty and therefore can affect social life. (Apart from a possible lack of social acceptance)
I?m not a homo myself, nor a psychologist :), this is just what I make up when talking with a few homos.
-
ArcaneFalcon:
Science may not prove it, but psychology can. Think of it this way:
If 10000 people were brought up in a sterilized environment (think Truman Show) with no references to homosexuallity some of them would still turn out to be gay. If a person is not born a certain way then obviously they learn it. As this experiment would prove that wrong then obviously they are born that way.
Now if you are referring to being born homosexual as in right out of the womb then you are correct. But the same is true for being straight. No one is born that way. At a certain age those feelings develop in a person, usually puberty.
What I am saying is there is no way to prevent someone from becoming gay. It\'s who they are. These \"Christian Prisoncamps\" that claim that they can cure homosexuallity....well if you believe that you are more of a moron than I thought you to be.
-
I have a simpl rule about that. Let them do what hey want as long as they leave me alone. I dont care if somone if homo or whatever as long as they dont start hitting on me. I dont see why people hate it so much, its not like it effects them in any way. If theres one word the whole world should understand its Tolerance.
-
Originally posted by ArcaneFalcon
They give back 2.3 children with at the least some high school education who are ready to take their places in society.
Great! They give their input into the global overpopulation! \\o/
hmm... let\'s see... I suppose homosexuals are less agressive so I think they fit quite well... unless social life is all about killing each other.
What really destroys society is no tolerance. Be that for homosexuals, different races or religions.
- Swords
-
ok, about the not getting children part and being a burdon to society.
on the other hand, they can both work without having to take care of children so they can work more and thus pay more taxes and they have more to spend thus feeding local economy.
ik personally beleve in love from soul to soul. if that soul happens to be in a body of the same sex then i wouldn\'t love him/her less.
(talking real love here, not reproducing love)
and how about people who started out married streight and then turning gay because they just don\'t feel right with a person from the other sex.
- just my 2 tria on that.
-
Hmmm... i had a question like this given to be some time back, \"the goverment is trying to foster equal-opportunity in work places and what a better way to get the massage across then to brain wa ... err i mean teach students.
Needless to say, the whole idea was wasted effort (in a way) as we kept cracking jokes, and made alot of crude remarks.. like (a less explict example)
Q: if you found out your son was gay, what would you do ?
A: i\'d find him XXX mags *cue laughter*
And this was comming form a non-christain. Asian culture isn\'t really open about its homo/bi sexuals, with the exception of thailand.
There were also leafleats on how homo/bi sexuals are unjustly treated in work places stuff like verbal harrasment, but the leaflets are proly siting somewhere in the bottom of a trash heap or they have been recycled so can\'t help you out much Androgos.
-2 cents and a half chewed bubble gum-
-
without all the stereotypes you will see that homosexuals are same as everyone else. just watch oprah, she likes to bring all kinda homos on stage to show them off.
homosexuality is not genetic, I don\'t believe you are born homosexual, I think it happens somewhere very early in child\'s life. Like Freud :) I believe lot of important life shaping stuff happens early in childhood.
-
Thanks for all answers and oppinions!
Really huge thanks to all of you :)
Puh, that finishes my homework..
What kind it is? Me and my classmates were given this task to discuss with people and I thought that this forum and IRC was a good place because it\'s international.
It\'s to be reviewed on notes and 2-3 pages handwritten of the peoples take on this.
Again, thanks a lot. You saved my a** :)
-
Mmmhmmm and what a cute a** it is.
>.>
<.<
-=leaves=-
-
err, Darn!
I\'ve missed a pretty good subject. Well, since I can\'t write full pages now, I\'ll be brief:
\"They\" are ok as long some lesbi girl (EDIT! - DON\'T ) steals my g/f :D
-
At First it seems a bit wierd. But it is an actual theme. The number of Homos & Bis is growing. I for myself think that they are doomed to be outsiders, because most people are offended by them.
-
Hmm, I would have liked to voice my opinion on this, too late though.
Merdarion, I am not sure about that, I know many gay people, and despite the odd idiot, they are well liked.
As for gay marriage... I see no reason why not.
Annah, I agree with you, except that noone, male or female could ever steal my girlfriend.
-
Of course not Adeli, you would have to have one for it to be stolen :P (just jking :D )
And I am against gay marriages!!
I am against all marriages
Stupid marriageness...what is the point in it, you marry somebody because you love her/him? so, if you don\'t marry it makes no difference. The only difference is that you need marriage so you don\'t cheat because it makes you feel guilty...if you really love somebody you don\'t need to get married
-
Waylander, I don\'t believe that marriage is a necessary institution as well, but currently the benefits it gives to the couple could really help their long-term relationship. Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, in a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. The modern world is just built that way.. :/
-
My girlfriend likes the idea because she\'d want people to know she was mine, she told me she wants a big sign letting everyone know.
I don\'t think it is necessary, it is just a more formal arrangement.
-
My girlfriend likes the idea because she\'d want people to know she was mine, she told me she wants a big sign letting everyone know.
I don\'t think it is necessary, it is just a more formal arrangement.
Armeen, you\'re just jealous.
EDIT: I DON\'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENNED HERE! PLEASE DELETE
-
its ok, aslong as their not trannies to cause that really scares me, guys in dresses kissing other guys= me 8o (this is suppose to be me scared not me gay -.-)
-
i agree with arcane all the way.
-
Then perhaps you\'d like to address the faults I pointed out in his arguments, since it doesn\'t seem like he will?
-
Originally posted by Merdarion
At First it seems a bit wierd. But it is an actual theme. The number of Homos & Bis is growing. I for myself think that they are doomed to be outsiders, because most people are offended by them.
Just thought I\'d point out that bisexuality is not more common these days than it was hundreds of years ago. The only reason people think this is because more gay people are allowing themselves to express their true nature in public, now that it is more socially acceptable.
Remember, they used to get tortured and burned at the stake, so \"Oh by the way, I\'m gay\" wasn\'t one of the most common phrases spoken in those times. ;)
-
one way it affects me is that is is against MY morals and values.
AIDS is more common in homosexuals than anything, and there are many gays that go straight. If they have gotten AIDS, and they decide that they really weren\'t born with tthis homosexuality, than that can get to me easier, this is health matters.
EDIT: Oh, and as you mentioned, why should gays not be able to get those material things from marriage? I do not believe anyone should marry just for those material things. Let\'s talk when a man and a man, or a woman and a woman can have a baby together. The anatomy of a man and a women were made so that a man and a woman can have babies and get married. Not a man and a man, not a woman and a woman.
-
You didn\'t really address what I wanted you to.
>>>AIDS is more common in homosexuals than anything [...]<<<
Could you please cite a respectable source for this information?
>>>[...] there are many gays that go straight.<<<
And there are many \'straights\' that go \'gay\'. Your point is moot. Also, the rest of your post is rather hard to comprehend...
>>>The anatomy of a man and a women were made so that a man and a woman can have babies and get married.<<<
The anatomy of men and women have nothing to do with marriage. This just shows how desperate you are to make a point :/
Also, do you realize that there are couples who never want children? Are they somehow less human because of it? Do you also realize that there are indeed people who get married -solely- for those benefits? We do not live in a lovey-dovey world.
-
for the AIDS, ask all of the homosexuals who are dieing from it, and I could provide a source, but anyone can doubt any source.
my point is is that it can affect my health because of these gays, who can transfer diseases, because they have gotten AIDS from another homosexual. They \'turn straight\' and may transfer these diseases.
EDIT: The people who do marry -soley- for these benifits i disagree with, whether they are straight or homosexual. This again, goes against my morals and values. When did i say anything about people who wanted to get married but have no children, no it does not make them less human. Oh, and obviously we do not live ina lovey-dovey world, as I disagree with you.
-
Originally posted by Krahan
When did i say anything about people who wanted to get married but have no children
Originally posted by ArcaneFalcon
They give back 2.3 children with at the least some high school education who are ready to take their places in society. What do homosexual couples give back for their benefits? _Nothing_.
Originally posted by Krahan
i agree with arcane all the way.
oh look, you did...
Originally posted by Krahan
but anyone can doubt any source.
Anyone will doubt it more without the source...
- Swords
-
A main reason for AIDS being prevalent within the gay community is that it\'s known emergence is traced back to a very promiscuous gay man. So you had mostly gay men with AIDS, and then there\'s drugs, and the few who\'re bi, so that leads to heterosexuals.
As for the threat of contracting AIDS from a gay man or woman \'turned\' straight, I don\'t quite see your point, unless you have a problem with condoms.
As for marriage, I don\'t see a point in it, other than for it\'s legal and economic benefits, and it should be for anyone who wants it. I don\'t have a religious reason for marriage, being an atheist, and I really don\'t feel like I need a legally binding contract to tell someone that I love them. And then there\'s always the problems of divorce (unless there\'s a pre-nup) and don\'t get me started on annulment.
And as for homosexuality itself, good for them, means that many more women left for me. Most of my friends are gay or bi, and the only real difference I see is that the sex jokes and talk about sex switch genders mostly.
Also, when it comes to statistics, I hate them all, because you can say anything with a statistic; give me raw data any day.
And just because you\'re gay doesn\'t mean you can\'t, or won\'t, have children; I\'m living proof of that.
-
Great discussion this has become. Gives an interesting view on moral beliefs.
The reason to think gay marriage is wrong comes from religious (and in this case from christianity) right?
Im curious though, the people whom have this opinion what they base it on. Where in the bible does it explicatly say that being gay is immoral?
Oh and one more thing: Not allowing gay marriage doesn\'t prevent gay people from having a relationship and sex. So you\'re not preventing anything.
Sex with the same gender hasn\'t been weird in every culture. In ancient greece it was very common.
-
Originally posted by Ionas
Oh and one more thing: Not allowing gay marriage doesn\'t prevent gay people from having a relationship and sex. So you\'re not preventing anything.
I think the argument is more for equal rights, and they are being prevented, so long as civil unions aren\'t recognized. Personally, I could care less about public, religious weddings, but for some it\'s a very important thing. But yeah, I think the main argument is for being able to do what heterosexual couples can do, and they don\'t want any \'separate but equal\' bull. That\'s my interpretation anyway.
As for homosexuality being immoral in the Bible, you should read it more often. Sodom and Gomorrah are certainly part of that, although it was also general debauchery as well, and personally it sounded like a great place to be at the time. There are several places in the bible where homosexuality is directly condemned. I can\'t and won\'t quote chapter and verse at the moment, but I\'m fairly sure the skeptic\'s annotated bible will have it already laid out.
-
Originally posted by Zetsumei
I think the argument is more for equal rights, and they are being prevented, so long as civil unions aren\'t recognized.
I don\'t see any reason to be against equel rights if it means no differences in practice. Then it really is about forcing ones morals upon others.
As for homosexuality being immoral in the Bible, you should read it more often.
As im no longer christian i never read the bible (or ever did much). I do know there are parts though. But in fact i wanted people to come with the specific parts.
As those parts are often very brutal in language it seems strange to me to take those parts seriously.
Then again at the part of Mozes and the ten commandments the bible also speaks about death for sinners.
-
Yeah, when it comes to Sodom and Gomorrah, the people there were given last chance, but they all wanted to have sex with the angel...
or something... I didn\'t read it in Bible, rather in some kind of sick christian anti-gay comic...
- Swords
-
Originally posted by Krahan
my point is is that it can affect my health because of these gays, who can transfer diseases, because they have gotten AIDS from another homosexual. They \'turn straight\' and may transfer these diseases.
Did you know that it is your responsibility to get regular check-ups and STD tests, as well as use protection during sex? If you know who you are dealing with, the chances of contracting an STD are fairly low. If you poink everything that breathes and comes your way, then you have problems.
Your point, again, is moot.
-
Actually, Krahan is right about one thing. Death from AIDS is more common among homosexuals and bisexuals than among heterosexuals. Still, like Karyuu said it is every persons responsibility to use protection so unless you get violated by a homosexual (let\'s not discuss probability) you should be able to stay healthy.
-
Whatever happened to \"love thy neighbour\" and \"turn the other cheek\"...? Guess it\'s just like in any argument, people will deliberately omit things that disprove the points they\'re trying to make.
You have to admit that marriage purely for legal benefits is extremely common these days. When two people fall in love, they very often get married, regardless of if they\'re Christian or not. Many people get married in the registrar\'s office if they don\'t want a traditional ceremony with all the vows infront of \'God\'. And ohmigosh... its not illegal. Millions of athiests and non-believers get married every year, in churches, and they\'re ALLOWED to. By law.
But wait... just because these other couples are not opposite genders, they\'re NOT allowed! Doesn\'t matter if they believe in god, oooh no. They could be the most believing believers who could ever believe. But THAT doesn\'t matter one bit. All that matters is their sexual orientation, because of course, that\'s SO much more important than not believing in God at all.
Apparently.
-
Listen to Karyuu, she knows what she is talking about.
AIDS is from lack of prevention, not homosexual sex.
Think of Thailand, millions there have AIDS, this is from the sex trade, not homosexuality.
My old religion actually taught that homosexuality was wrong, and I did not like this. While I do not feel that way about men, anyone who wants to, can do so in my opinion.
I think most of the arguments against gay marriage come more from ignorance and hatred than religion. It seems very, er... closeminded stupidity to me. Most homophobics I know are insecure about their sexuality. Whether it is sexual insecurity or religion, you have no right to force your beliefs on others.
Moogie, does that mean you are against atheism? I don\'t think marriage should be restricted in any way. I believe in freedom of choice.
-
I think homos and ib\'s are ok, but I agree with ArcaneFalcon, I think they are fine as people, but I disagree with their sexual preferences, I also think they should not be allowed to marry, or get married benefits, but I am 13, so nobodies cares about my opinion. :(
Post Script: By the way Moogie, I like that phrase: \"They could be the most beliving believers who could ever believe.\"
-
Tecnically Moogie, that is very unlikely.
Because they are preached against... most are disillusioned with religion, or atheists.
But I know what you meant.
Jellywerker: I too think \"ib\'s\" are okay.
-
Well i am a Christian. So every1 here should know how i stand on this subject. People was made to em lets say connect in a way. Think of a puzzle putting in a square cube into a square slot well people who live the same gender that\'s like trying to put a triangle into a circle slot. ( don\'t mean to offend anyone) Hence y my family voted bush
-
Originally posted by Karyuu
Did you know that it is your responsibility to get regular check-ups and STD tests, as well as use protection during sex? If you know who you are dealing with, the chances of contracting an STD are fairly low. If you poink everything that breathes and comes your way, then you have problems.
Your point, again, is moot.
Just have to point this out. If everyone would save sex for marriage between a man and a woman, aids would hardly be a problem, it would eventually die out. You can\'t argue with that.
I don\'t really want to get involved in this, but I take Arcanefalcon\'s side.
-
I voted for bush. BUT! WAIT! I HAVE AN IMPORTANT THING TO ADD! LISTEN! I did not vote for him because of the way he feels about gay couples. I think that first of all that god or some higher plane of being created this place.
We are here as small organisms making a way here. But I do not feel that this higher plane created everything for a purpose meaning or value. I beleive the universe was created in a huge explosion yes, but the source of this is I feel that higher plane of existance.
Now when I say that I mean that everything you see here on earth and in the universe became that way through itself. That higher existance merely watches everything and does not interfere I beleive. So to Isolis\' response that gays were not made to fit together I think that is right, but very wrong at the same time.
Evolution didn\'t mean for this to happen, but it did anyways and that is just one more evolution for the human race. Things happen on the world for zany reasons, but I don\'t think anything of higher power manipulated every single little thing. I find that quite absurd. I beleive that the reproduction system was created for once purpose, children and it spawned out of crazy settings and complications.
So all in all, gays are all right in my book. They don\'t rape anyone anymore than anyone else. That study that homosexuals have more STDS than straights is completely bogus as the 2nd hand smoke causing cancer is. Both are just instances of one poorly put together study being done by a highly respected member of the scientific community. This happens and everyone holds it as the all holy truth from heaven. This is untrue, just a bunch of copy cats. Remember that these are theories and haven\'t been proven to any sort of scientific level.
So just leave them alone. Regardless of your views on homosexuality leave tem alone. If you feel these people are doing the wrong thing, let them be and turn the other cheek. Unless one of them rapes you, they aren\'t hurting you.
Now after all I\'ve said I\'ll release a bombshell. I DONT support gay marriage. This however is not because I don\'t like gay people though. This is because I don\'t think that there should any benifits for married people. They should just give benifits to people who sign a release as a couple under law. Think about this, if this happened in some other religion like islam, and the goverment, I dont know said... that a man couldn\'t wear a green shirt during a holy matromony of 2 people then alot of people would think, \"What a dick hole, what is he doing, its a simple rule dont wear a green shirt\" But since this is america, and marriage is that matromony and its held under law and order and that cheezy green shirt is gay couples, the situation is much more delicate. There for we shouldn\'t give any benifits to married people and just start a new coupling system with no resemblence to marriage and that be that.
END! :D
-
Adeli: No, I think you misunderstood my post. I have nothing against gay people or Athiests. The point I was trying to make was the religious people in this world, and those speaking here, seem to care more about gay people marrying than they do about non-believers marrying. The fact that it is against the law to marry if you\'re male + male, yet perfectly fine if you don\'t even believe in God... I think that\'s obsurd.
Like I always say, if you\'re going to be intolerant, be intolerant without discrimination. ;)
-
Moggie what you\'re saying is kinda what I have trouble with. The bible says that gays cant marry. So why can gays marry in a christian church? You see its kinda strange... I have nothing against gays or getting married but I think it should be like outside a church or somthing. Ah nevermind. Why would I caare anyways? I have nothing against gays...
-
Originally posted by dannythompson
Evolution didn\'t mean for this to happen, but it did anyways and that is just one more evolution for the human race.
You\'re looking for the answer in the wrong place. Evolution has nothing to do with this. Human, just like any other animal, goes by the laws of nature. And it so happens that nature has large variety of its ways. Thanks to that we all are so different from each other. Some guys are more feminine than others, some are more masculine (and they go around smashing things ;)). It happens everywhere in the nature\'s kingdom. It didn\'t come with evolution, it was always like that. You can see homosexualism in behaviour of some other animals as well.
That\'s why christianity is against homosexualism. Because it comes from nature and christianity wants human to turn his back to it (If some of you don\'t know, satan is supposed to be manifestation of nature).
Of course that is load of crap, as proven by St. Francis of Assisi...
And this is for all you silly christians who are against homosexuality:
\"For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.\" (Matthew 6:14-15)
\"For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the same measure you use, it will be measured back to you.\" (Matthew 7:2)
:P
- Swords
-
The Bible condemns homosexuality in several places. Romans 1:26-27 and Leviticus 18:22 are 2 such passages. (If you make the argument that old testament law doesn\'t apply - the leviticus passage - then you are wrong. There were different types of old testament laws, one of which was moral laws. While the specific laws themselves don\'t apply - referring to the punishment of death for seemingly menial crimes - the issue of morality - what is right and wrong - still applies.) This is why, Moogie, I am against homosexuality altogether. As for non-christians marrying, why would I be against a (non-Christian) man and women promising to love each other for the rest of their lives? So long as they don\'t get divorced 5 years down the road I think it is fine.
As far as homosexuals marrying for benefits, most of the benefits available to married couples are also available to unmarried couples (including homosexual couples) in some partner benefit laws (at least here in America) so I definitely see no reason for them to marry (though I don\'t like those benefits either, I\'m pretty much against anything that promotes homosexuality for the above stated reason).
Draklar: I don\'t see what you are getting at. I\'m not judging them at all. Like I said, I have nothing against the people who choose to be homosexual. I do, however, have something against their chosen lifestyle (for the reason that God condemns it), and I want them to turn from their ways. It is not I that am judging them, it is God. As for the forgiving passage, again, I have no idea what you are getting at. I already said I have nothing against them. There is nothing for me to forgive them (as a general group) for. I think you need to learn how to interpret the Bible before you start quoting it. Those are 2 excellent scripture passages, but they have nothing (directly) to do with the topic at hand.
:emerald:
-
ArcaneFalcon, i respect your honesty and that you give your opinion even as it is mostly many against a few here.
Even though i strongly disagree and my first emotional reaction to this would be to categorize such an opinion as ignorant.
Unfortunately this is all a matter of belief. You believe in a God who\'m condems homosexuality (ive read the parts you gave btw). Me and others don\'t believe in a God at all or at least not in such a God.
The only way to convince each other would be for me to make you believe in a different God or none at all. For you vice versa. Which is almost impossible to do and would end up in a theological debate.
So ill personally leave it at that and respect your opinion even though i think its wrong and harmfull.
To people that have a negative view on christianity because of things like this i\'d like to state that there are many different interpretations in christianity. Not all christians believe being gay, abortion, euthanasia etc is wrong.
-
Originally posted by ArcaneFalcon
I think you need to learn how to interpret the Bible before you start quoting it. Those are 2 excellent scripture passages, but they have nothing (directly) to do with the topic at hand.
Heh... you don\'t think I\'ve been reading the Bible to get that quotes, do you? I took it from article from some christian about the discriminations and opressings... I would say his interpretation was quite good ;)
You however are interpreting it more or less like people from the burning times :P
Here\'s the interpretation for you:
I do, however, have something against their chosen lifestyle
If so, then you believe their lifestyle is wrong - you judge their lifestyle.
Thus your lifestyle shall be judged by God. Simple.
As Christian you should accept any behaviour and consider it as good as any other. God is supposed to judge it, not you.
Most of christians don\'t even understand it that no matter if God condemns it or not, they aren\'t supposed to have anything against someone\'s chosen lifestyle...
As for the forgiving passage, again, I have no idea what you are getting at.
fear not, I shall enligthen thee :]
More or less: Don\'t mind if someone does a sin and it shall be done same to you...
In other words: Don\'t mind if someone decides to be with someone of same sex and God won\'t mind your sins that much.
- Swords
-
Originally posted by ArcaneFalcon
This is why, Moogie, I am against homosexuality altogether. As for non-christians marrying, why would I be against a (non-Christian) man and women promising to love each other for the rest of their lives? So long as they don\'t get divorced 5 years down the road I think it is fine.
I\'m afraid this is what I don\'t understand. Why are people who don\'t even believe in God allowed to marry in Christian churches, and why is that fine in your opinion? Why couldn\'t the same be said for gay people? If you tolerate people who deliberately say \"There is no God\", which is the single most direct opposition to your beliefs there could possibly be, then why not tolerate harmless gay couples?
What if the gay couple were Christian? There must be thousands out there. Are they condemned, even though they worship God and follow his teachings? Do you still not tolerate them marrying just because they\'re different from you?
Sorry for the barrage of questions. :P I\'m genuinly interested in the response though.
**None of what I\'m saying here is meant to be forcing my opinion on you, Arcane, I hope you understand. I just want to learn more about how you feel on the subject, because its an interesting debate, and our views are on opposite sides. I\'m sure it\'s just as interesting for you to try and explore the reasons why other people have their opinions also. :)
-
Originally posted by Moogie
If you tolerate people who deliberately say \"There is no God\", which is the single most direct opposition to your beliefs there could possibly be,
Not sure about that. According to Christ\'s teachings even those who don\'t worship God are allowed in his \"Kingdom\".
According to that, there\'s nothing wrong in allowing couples like that to marry at christian church. The only question would be why they want to do it.
It is said that marriage must be between man and woman (and nothing about religion, I think... but then again, myself am not allowed to have church marriage because of throwing away christian teachings :P so who knows) so Church goes by those rules...
it\'s kinda bleh, but oh well...
- Swords
-
Moogie:
I\'m afraid this is what I don\'t understand. Why are people who don\'t even believe in God allowed to marry in Christian churches, and why is that fine in your opinion? Why couldn\'t the same be said for gay people?
It\'s not the fact that they are Christian or non-Christian. Non-Christians marrying aren\'t sinning, and marrying them won\'t be promoting anything deemed wrong in the eyes of the Bible (quite the contrary, actually, they will be upholding Biblical principles of sexual purity). Letting homosexuals marry would be promoting sin. I see where you are coming from in that both are against Christianity, but in this case marrying one couple (the heterosexual couple) would be a step in the right direction, whereas marrying the other couple (the homosexual couple) would be a step in the wrong direction. Does that make sense? Don\'t worry about sounding like you are trying to force your opinion, because you don\'t. And you at least bring up a good question (after thinking about it for a minute), as opposed to V that one.
*sigh, now for the long one
Draklar: Heh... you don\'t think I\'ve been reading the Bible to get that quotes, do you?
Yeah, silly me. To think you would actually, oh, I don\'t know, do some research on the topic you are trying to argue. Geez, you call me ignorant for being Christian, and yet you go and read one cracked up article by a person claiming to be Christian and immediately take it to be an authority. Who is more ignorant, the person who studies and searches for what he/she thinks is truth, and then stands up for themself, or the person who hears someone else say something and immediately takes it as truth? Give me a break. I took it from article from some christian about the discriminations and opressings... I would say his interpretation was quite good
How would you know? You won\'t even crack the book open. To think some person who won\'t even open the Bible is arguing with me over Biblical teachings.
To thoroughly dispute this I\'m going to need to give you a short lesson in Bible interpretation. The first rule of interpreting the Bible is this: context. The second rule is: context. And here is the third rule on interpreting scripture: context. You can\'t just take the words at face value. That is where you get people (like the article you are quoting) twisting scripture to say things it doesn\'t. If you take words at face value, and only quote parts and small portions of scripture you can have the Bible support just about anything you want (just like you can have two political groups use the same statistics to support both sides of a particular issue, except their version is called \"spinning\" ). You need to find what the author was saying at the time of the writing. For example, there is a scripture passage that says that women should be silent in the church. Does this actually mean that women shouldn\'t talk in churches? That is what some claim. However, if you look into the context of the church that this was written to (it was in one of Paul\'s letters) you will find that that particular church was having problems with women having outbursts of questions and comments during church gatherings. To bring this back to the topic at hand, those verses quoted have nothing at all to do with the homosexuality issue. Again, I am not the one judging homosexuals as being sinful. God and his word are taking care of that, I am merely conveying it.
In other words: Don\'t mind if someone decides to be with someone of same sex and God won\'t mind your sins that much.
Ugh, that is so wrong. Example: the Bible also says you shouldn\'t murder (unjustified killing). Now, if I were to go with your face value interpretation of Matthew 7:2 and Matthew 6:14-15 I would be indifferent to murderers. You just went and slaughtered 20 women and children, meh, I don\'t care, after all, the Bible says I shouldn\'t judge you (note the sarcasm). More correctly, Matthew 7:2 is telling us we need to be careful about accusing someone of sin when there is no real clear basis for such an accusation. What it is not saying is that we should not accuse anyone of or speak out against sin ever. When there is a clear Biblical condemnation to a specific action, and a person has admitted to doing that action, then I am free to lovingly point them in the right direction. I already posted two examples of scripture denouncing homosexuality, so there is no need for me to judge them, God has done that already. As for your other scripture reference (Matthew 6:14-15), that is simply saying we need to forgive those who have sinned against us (or sinned in general). We shouldn\'t harbor anger or despise people who sin, rather we should forgive them. I already said I have nothing against homosexuals as people (they\'re very nice people, most are very happy and cheerful, there\'s nothing wrong with that). This semi applies in that Christians shouldn\'t despise homosexuals (or any other group of sinners) for what they have done. In fact, after looking at what both of those scriptures really mean, your article may not be cracked up at all, you just don\'t understand at all. I have a feeling that article is saying we shouldn\'t despise homosexuals (or any other group) for their sin, rather that we should lovingly correct them. I would bet that article isn\'t condoning homosexuality at all, you are just twisting it to work for your argument (remember the politicians and their \"spinning\" example?). Not sure about that. According to Christ\'s teachings even those who don\'t worship God are allowed in his \"Kingdom\".
I\'m not quite sure what you mean by that, but if you are implying it is possible for non-Christians to get to heaven you are wrong. The bible is quite clear on that. Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast. (NKJV) If you have faith in Jesus dieing on the cross for your sins you can be forgiven because of God\'s grace. You can not be saved by doing good alone(though true faith manifests itself in doing good). Everyone has sinned, and any sin at all is grounds for death (death in this case means eternal seperation from God, IE Hell - Romans 3:23). That right there is pretty much the core of the core of the Christian faith.
I think that about does it. Sorry that was so long, seriously, but Draklar asked for it.
:emerald:
Edit: Oh, and you claim this is fire and brimstone preaching? You are very wrong my friend. God is to be feared and loved. Many people today try to convey God\'s love a lot, which they should, because he is very loving. But if you disobey his word then you are rejecting his love, and are deserving of his wrath (eternal seperation, IE Hell). The only unpardonable sin is not believing what God is trying to tell you.
:emerald:
-
Arcane: I understand your points now. Thank you. :)
With that last post I feel I understand enough where you\'re coming from, and any more argument from me wouldn\'t add anything useful here.
So... *vanishes in a puff of fluff*
-
Well I suppose everything that can be said here has been said. Let it be that. I herby vote for this thread to be closed, all in favor say, \"aye!\".
-
ArcaneFalcon, I said I found the quotes in the article, I never actually said I didn\'t check them. And as a matter of fact I did open the book and looked into the quotes.
...so yeah, by assuming something before actually asking you are quite ignorant.
I\'m not even going to read such a long post if you start it from making false assumptions :rolleyes:
- Swords
-
To each, his own. People might as well let gays marry, its going to happen anyways and its not a big deal. Let them get married, let them live in peace, and lets move on to more important subjects.
-
Moogie, sorry that was my fault. I forgot to quote you, heh. I was only referring to your comment about gays being the most believing believers that ever believed.
I apologise for confusion.
This will be in no particular order, random like my thoughts.
Arcane... where to start?
You say you don\'t judge these people, \'God\' does. Yet you openly admit to judging their actions. You are indeed judging them, by their actions. So you have contradicted yourself here. Also, isn\'t it blashpemy to speak for your god? I\'m not sure about this, I no longer follow religion.
I agree with Moogie here, how is it that you have no problem with atheists and you do with homosexuals? This has not been sufficiently answered in my opinion. They deny everything you believe in, every single value and belief of your faith, most homosexuals violate one. An entire religion ignored, or one precept... Seems strange to me. Was there an eleventh commandment: \"Thou shalt not love one who is of like gender\"?
Icefalcon, to add to your comment, if gays were to save sex for marriage (oops, forgot, they can\'t in the US), AIDS would be spread less by your reasoning, seems a good reason to allow it.
I feel those passages were indeed relevant and blatantly so. (On this note, Draklar... read the post, it\'s enlightening). They are saying that you have no right to judge (which as I stated you are judging), lest you too be judged, and you must forgive, lest you not be forgiven. I thought this was obvious.
Ionas made a point I was thinking of. Not all christians feel this way. Why is this? Some feel they have no right to judge, others don\'t care. As for your eternal separation (which I do not feel refers to hell), not all christians believe that. For some there is no heaven nor hell, just death. They are no less christian for being different.
Marriage was (originally) unity under God. How then can you deem it right for atheists to marry in a church? I can\'t imagine many would, but how is it allowed? A church is a place of worship, they are non-believers, another strange thing to me. What about an atheist (or agnostic like myself) were to marry a christian? What would you say to that, is it wrong? Trust me it does happen, it will eventually happen to me.
The comment about sexual purity intrigues me. Is purity only defiled by same sex relations? I am sure there must be other ways. Surely the mere loss of virginity is a sign of sexual impurity? What are your feelings on fornication? Should sex be saved for marriages?
Your notes on interpretation... So nothing in the bible makes sense in more than one context? This seems somewhat contradictory to me. I see it like this... \"Do/believe/think/hate/preach this... unless this and this and this...\" Do you see my point? I can\'t understand how this could work? Surely a bible teaching could be applied anywhere? Or is it just where it suits you? If one is to put one\'s trust entirely in a book, then they should be careful of contradictory interpretations. Either you do or you don\'t, not you do under these circumstances and don\'t under those.
Is there a bible passage that encourages you to speak out against sin? I don\'t recall mention of one. (I have not looked at a bible in years, but used to know it rather well.)
so there is no need for me to judge them, God has done that already.
You\'re doing it again, it is ignorant to believe that you are not judging them. I do not think this ignorance is due to your christianity (which, by the way, Draklar never said either), but due to your personality.
You claim to have forgiven them, therefore you should no judge their lifestyle, you should forgive it. This is your own wording here. This semi applies in that Christians shouldn\'t despise homosexuals (or any other group of sinners) for what they have done.
Why does it only semi apply? Just curious? Seems you just decided on the interpretation that suits you best.In fact, after looking at what both of those scriptures really mean, your article may not be cracked up at all, you just don\'t understand at all. I have a feeling that article is saying we shouldn\'t despise homosexuals (or any other group) for their sin, rather that we should lovingly correct them. I would bet that article isn\'t condoning homosexuality at all, you are just twisting it to work for your argument
You assume much, but strive to prove little here. Where is your reasoning? You automatically assume your assumption is right, and his understanding is flawed? Have you read the article? I think not. Perhaps you should, you may find you are right... or [gasp] you may be wrong! [/gasp]. A perfect example of your ignorant assumptions is that you immediately decided the article was \"cracked up\" then upon learning it had credence decided that Draklar did not understand \"at all\". This, no matter how you try to sugar coat it, is ignorant. your close-mindedness is nauseating at times.
Your last point, once again... some christians believe there is no heaven or hell, so some may just as well believe \'God\' would welcome atheists. Remember: Yours is not the only denomination, there are hundreds.
Danny, I don\'t agree... this post should show how wrong you are.
Olig, that\'s a nice impartial attitude.
Forgive me for the length of this reply, I feel I covered all of you points, and raised many new ones.
- Tyralus Shadowdancer
-
Just thing I caught while reading Adeli\'s post :P
Originally posted by ArcaneFalcon
In fact, after looking at what both of those scriptures really mean, your article may not be cracked up at all, you just don\'t understand at all. I have a feeling that article is saying we shouldn\'t despise homosexuals (or any other group) for their sin, rather that we should lovingly correct them. I would bet that article isn\'t condoning homosexuality at all, you are just twisting it to work for your argument (remember the politicians and their \"spinning\" example?).
uhuh... sure, that must be it :P
first of all it isn\'t about homosexuality, but as I said opressions from christians. Opressions against different religion actually, but obviously that goes for any kinds of opressions.
It was rather call for fellow christians to bugger off already because \"We have persecuted them, and God will hold us accountable for this, you may be sure\".
Heh... \"lovingly correct them\"
you must mean show them the right way by showing good example, not correcting them by pointing out their failures, right? I mean God wouldn\'t like the second one ;)
\"remember the politicians and their \"spinning\" example?\"
I\'m afraid I don\'t... I don\'t care about politics... too much christianity in it nowadays... like that Bush and Reed scum ;)
- Swords
-
I agree with Moogie here, how is it that you have no problem with atheists and you do with homosexuals? This has not been sufficiently answered in my opinion.
I\'m sorry it hasn\'t, however there is no simpler way to explain it. Moogie seemed to understand it.
Icefalcon, to add to your comment, if gays were to save sex for marriage (oops, forgot, they can\'t in the US), AIDS would be spread less by your reasoning, seems a good reason to allow it.
Give me a break, what homosexual is going to save sex for marriage? Yeah right.
As for your eternal separation (which I do not feel refers to hell),
Yes, it is obvious you don\'t really know much about Christianity. That\'s what Hell is, eternal seperation from God. That is not some theory or interpretation, it is.
For some there is no heaven nor hell, just death. They are no less christian for being different.
Yes, as a matter of fact, they are. I would not consider someone who doesn\'t believe in Heaven and Hell to be a Christian. The Bible is more than blatant about that, and if there is no heaven, then there is no point in the Christian faith in the first place. If a person can\'t believe the whole Bible, then they are not a Christian in my book.
How then can you deem it right for atheists to marry in a church? I can\'t imagine many would, but how is it allowed?
To be honest with you, I don\'t think many (or any) non-Christians have been married in my church. It is mostly the Catholic church that does this (as it is increasingly easier to be a part of the Catholic church, and not do anything aside from attend church twice a year). I think most non-Christians get married in parks and stuff (or in Catholic churches).
Your notes on interpretation... So nothing in the bible makes sense in more than one context?
It really doesn\'t, no. You need to see what the original author meant when he was writing it, and apply it to that only. What if you wrote something today, only to have it twisted to mean 10 different things in 1000 years. It just doesn\'t work that way. If it did, then people would come along (and do come along, thinking it does work this way) and twist scripture to argue things the Bible was never intended to argue (or was intended to argue against).
You\'re doing it again, it is ignorant to believe that you are not judging them.
No, you simply don\'t understand. I already posted the references to 2 verses (there are more) that condemn homosexuality. God hates sin, and homosexuality is sin. Therefore God hates homosexuality. I am not speaking for God here, it\'s all there in His book!
Why does it only semi apply? Just curious? Seems you just decided on the interpretation that suits you best.
I already told you what this verse means, and how it applies to this situation. There really are no other interpretations. There is no need for me to reiterate this.
You assume much, but strive to prove little here. Where is your reasoning? You automatically assume your assumption is right, and his understanding is flawed? Have you read the article? I think not.
Did I say I read the article? Note the use of the words \"may,\" \"have a feeling,\" and \"I would bet.\"
first of all it isn\'t about homosexuality, but as I said opressions from christians. Opressions against different religion actually, but obviously that goes for any kinds of opressions.
Honestly, I don\'t see any of this oppression. The last Christian oppression I can think of was the KKK, and they were (are) an offshoot radicle group.
A perfect example of your ignorant assumptions is that you immediately decided the article was \"cracked up\" then upon learning it had credence decided that Draklar did not understand \"at all\". This, no matter how you try to sugar coat it, is ignorant.
I think you need some reading lessons. If you\'ll notice, my entire last post was an evolution of thought. At the end, and note again the use of conjectural phrases, I decided that the article may be credible, in which case Draklar was twisting it. I have not read the article, and therefore it is difficult for me to dispute it.
you must mean show them the right way by showing good example, not correcting them by pointing out their failures, right? I mean God wouldn\'t like the second one
Leading by example is a good way, but some times direct intervention is necessary. What if my best friend was going to commit suicide? Would I lead by example by not killing myself? Definitely not! I give you this extreme example to show you how it applies to lesser situations. The fact is, homosexuals are destroying themselves in their sin, and it is dis-heartening to sit around and watch (just as it is dis-heartening to sit around and watch anyone do something not beneficial to themselves). It is my responsibility as a Christian to spread God\'s word, and I can\'t allow someone to claim they are a Christian, and then continue to do things that directly go against His word. That\'s like being traded to a new sports team, yet still playing for your old one. You tell me not to speak for God, and yet by \"I mean God wouldn\'t like the second one\" I think you become hipocritic. Especially when I can back up my comments.
:emerald:
Edit: \"remember the politicians and their \"spinning\" example?\"
I\'m afraid I don\'t... I don\'t care about politics... too much christianity in it nowadays... like that Bush and Reed scum
If you had read my previous post you would remember it (hint: it was in perenthasis, just like this hint is).
:emerald:
-
That has to be the most potentially offensive assignment ever. Be hella careful when answering that one.
-
Originally posted by ArcaneFalcon
Honestly, I don\'t see any of this oppression. The last Christian oppression I can think of was the KKK, and they were (are) an offshoot radicle group.
Sure you don\'t, your religion was always twisting public\'s opinion :P
Do you think people in burning times considered it opressions? No, all they thought was that they\'re doing God\'s will because Church told them so.
But today? What would you call trying to remove pagans from army or making their religion illegal in all? Look up for such people as Bush or Ralph Reed.
To quote article: Dear brothers and sisters in Christ, these people of Wicca have been terribly slandered by us. They have lost jobs, and homes, and places of business because we have assured others that they worship Satan, which they do not. We have persecuted them, and God will hold us accountable for this, you may be sure, for He has said, \"Assuredly I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.\" (Matthew 25:40)
If you don\'t see opressings from christians then I guess you don\'t want to see them. It\'s not even that hard to find christian websites that are connecting all kinds of things to satan.
Heck, I even saw comic where teaching tolerance for homosexuality is work of satan...
You tell me not to speak for God, and yet by \"I mean God wouldn\'t like the second one\" I think you become hipocritic. Especially when I can back up my comments.
Note the smiley. They are here for some reason... :rolleyes:
but in case your browser doesn\'t support them, there\'s a winking smiley... that means more or less \"not to be taken seriously\"... It\'s just an example of how Church works, but forget about it :rolleyes:
God hates sin, and homosexuality is sin.
it must be terribly smart to hate something that you knew will exist as a result of your actions... and yet not change them...
Everything that exists was created from God\'s will. If so then he willed it to be as it is. If he didn\'t then he would make it different. How can you hate something you wanted to exist? That\'s retarded...
- Swords
-
But today? What would you call trying to remove pagans from army or making their religion illegal in all?
What the dickens? Bush is president of a country that was founded for the purpose of freedom of religion. There\'s no way he will ever make any religion illegal, not a chance. I know that, you know that, he knows that.
Dear brothers and sisters in Christ, these people of Wicca have been terribly slandered by us. They have lost jobs, and homes, and places of business because we have assured others that they worship Satan, which they do not. We have persecuted them, and God will hold us accountable for this, you may be sure, for He has said, \"Assuredly I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.\" (Matthew 25:40)
Uh huh, that\'s great. Giving us a one paragraph quote from some random source does nothing for anyone. Maybe if you could post the link to this article you could begin to argue something worthwhile. Also, while the topic being argued here may be somewhat credible, the verse used to argue it is really a poor choice. In this particular section of the Bible Jesus is talking about helping the needy, not about oppressing anyone. The focus of the passage is on helping, and the lack thereof, not on oppression.
Heck, I even saw comic where teaching tolerance for homosexuality is work of satan...
Let\'s see here, homosexuality=sin. While I don\'t think this is a very comic worthy issue, I wouldn\'t argue against that.
it must be terribly smart to hate something that you knew will exist as a result of your actions... and yet not change them...
Everything that exists was created from God\'s will. If so then he willed it to be as it is. If he didn\'t then he would make it different. How can you hate something you wanted to exist? That\'s retarded...
It\'s not an issue of retardedness, it\'s an issue of you not understanding. Stick with me for a minute. Let\'s say you build a computer. Wouldn\'t you expect your computer to go ahead and do, oh, say, computerish things? Maybe you need to do some powerpoint presentations, listen to some music, play some PS, etc. You go and build this nice new computer. Fabulous. However, a week after formating it, it comes down with a bad virus. Suddently powerpoint doesn\'t work, winamp is crashing every 5 minutes, and PS lags like nobody\'s business (except it\'s the virus\' fault this time, not the devs :P ). All you wanted was a computer that did stuff for you, not some hunk of metal that wastes your time. Wouldn\'t you try to fix the computer? Maybe get some anti-virus stuff, tweak some security settings, etc. You built your computer intending to do work more efficiently, and to have some entertainment. However now it is doing exactly the opposite. That\'s exactly what God did. Humans were made to bring God joy. However, they came down with a virus (sin, it started when Adam at the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden) and now they are doing something completely opposite of their intent. God put the tree in the garden so that humans wouldn\'t be forced to love him. What is more satisfying, having someone love you because they have to, or having someone love you because they choose to? I know I would prefer the latter. Once humans gained the knowledge of good and evil they lost their innocence. There is no way they could uphold everything that is good to the T. Sin entered their lives, and because of this they can\'t be in the presence of God. However, God wasn\'t finished with humans. He gets some antivirus software (Jesus dieing on the cross for our sins) and suddenly there is a way out! All we have to do is believe, and we are cleansed of that which would otherwise seperate us from God forever. We can then enter back into fellowship with God, and do that which we were created for. It\'s not retarded, it\'s fulfilling.
:emerald:
-
I am not going to try and quote everything that has been said so I will paraphrase to the best of my abilities here.
A few things that I just need to point out to some major issues I have with some of these arguements.
First of the United States was founded on the purpose of freedom for \"THEIR\" religion. Do you think someone who believed in Buddah was respected and included in their thoughts, NO.
The bible is not factual. It has been stated many times by many respected members of the church that the bible is not a factual book in all parts and should be taken more for it\'s moral stories then for it\'s truths. With that being said a moral story can not be a definitive response to a problem or a solution. There can be several interpretations. Unless you are talking with the specific person who wrote this story you do not know the exact meanings of everything, and since the earliest copies we have of the bible are from what like 45AD I don\'t think we have the defnitive answers. Also which version of the bible are we talking about since to my knowledge there has been a few different versions.
How in the world can you condeem someone so much for their sexual preference yet over look other people who commit far greater \"sins\"? Isn\'t greed a sin, isn\'t envy a sin, isn\'t anger a sin, only one of the deadly sins that homosexuality would fall under might be lust and that is if you just take it for the physical aspect and not for the emotinal aspect. Even reading the 10 commandments literally there is no where where it says that homosexuality is a sin. Now I know that many have stretched the 7th commandment \"Thou shall not commit adultery\" to try and say that that also covers unnatural sex acts, but please that is a little too much of a stretch for me.
The thing that really bothered me alot though was the thoughts and views on homosexuality as being purely about sex and the particular comment about what homosexual would save sex for marriage. I would say the same amount of \"straight\" people that would. Because you are attracted to the same sex does not mean you have anymore or any less cravings for sex. So it doesn\'t mean that you are going to run around and go dropping your pants for everyone you see.
I don\'t know some of the comments have me a little upset and I don\'t even know how much sense I am making anymore so enough of this rambling.
-
Originally posted by ArcaneFalcon
But today? What would you call trying to remove pagans from army or making their religion illegal in all?
What the dickens? Bush is president of a country that was founded for the purpose of freedom of religion. There\'s no way he will ever make any religion illegal, not a chance. I know that, you know that, he knows that.
uhuh... yeah, like USA constitution wasn\'t \"bent\" in the past :P
And it\'s quite easy to keep telling people that pagan = satanist and that they are doing bloody rituals.
After that it would be easy to make it illegal.Originally posted by ArcaneFalcon
Dear brothers and sisters in Christ, these people of Wicca have been terribly slandered by us. They have lost jobs, and homes, and places of business because we have assured others that they worship Satan, which they do not. We have persecuted them, and God will hold us accountable for this, you may be sure, for He has said, \"Assuredly I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.\" (Matthew 25:40)
Uh huh, that\'s great. Giving us a one paragraph quote from some random source does nothing for anyone. Maybe if you could post the link to this article you could begin to argue something worthwhile. Also, while the topic being argued here may be somewhat credible, the verse used to argue it is really a poor choice. In this particular section of the Bible Jesus is talking about helping the needy, not about oppressing anyone. The focus of the passage is on helping, and the lack thereof, not on oppression.
I don\'t see how giving link to the article would change anything. I gave the paragraph to point out that even some christians aknowledge the opressings. You said you don\'t see any opressings. I give you text where it is pointed out together with the cause of opressings. And yet it doesn\'t give you anything? I stand by my statement: You don\'t want to see it.
About interpretation. That\'s hilarious.
If he said \"Assuredly I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.\"
Then he meant that for any situation. I would think that\'s obvious.Originally posted by ArcaneFalcon
Heck, I even saw comic where teaching tolerance for homosexuality is work of satan...
Let\'s see here, homosexuality=sin. While I don\'t think this is a very comic worthy issue, I wouldn\'t argue against that.
So tolerance is work of satan? And still he\'s the \"bad guy\"?Originally posted by ArcaneFalcon
it must be terribly smart to hate something that you knew will exist as a result of your actions... and yet not change them...
Everything that exists was created from God\'s will. If so then he willed it to be as it is. If he didn\'t then he would make it different. How can you hate something you wanted to exist? That\'s retarded...
It\'s not an issue of retardedness, it\'s an issue of you not understanding. Stick with me for a minute. Let\'s say you build a computer. Wouldn\'t you expect your computer to go ahead and do, oh, say, computerish things? Maybe you need to do some powerpoint presentations, listen to some music, play some PS, etc. You go and build this nice new computer. Fabulous. However, a week after formating it, it comes down with a bad virus. Suddently powerpoint doesn\'t work, winamp is crashing every 5 minutes, and PS lags like nobody\'s business (except it\'s the virus\' fault this time, not the devs :P ). All you wanted was a computer that did stuff for you, not some hunk of metal that wastes your time. Wouldn\'t you try to fix the computer? Maybe get some anti-virus stuff, tweak some security settings, etc. You built your computer intending to do work more efficiently, and to have some entertainment. However now it is doing exactly the opposite. That\'s exactly what God did. Humans were made to bring God joy. However, they came down with a virus (sin, it started when Adam at the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden) and now they are doing something completely opposite of their intent. God put the tree in the garden so that humans wouldn\'t be forced to love him. What is more satisfying, having someone love you because they have to, or having someone love you because they choose to? I know I would prefer the latter. Once humans gained the knowledge of good and evil they lost their innocence. There is no way they could uphold everything that is good to the T. Sin entered their lives, and because of this they can\'t be in the presence of God. However, God wasn\'t finished with humans. He gets some antivirus software (Jesus dieing on the cross for our sins) and suddenly there is a way out! All we have to do is believe, and we are cleansed of that which would otherwise seperate us from God forever. We can then enter back into fellowship with God, and do that which we were created for. It\'s not retarded, it\'s fulfilling.
:emerald:
Yeah, sure... being all-powerful I would make computer that I (from the very beginning) knew would break down and still hate it...
So to make it clear.
- I\'m all-powerful
- I make computer and I know it will break down
- Still it is computer created from my will
- I start to hate it when it breaks down
conclusion: Since it was created from my will, I wanted it to be like that and not any different. I wanted it to break down at certain moment (since it was created from my will). I knew it will from the very beginning. Still I get mad at it when it does even though I wanted it to do that.
Completely retarded.
- Swords
-
Boldstorm:
First of the United States was founded on the purpose of freedom for \"THEIR\" religion. Do you think someone who believed in Buddah was respected and included in their thoughts, NO.
Buddhists weren\'t around in the US during early colonial times. Now they are, and they are free to meditate and do whatever else they do all they want. The only religions that have any bit of \"oppression\" from the US are religions that sacrifice things (and yes, some Wiccans do perform sacrifices, I\'ve seen newspaper articles about such incidences in my home town), and religions that allow marrying more than one person (and in both of those cases, only those specific practices are stopped, not the religion altogether). Heck, even the peotists (spelling?) are allowed. The US even made an exception to let them consume their precious illegal halucinogens for religious practices. I\'d say that\'s pretty accomodating to religions other than Christianity. Moreover, I\'ve never actually seen outright oppression of other religions in modern times. If you think there have been, find me an example (an article making a general statement doesn\'t count, I\'m talking something specific here, a news article at the very least). While Christians will speak out against religions that have opposing views, they will not \"oppress\" them. That\'s like telling democrats and republicans that their speaking out against each other is classified as oppression, and that they need to completely stop and be tolerant of one another. Yeah right!
The bible is not factual. It has been stated many times by many respected members of the church that the bible is not a factual book in all parts and should be taken more for it\'s moral stories then for it\'s truths.
Some people may say that, but \"respected members of the church.\" I doubt that. Anyone who says the Bible is nothing but a bunch of fictional stories and morals is not a Christian. Being a true Christian requires faith in Christ, faith in all those \"fictional stories.\" You can\'t call them fictional stories and still claim to be part of the Christian church, it\'s an oxy-moron. And actually, you are partially correct in that the Bible is not the definitive manual for everything, but for what it does cover (in general, God\'s will for humans) it is definitive.
How in the world can you condeem someone so much for their sexual preference yet over look other people who commit far greater \"sins\"? Isn\'t greed a sin, isn\'t envy a sin, isn\'t anger a sin, only one of the deadly sins that homosexuality would fall under might be lust and that is if you just take it for the physical aspect and not for the emotinal aspect.
Firsty, we are focusing on homosexuality here because that happens to be the topic at hand (note the last 4 pages of posts). As for the rest, how can I condemn people committing small sins as much as greater sins? Romans 3:23, that\'s how. Any and all sin is equal in God\'s sight. You may be a world better than the serial killer on death row, but if you have been stained by any sin at all (all of us) then you can\'t be in God\'s presence (heaven). In fact, that verse says that you deserve death, eternal seperation, from him because of even that slightest sin. Also, the 10 commandments are not the definitive law. There are two whole books dedicated to it in the old testament (of which all but the specific punishments, and laws concerning animal sacrifices apply - so long as you get to the original intent of the law, and don\'t always take it at face value) and other smaller portions in the new testament.
The thing that really bothered me alot though was the thoughts and views on homosexuality as being purely about sex and the particular comment about what homosexual would save sex for marriage.
I want you to find me one, just one, homosexual who is planning on saving sex for marriage. All I ask is one. I never said it meant that they were automatically whores, I just stated that it simply isn\'t a part of their lifestyle.
Unless you are talking with the specific person who wrote this story you do not know the exact meanings of everything, and since the earliest copies we have of the bible are from what like 45AD I don\'t think we have the defnitive answers. Also which version of the bible are we talking about since to my knowledge there has been a few different versions.
First, some of the dead sea scrolls date to about 250BC, and there are a few other incomplete texts even older. About different versions, yes, there are different versions in English. That is because no language translates perfectly to any other language. Therefore you get tons of different versions floating around out there. It is usually a good idea to use 2 or more translations (I use 3, NKJV, NIV, and The Message: Remix) to read scripture from, to get a good idea of what the original language said (or you can just learn the original language - greek, hebrew, and I think there was 1 other language the original manuscripts were written in, escapes me now). And actually we can get a pretty good idea of what the original author meant from writings that old. While it is ~2000 years later, the language from that period hasn\'t changed, and we still understand that original language. The only place I can see confusion coming from is local customs, and even those can be pretty easily hammered out through other historical documents.
Draklar:
So tolerance is work of satan? And still he\'s the \"bad guy\"?
Lets see here, where did I say this? Oh yeah, I didn\'t.
Heck, I even saw comic where teaching tolerance for homosexuality is work of satan...
Let\'s see here, homosexuality=sin. While I don\'t think this is a very comic worthy issue, I wouldn\'t argue against that.
And just where do you get the idea that all tolerance is the work of satan out of that? Like I said before, these people are destroying their lives with sin, and toleration is not the answer. Just like we shouldn\'t tolerate people who commit suicide, and people who support euthenasia. It\'s for the good of everyone. Friends don\'t let friends go to hell.
conclusion: Since it was created from my will, I wanted it to be like that and not any different. I wanted it to break down at certain moment (since it was created from my will). I knew it will from the very beginning. Still I get mad at it when it does even though I wanted it to do that.
Maybe I should\'ve bolded the key point there. Here, let me do it now. What is more satisfying, having someone love you because they have to, or having someone love you because they choose to? If you give people a choice whether or not they want to love you, some obviously will choose not to. But it is so much more satisfying to see all the one\'s that want to of their own free will rather than forcing them all to.
And to niether of you:
I think a couple posts back someone asked what the Bible said about sexual morality, and I forgot to answer that. Sorry. Leviticus 18 gives a good overview of this. There are other places also. Basically it is this, no sex before marriage, no sex with someone married to another, no sex with someone closely related to you (including cousins, aunts/uncles, children, etc.), no sex with the same gender, no sex with animals. Basically, the only sex you should be having is with your human spouse of the opposite gender (who isn\'t related to you).
:emerald:
-
Firstly, I\'d like to thank Arcane for successfully managing to avoid almost all of my points. Well done. I wish people would read my post again, then read his rebuttal, see what is missing? Instead, I (because I enjoy it) will point out shortcomings.
Dry humour is lost on you isn\'t it Arcane? Let\'s see here.Me: Icefalcon, to add to your comment, if gays were to save sex for marriage (oops, forgot, they can\'t in the US), AIDS would be spread less by your reasoning, seems a good reason to allow it.
You: Give me a break, what homosexual is going to save sex for marriage? Yeah right.
Little inconsistent here.[/quote] You claim that... yet you will never know because you vehemently oppose the possibility, because you are bias.
Hell, is a theory. It is a theoretical construct, ever been there? Know anyone who has? I think not! (See here, this is a phrase laced with condescension, you didn\'t pick up on it last time, thought I\'d be helpful and point it out). My old religion is no less Christian than yours, certainly no less bias, but they do not believe in hell, and know they will never get into heaven. (heard of the 144 000?).
Your denomination is not the only one, you seem to have missed this point. As for you book... I can give you a bible if you want... there is no mention of going to hell in it at all. Would you like to see? This bible is used by many denominations and millions are sold world wide. Therefore they believe in the whole bible... therefore in your own words they are Christian. You will not win this argument due to your stubborn bias (and my exams are over today, so I\'ll have plenty of free time).
Another misunderstood point (did you do it on purpose?)
Me: You\'re doing it again, it is ignorant to believe that you are not judging them.
You: No, you simply don\'t understand. I already posted the references to 2 verses (there are more) that condemn homosexuality. God hates sin, and homosexuality is sin. Therefore God hates homosexuality. I am not speaking for God here, it\'s all there in His book!
I note you cut out the other part... allow me... \"You say you don\'t judge these people, \'God\' does. Yet you openly admit to judging their actions. You are indeed judging them, by their actions.\" There we go, bold makes things stand out. You never answered me, is it blasphemous to speak for god? I genuinely want to know. Now read carefully... really, really carefully...
You do not like what they do, you see it as wrong. You are judging their lifestyle, not your book, not your god, YOU.
How do you know your perceived interpretation is the absolute truth? Did you write the bible? I think not. (Ooh, I did it again!)
Did I say I read the article? Note the use of the words \"may,\" \"have a feeling,\" and \"I would bet.\"
I never said you did either. In fact... I clearly pointed out your stupid assumptions because I know you didn\'t.
I think you need some reading lessons. If you\'ll notice, my entire last post was an evolution of thought. At the end, and note again the use of conjectural phrases, I decided that the article may be credible, in which case Draklar was twisting it. I have not read the article, and therefore it is difficult for me to dispute it.
Well, talk about not answering anything... that is exactly what I was berating your for. You do not think you can ever be wrong. Everyone else is always wrong to you.
The suicide example is irrelevant. We are talking about you forcing your religious beliefs on others, not stopping a friend from ending their life.
I was of the belief that the constitution gives you the freedom to pursue happiness... not religion? And not the freedom of Happiness, but to pursue it.
Will add more, off to my last exam
-
What is more satisfying, having someone love you because they have to, or having someone love you because they choose to?
Had that argument with another christian two days ago... my final statement \"If you love someone, let him go\"
sending plagues and threating with hell isn\'t letting go. It\'s forcing people to love you. Same thing, really.
But that\'s different topic. Why did God decide to turn predator into highly intelligent being? Wasn\'t it obvious that predator would have natural instincts to kill? Why didn\'t he choose sheep or something? Peacefull beings would be more likely to love him. He could make perfect beings and give them \"free will\" (Another thing that commandments are cancelling freedom). But he didn\'t. It\'s his own fault.
Moreover, I\'ve never actually seen outright oppression of other religions in modern times. If you think there have been, find me an example (an article making a general statement doesn\'t count, I\'m talking something specific here, a news article at the very least).
would christian article showing pagans as satanists who kill their own children be enough? Because I doubt anyone on news websites would stand in defense of people who are said to worship satan.
Plus you will probably find warning about Ralph Reed on most pagan websites...
And sorry, but firing someone from job because of religion is opressing. That\'s why wiccans always try to hide who they are.
Another thing that christians tell lies about satanists as well..
And just where do you get the idea that all tolerance is the work of satan out of that?
From my society class, extended definition of no-tolerance will include rejecting people of different sexual preferences.
Ever heard of that joke \"I\'m tolerant, but I hate jews and gays\"?
Either you are tolerant or aren\'t. You can\'t pick what you tolerate and what not and then say you\'re tolerant.
Thus tolerance includes accepting all behaviours, religions, races and so on that differes from your own.
So \"all tolerance\" is mostly tolerance for what christianity calls sins.
Personally I prefer statement \"tolerance for everything besides no-tolerance\". Thus I hate nazism and christianity...
Oh yea, there was something about non-christians not being allowed to go to heaven. My friend told me few months ago that Church announced that heretics are allowed in heaven because they aren\'t aware of their sin. I don\'t know anything about that, but he\'s the most religious guy I ever knew (and I do live in country where there\'s like 97% of christians...) so I\'ll believe in his word.
- Swords
-
Ok so you believe that the men who wrote \"All men are created equal\", but didn\'t think that applied to women or blacks or American Indians, felt that all religions were equal and allowed the same freedoms. ?(
Also I would like to know how many homosexual people you know? Any? Have you ever spent anytime with someone who you knew was a homosexual? If you have I would love to see how you can generalize someone who has a different sexual preference then you so poorly. I have known just as many gay people as I have known straight people who view sex as something more sacred then just sex. These same people either abstain from sex until marriage, or in the case of some homosexual couples abstain until they can solidify their partnership in some meaningful way since the US doesn\'t allow gay marriages in most places.
Maybe I wasn\'t entirely clear when I was talking about the factualness of the Bible. What I was trying to say is that sections of the bible are not entirely factual, not that the whole thing was one big story. Many points of the bible have been proven true by science but this is just as many things that have been proven true by Darwin ;)
-
Heh, do some research, Darwin\'s theory has been proven false.
Now, I know someone is going to disagree with what I just said, and there will always be some who believe it no matter what evidence is against it. Same with the other side, those who don\'t believe it won\'t change their belief no matter how much evidence is for it.
Now, take that and compare it with Christianity. To believe in Christianity, you must have faith. It can\'t be proved scientifically. You can argue and debate all you wan\'t, but you will never prove Christianity scientifically true. You can\'t prove God\'s miracles using science.
Now back to Evolution, you can\'t prove evolution true either, scientifically. Cells do not evolve into different cells. Every time a cell reproduces, it reproduces the exact copy of the parent cell, therefore, it doesn\'t change its function. Macro evolution is scientifically impossible.
Now, notice I said both Christianity and Evolution cannot be proven. It all comes down to faith. I have studied extensively arguments of Christianity vs Evolution, and I have seen that both sides run in to problems that cannot be solved. You believe in your religion, not because it has been proven, but because you have faith.
-Doesn\'t really have anything to do with homosexuality. :rolleyes:
-
Quite right Icefalcon. And now, to continue with our unsightly bickering :P This is going to be a long one, brace yourself...
Adeli: Icefalcon, to add to your comment, if gays were to save sex for marriage (oops,
forgot, they can\'t in the US), AIDS would be spread less by your reasoning, seems a good reason to allow it.
AF: Give me a break, what homosexual is going to save sex for marriage? Yeah right.
Adeli: Little inconsistent here.
You claim that... yet you will never know because you vehemently oppose the possibility, because you are bias. [/QUOTE]
If I am not mistaken, several countries already allow homosexual marriage. Surely, if there is an example to be found, you could find it there. Yes, I vehemently oppose the possibility where it is still a posibility, and not already in effect (IE here in the US).
A bit of a side not, I don\'t get how you can un-hipocritically claim I am \"biased\" and am \"forcing my ideas on others.\" Am I? In a way, yes. First, I\'m commanded to (great commision, though it isn\'t quite regarded as \"forcing of ideas,\" more like \"spreading of word\"). Second, there are two sides to this coin. Everyone is biased toward whatever they believe. And are you not also trying to force your opinions on others every time you argue and discuss (like now)? Yes, you are. It is impossible to not be biased, and to not \"force your ideas\" on others. The only way to do such a thing is to never discuss, argue your beliefs, or stand up for yourself, ever!
Another thing, some clarification on the term \"Christian.\" There are many \"Christian\" denominations, yes. However, when I use the term, I mean someone who believes Jesus died on the cross for your sins, and if you choose to have faith in this, your sins will be forgiven because of God\'s grace (not because of things you do) and will be with Him for eternity. They also believe that if you don\'t do this, you will be seperated from Him for eternity (Hell). While I happen to be an \"evangelical\" or \"non-denominational\" Christian, there are several other large denominations I can get along with. However, the denomination doesn\'t mean so much to me as does the belief in the previously stated.
1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
There you go, from the horse\'s mouth.
Hell, is a theory. It is a theoretical construct, ever been there? Know anyone who has? I think not! (See here, this is a phrase laced with condescension, you didn\'t pick up on it last time, thought I\'d be helpful and point it out). My old religion is no less Christian than yours, certainly no less bias, but they do not believe in hell, and know they will never get into heaven. (heard of the 144 000?).
I never said hell was scientifically supported. You claimed that among Christians Hell is a theory, which it definitely is not. You claim the Bible doesn\'t mention Hell? So what do you have to say to:
Matthew 5:29-30
Matthew 8:12
Matthew 10:28
Matthew 25:41
Matthew 25:46
Romans 2:8-9
2 Thesselonians 1:9
2 Peter 2:4
Revelation 19:20
Revelation 21:8
I don\'t know, seems pretty obvious to me (and that\'s just a portion of all of them!). As for the 144,000: they aren\'t the only one\'s going to heaven. What were you, a Jehova\'s Witness (who are NOT Christians btw)? Those 144,000 are the first to receive God\'s seal after the 2nd coming of Christ (the rapture). They are those who were left behind because of unbelief, yet have come to believe after the fact (but not too late!). You can read about them in Revelation 7 and 14.
\"You say you don\'t judge these people, \'God\' does. Yet you openly admit to judging their actions. You are indeed judging them, by their actions.\"
Let\'s get two things to pick apart here, what I take as the summary of your \"judgment\" argument, and the verse that brought this all up:
Adeli: You are judging their lifestyle, not your book, not your god, YOU.
\"For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the same measure you use, it will be measured back to you.\" (Matthew 7:2)
Now, let\'s simultaneously pick both of these statements apart. \"For with what judgement you judge...\" Oh wait, what did that say? I know what it didn\'t say! (see, I have sarcastic humor too Adeli). It did NOT say \"don\'t judge others.\" It said, \"with what judgement you judge.\" So technically, yes, I am judging them. But this verse is not condemning judgement is it? \"...you will be judged; and with the same measure you use, it will be measured back to you.\" So if I use unfair judgement I will be judged back with unfair judgement. Make sense so far? It is telling us to be careful of how we judge others, not to never judge them. Now how did I get the \"I am not judging\" statement. I may have been unclear on what I meant by this, and for that I appologize. Let me exlain. Let\'s grab a piece of your statement now: \"not your book...\" On this you are directly wrong. It is right there in the scripture I already posted (twice in one case). \"not your god,\" Again, directly wrong (and it\'s God, not god). The Bible is God\'s word, so: Yes, my God. It is clear that God is also judging these people. Now how does this translate into me doing the judging? Well, if God is judging someone a particular way, then it is safe for me also to judge them that way. Not to make up judgements, not to guess about who may need judgement, but for those that are clearly going against God\'s word. Homosexuals are clearly going against God\'s word. God hates their sin (but loves them as humans). If god is judging this way, then I also will judge this way. Now, however, this judgement will come back on me. That\'s 100% ok with me, because I am judging them based on God\'s judgement, I would be judged that way anyway!
The suicide example is irrelevant. We are talking about you forcing your religious beliefs on others, not stopping a friend from ending their life.
Quite the contrary! The suicide example is not directly related, but it is indeed an example. If you don\'t believe God\'s word you will go to Hell (which I believe as truth, though I know others do not). In essence, you are killing yourself. I have the knowledge to save you, therefore it is my job (again, great commision) to do what I can to spread God\'s word. Call it \"forcing my beliefs,\" fine, but you are doing the same thing. Though, I don\'t see how you can classify this as \"forcing.\" I am not making anyone here adopt my beliefs. Even if I wanted to, I couldn\'t. I am, however, spreading God\'s word, which is what I am commanded to do.
Draklar:
You\'re asking questions about predestination and God creating evil. I\'m not extremely well versed in this, but I feel I know enough for my own peace of mind. Think of it this way, if you have a room full of light, and you turn off the lights, what happens? The room gets dark. Now, is there another switch you can flip to turn on the \"darks\" to make the room even darker? No! Darkness is simply the absence of light. Same thing with evil and good. God created the ability to do good, but at the same time allowed the possibility to not do good. In addition to this, he allows the evil to take place in order to turn it into something to glorify Himself even more! Evil is the toy of the devil, but whenever anything evil happens, God can turn it around for His greater good. Everytime anything evil happens, it is being used as part of God\'s plan to, in the end, glorify Himself more than anyone could possibly imagine. In fact, God and his plan are outside the bounds of time, and impossible for man to comprehend (even if he revealed them to us). I can\'t really say more than that, as I don\'t know more than that. It is honestly a sort of a gray area, with several opposing theories, but in the end I know it will all be used for God\'s glory, so I have no worries.
Oh yea, there was something about non-christians not being allowed to go to heaven. My friend told me few months ago that Church announced that heretics are allowed in heaven because they aren\'t aware of their sin. I don\'t know anything about that, but he\'s the most religious guy I ever knew (and I do live in country where there\'s like 97% of christians...) so I\'ll believe in his word.
Meh, this has partial truth twisted around a bit. For people that truly have no idea of what they are doing (babies) I believe this is true. However, Romans 1:20 says: \"For since the creation of the world God\'s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.\" (NIV) Even if you have never heard of a Christian, you can see the work of God in the things he has created so that no one has an excuse.
This will be my last post for a while, I\'ve got quite a bit of work to do over the next few days. Until then, hack away! :P
:emerald:
-
As per polite request, this will be closed now. This topic has far outserved its original purpose, but like all religious debates (which funnily enough, is not even on-topic anymore for this thread\'s intended discussion), it will go on forever if left open. Thus as always, if you have a dire need and a very good reason to post here again, send me a PM and I\'ll reconsider.
That said, this was a pretty fun debate to read. :) Hopefully nobody got overly offended by any comments here... if you did, you shouldn\'t. :P