Topic awaiting preservation: Canada - Gay Marriages

Canada Supreme Court rules for gay marriage

quote:

---

In a landmark opinion, Canada?s Supreme Court said Thursday the government can redefine marriage to include same-sex couples.

---

I thought some of you may be interested in this. Do you think this decision could help to change the attitudes of Americans?

jeff-nolan.com | Asylum Quotes

I doubt what Canada or any other nation does will influence anyone else's convictions. Probably be good for tourism and immigration.

quote:

---

Gilbert Nolander said:

Do you think this decision could help to change the attitudes of Americans?

---

I think the majority of the population has already made their minds up on this issue. I don't think what Canada does will have much influence.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

I think it will have an influence. All lands that share a common border influence their neighbors, directly or indirectly. I think the Far Religious Right (like those above) would like to believe that it will not, because they cannot control it. And I suspect, that after the next four years, that will be a moot point anyway.

And what about those same sex couples from America going to Canada to get married? Will their marriages then not be recognized in the US? I think that will be an interesting problem. Then they could marry, and get divorced in Canada? Strange, strange.

Yes, I think such would definitely have an impact on the US.

(Edited by WebShaman on 12-11-2004 18:27)

quote:

---

Do you think this decision could help to change the attitudes of Americans?

---

again, no.

ws: I appreciate you lumping me in with the Far Religeous Right [Control Freaks], whatever that is, I wasn't aware we knew each other that well. I understand it's a bit of an emotional hot button for you but sarcasm aside, don't do that please.

quote:

---

And what about those same sex couples from America going to Canada to get married? Will their marriages then not be recognized in the US?

---

I wouldn't think they'd be recognized since it's not law here.

quote:

---

I think that will be an interesting problem.

---

At best I think it's senationalist fodder on a slow news day sometime in the future, if ever. Maybe play some role in the ongoing debate here on the subject, in that aspect it may have some impact I suppose.



(Edited by JKMabry on 12-11-2004 23:49)

quote:

---

I think the Far Religious Right (like those above) would like to believe that it will not, because they cannot control it.

---

Always on the attack aren't you WS.

As far as I see it, like it or not, it is only a matter of time before it is legal in the US as well. As Jesse Jackson once said, "In politics, an organized minority is a political majority." Although I do not agree with his politics, that is a statement I have always remembered.

Will it influence the attitudes of Americans? Yes and no. No to existing Americans who are in their mid- to late-twenties and beyond. By this tme I think many have made up their minds, they have found themselves. You either are against it or for it and it is a rare case where one with a stable foundation of ideals will switch sides, politicians excluded.

On the other hand the more integrated it becomes with our society the more desensitized we become, this tactic is much more influential on the young though. Couple that with the decrease of traditional religious (primarily Christian, but not limited to) values and attacks upon those values where if you say you are a Christian you are automatically categorized, quite intolerantly, as intolerant.

It will eventually be taught alongside and as an equal alternative to traditional relationships. In many cases this is already a reality. So the next generation will likely embrace it, and polls show they already have. We'll just have to wait and see how it impacts society. I have many thoughts there, but I believe I have expressed many of those in the past.

Conservatives (aka The Far Religious Right ), like myself can only hope that like many of the 60's generation, the youth will grow up, have kids, take on more responsibility, and realize their socialist utopian dreams are nothing but a facade for Marxism. Not likely though in a world where morality has become manmade and relative to the impulses and whims of society, moreso than ever before.

All in all though, it still has to pass through Canada's parliment, so this discussion itself is a bit premature.

Ramasax

(Edited by Ramasax on 12-12-2004 02:11)

I don't think it will or should change people's attitudes. But it's definately a step in the right direction... kinda...
Not that I'm one way or the other on the issue of whether or not gays should be allowed to marry. Personally I'd like the government to stop recognizing all kinds of marriage, and stop giving benifits to married couples. That's a much better solution, and is definately closer to the envisioned seperation of church and state. This isn't an issue the government should get a say in.

If two (or more) people want to marry, they should go get married. Keep the government out of the lives of the people.

I think it will raise some eyebrows, but I dont think it will be changing anyones mind anytime soon. Although I wish it would. I agree that the government should not butt into our personal lives, but that will never change either. Maybe sometime down the line and I mean way down the line America will change their narrow minds. But I highly doubt anytime soon. Americans will not reconize it, but gays in America who went to Canada to get a marriage will consider themselves married no matter where they are.

I dont understand how Americans can sit here and say that it is wrong for the same sex to marry. I mean what makes Americans experts at whats right and whats wrong? Its total bullshit that a certain race or sexuality can be discriminated against because of their personal lives. Its not homosexuals fault that they are gay. If it was so wrong to be gay then why are there gays?

And since people bitch about how marriage is not meant for same sex marriages then fine call it something else. Just give them their damn rights. I have no problem with gays getting married, nor do I care if they call it marriage, civil union or whatever else they can think of just as long as they have their rights.

BiGCaC

If canadian policy had much impact on the view of most americans.....things would be a whole lot different in the US than they are.

I don't think it will make any difference at all in this case.

I think we are going to see a steady trend towards supporting gay marriage in terms of law regardless what happens anywhere else, and regardless of JK's staunch support of the extreme religious right ( )..

I doubt average USA citizens will even be aware that it was recognized in Canada. Of course more likely then not homosexual marriages will probably be recognized sooner or later here. Although there are occasional hiccups, the world is just in a process of becoming more liberal.

quote:

---

JKMabry said:

Probably be good for tourism and immigration.

---

Depends on who they want to immigrate.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Yes, I think such would definitely have an impact on the US.

---

Me too.

quote:

---

JKMabry said:

At best I think it's senationalist fodder on a slow news day sometime in the
future, if ever. Maybe play some role in the ongoing debate here on the subject,
in that aspect it may have some impact I suppose.

---

I think it has the potential to become big, if in the right person's hands.

quote:

---

Ramasax said:

it is a rare case where one with a stable foundation of ideals will switch
sides, politicians excluded.

---

quote:

---

Ramasax said:

We'll just have to wait and see how it impacts society.

---

Why do we have to wait and see? Couldn't we do something about it now?

quote:

---

Ramasax said:

in a world where morality has become manmade and relative to the impulses and
whims of society, moreso than ever before.

---

Amen to that.

quote:

---

Dan said:
Keep the
government out of the lives of the people.

---

It is kinda hard to do that. I'm no expert, but if the people want something, it is hard for the government to say no.

quote:

---

BiGCaC said:

Maybe sometime down the line and I mean way down the line America will change
their narrow minds

---

Dear God I hope not.

quote:

---

BiGCaC said:

I mean what makes Americans experts at whats right and whats wrong?

---

Absolutely nothing, and I hate it when Americans say that they are right just because they are Americans.

quote:

---

BiGCaC said:

Its total bullshit that a certain race or sexuality can be discriminated against
because of their personal lives.

---

Welcome to America, home of the free to discriminate. I believe there is a law paying jail time to anyone speaking out against homosexuality in Canada. That put my pastor in a sticky situation recently.

quote:

---

BiGCaC said:

Its not homosexuals fault that they are gay. If it was so wrong to be gay then
why are there gays?

---

And it's not murderer's fault they muder, liar's fault they lie, thieve's fault they steal... I mean, there is nothing wrong with canabalism or anything. I mean since there are people who think those things are right then they should be okay to do it, right?

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

If canadian policy had much impact on the view of most americans.....things
would be a whole lot different in the US than they are.

---

quote:

---

Jestah said:

Although there are occasional hiccups, the world is just in a process of
becoming more liberal.

---

Yeah, everyone wants it to be okay with everyone else. You have to please everybody. Well, there are two sides to that: 1.) You brainwash the nation and see what happens (that part of the plan is going well) or 2.) Just go about your buisness and remember that you will eventually step on somebody's shoes. You can't please everybody, and I think most extreme liberals try to do that.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

It is kinda hard to do that. I'm no expert, but if the people want something, it is hard for the government to say no.

---

That's a ridiculous argument. The government should have it's hands tied in any situation that doesn't equally affect all people (This includes tax laws, laws on vices, human rights, ect...).

It shouldn't matter if 99.9% of the population wants gay's banned from marrying. Just as it shouldn't matter if 99.9% want a tax payer sponsored program to benefit some interest group. The government should be forced to take no action on any policy that doesn't:
-Create a stronger market place
-Create a better standard of living
-Benefit all people (rich, poor, black, white, gay, straight) equally
(not that everyone should get the same from every decision, but the government should not be allowed to collect any data which would enable them to know differences between the citizens, so as to not be able to enforce different rules for different people)

quote:

---

And it's not murderer's fault they muder, liar's fault they lie, thieve's fault they steal... I mean, there is nothing wrong with canabalism or anything. I mean since there are people who think those things are right then they should be okay to do it, right?

---

It was much better times back when those degenerate Christians were murdered for believing in their false God, right?

We should be proud of a society that acknowledges and accepts differences. Not everyone believes homosexuality is wrong. Since when did we live in a society that caters to the fanatics. I mean, some people might have a problem with Christians. Should we start taking away their privileges? Perhaps Christians shouldn't be allowed to drive trucks on Wednesdays? Ambiguous laws that are written to have no positive affect, yet negatively affect one group of people should not be tolerated. Period.

(Edited by Dan on 12-13-2004 01:16)

quote:

---

Gideon said:

And it's not murderer's fault they muder, liar's fault they lie, thieve's fault they steal... I mean, there is nothing wrong with canabalism or anything. I mean since there are people who think those things are right then they should be okay to do it, right?

---

Those are pretty bad examples. You're comparing conscious actions with an inborn characteristic. That's like saying "it's not Ted's fault that he's left handed, oh right just like its not Mark's fault that he punched Tom in the stomach". I suppose it's a matter of opinion. Maybe I'm mistaken but I would assume you feel homosexuality is a conscious choice - like punching someone. That's an opinion I just don't share.

quote:

---

Gideon said:

Yeah, everyone wants it to be okay with everyone else. You have to please everybody. Well, there are two sides to that: 1.) You brainwash the nation and see what happens (that part of the plan is going well) or 2.) Just go about your buisness and remember that you will eventually step on somebody's shoes. You can't please everybody, and I think most extreme liberals try to do that.

---

I don't know what you're saying here Gideon. Could you elaborate?

quote:

---

Dan said:

That's a ridiculous argument. The government should have it's hands tied in any situation that doesn't equally affect all people (This includes tax laws, laws on vices, human rights, ect...).

It shouldn't matter if 99.9% of the population wants gay's banned from marrying. Just as it shouldn't matter if 99.9% want a tax payer sponsored program to benefit some interest group. The government should be forced to take no action on any policy that doesn't:
-Create a stronger market place
-Create a better standard of living
-Benefit all people (rich, poor, black, white, gay, straight) equally
(not that everyone should get the same from every decision, but the government should not be allowed to collect any data which would enable them to know differences between the citizens, so as to not be able to enforce different rules for different people)

---

There's a problem with that though Dan, governments aren't created soley to create a stronger market place, standard of living, etc. In a democracy, pretty much as long as a substancially large number of people want something it is hard for the government to say no.

JKMabry, I don't remember mentioning your name directly. Sorry if you felt directly spoken to.

Poor word choice of mine. And no, I don't know you at all, aside from here and over at the GN. Certainly not well enough to call you much of anything.

As I said - all lands sharing a border influence one another.

Ramble mode on:

quote:

---

Dan: Since when did we live in a society that caters to the fanatics.

---

If you would be so kind, please clarify. Who are the fanatics?

quote:

---

Jestah: Those are pretty bad examples. You're comparing conscious actions with an inborn characteristic.

---

There is absolutely no evidence that shows homosexuality is simply "genetic." And none of the research claims that it is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.

As I am sure you are aware, the press has a tendancy of concentrating on one side of an argument and leaving out the side they disagree with. The gay gene issue is one of them. They have taken the findings of scientist X, while failing to hear the findings of scientist Y. Half of the equation is ignored because of personal opinion and what is more popular with the whims of popular culture.

Once again, I repeat, there is no scientific research indicating a biological or genetic cause for homosexuality. Biological factors may play a role in the predisposition to homosexuality. However, this is true of many other psychological conditions.

Research suggests that social and psychological factors are strongly influential. Examples include problems in early family relationships, sexual seduction, and sense of inadequacy with same-sex peers.

Yet another myth that has been pummeled into our brains by the media and the corrupt, self-indulging society in which we live.

I saw an article in Time Magazine a few months back that talked about the possibility of a God gene. They are subscriber only, so here is an alternate link. Do you believe that religion is genetic? And if so, can

us Conservative Christians be held accountable for our 'bigoted' and 'outdated beliefs'? Can Muslim extremists be held accountable for the acts they commit? Can muslims in general be held accountable for treating their women as second class citizens if their God, which they are genetically predisposed to believe in, tells them so?

They also say alcoholism is genetic. I have alcoholics in my immediate family. I do not drink. Why? Because I made a conscious choice of my own free will not to.

Maybe there is an athiest gene? A Liberal gene? A gene that causes less rationality in thought processes? A violence gene? An infidelity gene? A gene that compels some to beastiality? Seems to me that science will eventually 'prove' that every action we take is because of some predisposed genetic difference in our DNA, thus we will not have any accountability and personal responsibility at all. We will all eventually be classified as "victims" to our genetic makeup, robots with no free-will and no control of our fate whatsoever. We still do not have a total grasp of DNA and its innermost workings, there is a lot we do not know about it, so scientifically, how can any of these claims be proven? It's like building a house without ensuring a stable foundation.

This next paragraph is in reference to Gideon bringing up cannibalism. I believe I know why he did and how it is relevant to this discussion. Another argument that often arises is that animals engage in homosexual behaviours, so it must be natural. This line of reasoning is ridiculous. If seemingly "homosexual" acts among animals are in accordance with animal nature, then parental killing of offspring and intra-species devouring are also in accordance with animal nature. Bringing man into the equation complicates things further. Are we to conclude that filicide and cannibalism, which happen from time to time, are according to human nature? Isn't self control and the ability to act against animal instinct one of the things that sets us apart and above other species?

quote:

---

Dan: The government should be forced to take no action on any policy that doesn't:
-Create a stronger market place
-Create a better standard of living
-Benefit all people (rich, poor, black, white, gay, straight) equally

---

Dan, I would add one thing to your list above: defense of the homeland. This is vital in my eyes and I'd be curious how a nation in today's world could survive without it. A topic for another time perhaps. Other than that I agree.

quote:

---

Jestah: In a democracy, pretty much as long as a substancially large number of people want something it is hard for the government to say no.

---

*sigh* Yup, at least if they want to get re-elected. What kind of crap can we spend their money on now and present as the betterment of society? Before you know it, well, you are no longer a Democracy. You can call it democracy, but that does not make it such. If the majority of people want to switch to a "socialist utopia," are we supposed to forsake the Constitution, our history, and the things that made this country what it is in the first place?

Don't you realize the more those in power "give" the less freedom you have? Do not take that freedom for granted and do not confuse freedom with personal security of the monetary type and guaranteed personal well-being. The Constitution of the United States and the tenets of a true democracy guarantee no such things.

The whole reason this debate, and many other debates on social issues are going on is because government is sticking their noses in places they shouldn't. Christians, Conservtives, and people from ALL walks of life are against gay marriage, they have that right. The bottom line though is that government gives them the power to oppose it, just as they give big business the ability to lobby for their interests by being involved in business. There are lobbyists out there from every facet of our society, pressuring our politicians from all sides. Usually the highest bidder or the loudest group wins. Without government involvement in marriage there would be no debate and the opposition would have no power.

But they won't ever let it go will they? Not when they make money off it to pay for all those wonderful social programs. It's a vicious cycle. We need money for this, so we'll take it from here. Now we need money for that, let's take that from here. On and on until, uh oh, not enough money. Let's raise taxes. We need money for this...

Round and round we go, where it stops, nobody knows.

In the end, I just want the whole planet to shut up about the whole gay marriage thing. Let them marry already. This is like watching the episode of Star Trek with those hippies in it over and over again. It is excruciating, painful, and just downright silly. The religious views I and many others hold are, unfortunately, Irrelevent. We should also conclude that the government is secular, so being married by a judge technically is not seen in the eyes of the Lord and does not infringe upon our religious beliefs or our future place in the afterlife. A marriage before the law does not equal a marriage in the eyes of the Lord necessarily, it's what you make of it IMO.

There is nothing you, Gideon, I or anyone against it can do to stop it, not without compromising our democracy and the teachings of Christ, whom we try to emulate. Remember, the meek shall inherit the Earth. Just sit back and enjoy the show.

Regardless of how many of the founding fathers were Christians and Deists, we simply are not a theocracy, and we should be thankful for that. We have seen the ravages that theocratic goverments have caused in the past and are still causing in certain parts of the world today. Religion and government just does not mix well. I think those that want to remove the word God from everything are a bit over the top, because there is no harm done, but we cannot force others to comply with our values, and by having government create laws against it does just that.

My main concern is the future social implications. Marriage was created and defined for a reason. It is part of the fabric which holds our society together. It is an institution that has been around for over four-thousand years and although it has changed drastically over the years, particulary in the past forty or so, one thing has remained constant. That it has always been, in the eyes of government, between men and women.

Before Marriage, most anthropologists believe, families consisted of loosely organized groups of as many as 30 people, with several male leaders, multiple women shared by them, and children. As hunter-gatherers settled down into agrarian civilizations, society had a need for more stable arrangements. There is still this need, IMO.

Sorry for the lengthy post. Ramble mode off.

Ramasax

quote:

---

Ramasax said:
As I am sure you are aware, the press has a tendancy of concentrating on one side of an argument and leaving out the side they disagree with. The gay gene issue is one of them. They have taken the findings of scientist X, while failing to hear the findings of scientist Y. Half of the equation is ignored because of personal opinion and what is more popular with the whims of popular culture.

---

We're all aware of the partyline Ramasax. There's no reason to go into it in every post.

quote:

---

Ramasax said:

Once again, I repeat, there is no scientific research indicating a biological or genetic cause for homosexuality. Biological factors may play a role in the predisposition to homosexuality. However, this is true of many other psychological conditions.

---

It took me all of two seconds to search Google and come up with a study of homosexuality being biological. No scientific research indicating a biological or genetic cause for homosexuality? "As I am sure you are aware, [Conservatives] ha[ve] a tendancy of concentrating on one side of an argument and leaving out the side they disagree with."

quote:

---

Ramasax said:

They also say alcoholism is genetic. I have alcoholics in my immediate family. I do not drink. Why? Because I made a conscious choice of my own free will not to.

---

I see, and did you also make a conscious choice of your own free will concerning your eye color? How about not to get cancer? Of course I imagine the religious right will argue that these too are not genetic and are personal choices as well.

quote:

---

Dan said:

Not everyone believes homosexuality is wrong.

---

Not everyone believes murder is wrong, not everyone believes canabalism is wrong, what's your point? Should we celebrate those differences too?

quote:

---

Jestah said:

Maybe I'm mistaken but I would assume you feel homosexuality is a
conscious
choice - like punching someone. That's an opinion I just don't share.

---

Well, when people can conciously decide to be gay or not, murder or not, have sex with children of not. Oh that's a good one. Age. Why can't 60 year olds have sex with 16 year olds? Multiple marriage, marriage to animals. How do those sound? People have urges to kill, urges to have sex, urges for homosexuality, urges to steal, lie, cheat, what differenciates between them? Where is the line that says: this feeling is wrong, that action is wrong. Who has the right to say that? There are sides on all issues. Homosexuality is not the only one that is immoral.

quote:

---

Jestah said:

I don't know what you're saying here Gideon. Could you elaborate?

---

In a nutshell, I guess I was trying to say that you can't please everyone, no matter how much you try.

quote:

---

Ramasax said:

They have taken the findings of scientist X, while failing to hear the findings
of scientist Y

---

And A, B, C, D, ...

quote:

---

Ramasax said:

Remember, the meek shall inherit the Earth. Just sit back and enjoy the show.

---

I know, but I am afraid if my children get involved in that show. If America goes down the tube on morality, then land we live in, the leaders we follow go with it. It will just be history repeating itself. I just wish Jesus would hurry up and get here so we won't have to worry about it. *sigh*

quote:

---

Ramasax said:

There is nothing you, Gideon, I or anyone against it can do to stop it,
not without compromising our democracy and the teachings of Christ, whom
we try to emulate.

---

Not quite true. We can speak, we don't have to be violent. Voting works (if there is someone good to vote for). I just hope that Christians, and others that at least have good morals, will wake up and stop saying that it isn't their problem. Do you think that God gave us this land of liberty for no reason? (Physical) Matyring goes on in other regions, but the learning happens here (mostly). We are the spring board for most missions. If we go to the dumps, Christianity will have to take a private roll again like nearly 2000 years ago. Either that or we will have many more martyrs in the States than I would like.

quote:

---

Ramasax said:

Religion and government just does not mix well.

---

Well, will you agree with me that religion and government headed by men do not mix? That sounds logical. I think that one headed by someone not a man (or a woman) would have a considerably better shot.

quote:

---

Dan said:

The government should be forced to take no action
on any policy that doesn't:-Create a stronger market place-Create a
better standard of living-Benefit all people (rich, poor, black,
white, gay, straight) equally(not that everyone should get the same from
every decision, but the government should not be allowed to collect any data
which would enable them to know differences between the citizens, so as to not
be able to enforce different rules for different people)

---

Is that it? Is that all a government is there for? Just those things?

Good ramble Ramasax. I liked it. It was well researched too, that is always good.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

Jestah said:

I see, and did you also make a conscious choice of your own free will concerning
your eye color? How about not to get cancer? Of course I imagine the religious
right will argue that these too are not genetic and are personal choices as
well.

---

Physical attributes are not a free choice, they are there for a reason.

Homosexuality IS NOT A PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTE.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

jestah, there's far from conclusive evidence for homosexuality being genetic. a lot of researchers also believe that environmental factors play a large part.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

*LoL*

"I think it has the potential to become big, if in the right person's hands."

Just made me laugh..

(^-^)b

ws: sorry for sidetracking the thread here, but I can't let it slide by, try as I might (or did), your statement:

quote:

---

I think it will have an influence. All lands that share a common border influence their neighbors, directly or indirectly. I think the Far Religious Right (like those above) would like to believe that it will not, because they cannot control it.

---

Did indeed label me directly. The operative word being "those" in "like those above". There are but 2 of use "above" in that thread, had it been 3 you might say you were referring to the other 2 and not me, but as it was only Bugs and myself, it was indeed directed at me. That fact that you didn't specifically use my name is immaterial.

Whether this was indeed a poor word choice or your heart finding a way to say what it meant, I can't say. I was just wanting to point it out so that you might have an opportunity to see more clearly through the eyes of another if you choose to. If this is your heart I fear you harbor a prejudice that you might want to consider holding in check, you seem (from other discussion I've read) to dislike prejudice and value tolerance for divergant views. I believe your pre conceived notion caused you to make assumptions about me that are patently false, and that's always a dangerous thing innit?

Dan: you're such an idealist, will you marry me?

quote:

---

Jestah: We're all aware of the partyline Ramasax. There's no reason to go into it in every post.

---

You, I and many other regulars here may be aware, but we are not the only ones reading these posts. There are many lurkers out there. I try to lay a certain groundwork in every thread I post to so that others may benefit from my profound insights...cough..., not just you or other regular posters. If that bothers you, I apologize, but I will continue to post as I always have, unabridged. You are free to skip over the points which you are familiar with in the future or simply skip my posts altogether.

quote:

---

Jestah: It took me all of two seconds to search Google and come up with a study of homosexuality being biological. No scientific research indicating a biological or genetic cause for homosexuality?

---

Give me a direct link to the actual study/studies if you have found them please. I'd like to read some of them and have been unable to find any in full.

I can do a Google search on anything my heart desires, and if I use the correct wording, I can more than likely find something or other to support it. For instance, if I wanted to find information that indicates the holocaust was a fabrication I could easily do so. Indications in science are not proof and are not relevent, primarily because other scientists have found indications to the contrary. Once again, scientifically, you cannot discard one set of findings and embrace the other. Unless you can, of course, prove one set of findings over another. On top of that, and what I think to be the biggest issue in the misunderstanding of these particular scientific findings that "prove" this link is that they were not expressed in an accurate way by the media and those with agendas in the public arena.

If you are interested I'd be happy to give you some links, although I am not sure your strong feelings on the matter would allow you to view them with an objective mind. Or perhaps you could word your Google search another way and find the alternative arguments yourself.

quote:

---

"As I am sure you are aware, [Conservatives] ha[ve] a tendancy of concentrating on one side of an argument and leaving out the side they disagree with."

---

Agreed, that is the nature of opinion and humanity. Conservatives, Liberals and whoever else wants to have a "biased" POV is one thing, we are all arrogant in this sense. Would you not agree, or do you believe you are right all the time? I don't. My opinions change constantly, to one degree or another. That is how we learn and grow as we assimilate new information.

The press is another matter entirely. There should be no emotional or personal opinion involved in their objectiveness as reporters, on either side, regardless of personal view. Unfortunately, there is. They should not be expected to be right 100% of the time, but all sides of an argument should be presented in an accurate and comprehensive manner. Perhaps the left and right side should work together to provide balanced view of events they cover, not likely, but it would sure make research a hell of a lot easier. Under the current press, to get the whole story, one must skip from article to article and try and piece together the puzzle.

quote:

---

I see, and did you also make a conscious choice of your own free will concerning your eye color? How about not to get cancer? Of course I imagine the religious right will argue that these too are not genetic and are personal choices as well.

---

Behavioural genetics are quite different, much more complex, and largely unknown as compared to the genetics of simple Mendelian traits such as eye color, hair color, or skin tone. You are comparing apples and oranges. Also, my argument was honest in this respect and religion plays no part in my conclusions, as you seem to feel the need to point out in order to try an discredit what I have said.

You don't believe anything is left to choice do you? No matter, we are on totally different wavelengths. Unfortunately for us and the rest of the world which faces the same troubles, we can never seem to overcome those differences. Here they escalate to arguments, vague generalizations, and the occasional outburst of insults. In the real world they many times escalate to violence and even outright war. Right wing, left wing. I know I am guilty of this as well, but perhaps someday we can see past these differences and enter into an honest debate. A debate where perhaps we can disagree, but still respect the opinions and beliefs of others.

In any case, in the eyes of a someone with your particular viewpoint, if you believe there is a Gay gene then you must also believe that science has correctly detected the God gene, so anything you say against me is intolerant. I have no control over my opinions of the world, I am simply a victim.

quote:

---

Gideon: Not everyone believes murder is wrong, not everyone believes canabalism is wrong, what's your point? Should we celebrate those differences too?

---

In time Gideon, in time.

quote:

---

I know, but I am afraid if my children get involved in that show. If America goes down the tube on morality, then land we live in, the leaders we follow go with it. It will just be history repeating itself. I just wish Jesus would hurry up and get here so we won't have to worry about it. *sigh*

---

Pass on your knowledge, do your best to raise them right, and give them the love and affection they deserve. That is all any parent can do IMO. People are shaped by their past, so make their past the best you can so their future will be bright. Being a person without children, I have absolutely no idea what I am talking about.

America will go down the tubes IMO, it is the destiny of every powerful nation that has ever existed. We're heading toward what's called "hyper-democracy" - a political system which knows no values other then liberty and equality. Ultimately, I think we're headed toward blurring all the essential distinctions that have made civilized life possible. All good things...

quote:

---

Not quite true. We can speak, we don't have to be violent.

---

Yes, we can speak, but our opinions regarding religion should stay out of public policy. In the long run, it only will lead to violence from the opposition and in the worst case scenario, war. We must understand that our religious views are irrelevent to those who disbelieve in God, so in most cases, words are simply an exercise in futility.

On the same note, public policy should not be determined by questionable and unproven scientific implications either.

quote:

---

I just hope that Christians, and others that at least have good morals, will wake up and stop saying that it isn't their problem. Do you think that God gave us this land of liberty for no reason?

---

First, I believe there has been an awakening of sorts. I do worry that the methods which are being employed by many on our side are wrong.

I do not think that God gave us this land per se. To say that, you would have to believe that he intended us to steal the land from those who dwelled here first. We aquired this land in an unjust way, not in an ordinance from the Lord.

I do beleive that there was a time when God gave this nation His blessings because of how we acted as a nation. That time is expiring if it has not already.

quote:

---

Well, will you agree with me that religion and government headed by men do not mix? That sounds logical. I think that one headed by someone not a man (or a woman) would have a considerably better shot.

---

I agree. It is men which corrupt and misinterpret religion, it is men who corrupt government. A corrupt government is bad enough without introducing the religious factor. We have no right to force the laws of religion upon men who reject it. It takes away their free-will to choose, something I believe very strongly in. We cannot be the judges of others or subjugate them to our values through public policy, we can only make our side of the argument known and spread the word to the inquisitive. In the en though, I am a pessimist in this regard and I do believe that this will be a downhill battle as civilized society continues its downward spiral morally.

Ramasax

(Edited by Ramasax on 12-13-2004 23:28)

quote:

---

Not everyone believes murder is wrong, not everyone believes canabalism is wrong, what's your point? Should we celebrate those differences too?

---

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Let's ban Christianity because some people have a problem with it. That's the comparison. Let's dig deeper:
Murder = takes away peoples freedom.
Cannibalism = Well... you got me. I guess we should legalize cannibalism too. (As long as there is consent from both parties - preferably pre-mortem),
Gay Marriage = How does this limit people's freedom? What negative at all would it have on society?

quote:

---

Is that it? Is that all a government is there for? Just those things?

---

Yes... The government has way to much power over our lives right now. Gay marriage isn't the only thing in need of deregulation. I'd rather have a less equitable (or just, from whoever?s point of view) world, then a less free one.

quote:

---

Dan: you're such an idealist, will you marry me?

---

How's your cooking?

(Edited by Dan on 12-14-2004 05:47)

quote:

---

Did indeed label me directly. The operative word being "those" in "like those above". There are but 2 of use "above" in that thread, had it been 3 you might say you were referring to the other 2 and not me, but as it was only Bugs and myself, it was indeed directed at me. That fact that you didn't specifically use my name is immaterial.

---

No, I wasn't trying to single you out in that - as I said (and apologized for) - poor word choice. It was meant to refer to the religious (political) Far Right - I should have said "like those above who are part of" the Far Right.

As you pointed out, I don't know you well enough to say much of anything about you. You don't often join into such discussions, nor do you explain much about yourself. I have been to your website many times - but so what?

To "lump" you into something, would certainly be wrong of me - I just do not have enough information about you to do such.

As such, my apology stands.

So, on to Jestah and Ram - both sides are leaning over an edge here. Neither is there conclusive evidence that Homosexual proclivity is genetic, nor is there conclusive evidence to the contrary (or for a psychological reason). Fact is, we don't know for certain! Genetic research of this kind is still in its infancy. And through all the years of study, no-one has conclusively proved that it is caused from purely psycological or evironmental factors.

In other words, there is some amount of evidence in both directions, but nothing conclusive.

So, what do we know?

Well, we know that homosexuality is as old as mankind itself (and occurs in Nature, where it has been documented), and that despite dangers and penalties of death, it didn't prevent such behavior. Thus, if psychological, it must be an unbelievably strong urge. However, there is no conclusive evidence that it is. That comes as suspect. We understand motives for Murder, Stealing, and such. Do we really understand the reason behind a sexual desire for the same sex? I don't think we do. We certainly understand the sexual desire for the opposite sex (or at least think we do).

I find that since it takes place in Nature, it must be a natural behavior, and not an aberration. As such, I see in that (since it brings no harm unto others) no problem with it as a behavior. This is what I do not understand, in Ram's and in other's position.

It is not affecting you. It is not harming you.

In that sense, positions against it are hardly based on a fair and impartial, rational process.

(Edited by WebShaman on 12-14-2004 09:10)

Well, as long as we're lumping homosexuality with murder, we might as well include all sorts of other things Christians of various ilks find immoral:

Baptists are against drinking alcohol - let's repeal the 21st Amendment

Catholics are agains birth control - let's outlaw condoms and birth control of all sorts

My father-in-law, die-hard Luthern, claims the Luthern church teaches it is immoral to have sex unless specifically trying to procreate. (Thank god, his daughter doesn't agree ) As such, we should test women for their most fertile 3 or 4 days, and outlaw sex on all other days. Furthermore, we should outlaw sex if a couple has been found to infertile.

Orthodox Jews find it morally offensive to break Kosher eating rituals. We, America the free, should outlaw the eating of pork or consuming milk with meat, or breaking any of the other Kosher rules.

Bugs, perhaps one of the most religious members of this board, points to Biblical passages to support his vegetarianism. We should, therefore, outlaw the eating of meat.

Protestants (in general) believe the communion wine and bread are representations of Jesus the Christ. Roman Catholics believe the wine and bread ARE Jesus the Christ. As such, they should all be jailed. They disagree and openly practice such heresey. Outlawed!

I could go on and on.
Do you see the point?

quote:

---

Well, when people can conciously decide to be gay or not, murder or not, have sex with children of not. Oh that's a good one. Age. Why can't 60 year olds have sex with 16 year olds? Multiple marriage, marriage to animals. How do those sound? People have urges to kill, urges to have sex, urges for homosexuality, urges to steal, lie, cheat, what differenciates between them? Where is the line that says: this feeling is wrong, that action is wrong. Who has the right to say that? There are sides on all issues. Homosexuality is not the only one that is immoral.

---

As already pointed out, the difference between some of those things is willing vs. forced.
Murder is forced. Stealing is forced.
Rape aside, homosexuality is willing - not forced.

This is has got to be one of my favorites:

quote:

---

Do you think that God gave us this land of liberty for no reason?

---

Since you said 'land of liberty', I assume you are talking about the early settlers from England.

What I find funny is that a lot of American Christians are fond of saying that this land was founded on good Christian values. No, the fact that the early settlers were some flavor of Christianity is incidental. This 'land of liberty' was founded on freedom from religious persecution.

What did those seeking religious freedom do? Persecute those already here.
Was this land given by God, or was it taken by force?
Moses set a good example for these kinds of things.
Yeah, good Christian values.

I want freedom from religious persecution.
This includes you (anyone) telling me that I can't get married to a man because of your religious beliefs.

Rick Ducommun said it best:
"You and yours leave me and mine alone."

(Edited by warjournal on 12-14-2004 16:51)

quote:

---

How's your cooking?

---

There's so many gender/role/marriage/gay marriage jokes in that I dunno which to choose

WebShaman: no sweat, I was having trouble interpreting your post, thanks for the clarification, I'd never cack on an apology, please don't think that.

Legislating morality is just really difficult, I guess I'd draw the line at hurting others, if it doesn't, then leave it be. I think Jestah summed up our country's legislative process almost perfectly:

quote:

---

In a democracy, pretty much as long as a substancially large number of people want something it is hard for the government to say no.

---

"substancially large number of people" = substantially large amount of cash.

If we could somehow legislate against greed, wait, nevermind.

quote:

---

Ramasax said:

Being a person without children, I have absolutely no idea what I am talking
about.

---

That's okay. Good ideas though. In the home, parents can do all they want, but you have probably experienced this with your parents that peer presure and the media can be extremely hard road blocks in the raiseing of children. I just find that if people who are silent would speak up, then we might be able to turn the tide for another century or two. The Roman Empire went on for several centuries before they fell into the homosexual snare. I just hope we can hold off that long.

quote:

---

Ramasax said:

In the long run, it only will lead to violence from the opposition and in the
worst case scenario, war. We must understand that our religious views are
irrelevent to those who disbelieve in God, so in most cases, words are simply an
exercise in futility.

---

That is true, but words that are not of a religious stand point could be used. Using the Bible is a good idea, but not with unbelievers (I am learning that more and more on this site). Words that are on that level: scientific evidence, statistics, relating to nature, could possibly sway the other side. God did put rules down that weren't just in the Bible, most of them can be found just by pure logic.

quote:

---

Ramasax said:

I do beleive that there was a time when God gave this nation His blessings
because of how we acted as a nation. That time is expiring if it has not
already.

---

Looking around I can see that happening every day.

quote:

---

Dan said:

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

---

Not much really.

quote:

---

Dan said:

Cannibalism = Well... you got me. I guess we should legalize cannibalism too.

---

Sounds good, lets do it.

quote:

---

Dan said:

Gay Marriage = How does this limit people's freedom? What negative at all would
it have on society?

---

Gay marriage does not limit freedom, it is a morality issue. Just like it is immoral to murder, rape, binge drink, etc. It is immoral to have homosexual feelings.

quote:

---

Dan said:

Yes... The government has way to much power over our lives right now. Gay
marriage isn't the only thing in need of deregulation. I'd rather have a less
equitable (or just, from whoever?s point of view) world, then a less free
one.

---

Well, that is the line isn't it? Where do we give up security and morality for freedom? Where do we say enough is enough? Do we even say that? If we go for only freedom there will be no more bag checks in airports, but that is a security and not a freedom. That is a violation of freedoms for security. Do we rid ourselves of that too? Where is the line?

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

and occurs in Nature, where it has been documented

---

Well, the animals may do it, but the parts don't fit.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

Gideon said:
Gay marriage does not limit freedom, it is a morality issue. Just like it is immoral to murder, rape, binge drink, etc. It is immoral to have homosexual feelings.

---

Murder and rape force unwelcome action on another human being, therefor in my opinion are rightfully illegal. Binge drinking, well, nothing hurtful in and of itself there to another human, until the drunk gets behind the wheel, then it becomes a serious issue of possible unwelcome action against another (wreck, damage, injury, death etc) and is rightfully regulated.

I'm not sure what, if any, harmful, unwelcome action homosexual feelings or marriages would have on other humans (I'm sure taxes and the like would have to be looked at).

Jesus had constant condemnation for the dogmatic lawmen of his day didn't he? He was constantly going about with wine bibers (whatever that is ) tax collectors (thieves), whores and whatnot, even though they were law breakers. In regards to government he said to "render unto Caeser what is his". I think Jesus had the whole seperation of church and state down to a science, he didn't care much about the government, he cared about people. He lived to show grace to the immoral, and it worked much better to further His Kingdom than the haranguing of the immoral by the dogmatic lawmen of the time.

Not condemning any believer's conviction to take political stands or anything, just felt the need to be a reminder of our purpose as the church, and to maybe help prioritze our actions and the things we feel the need to make a fuss over.



edit: quote=name doesn't work?

(Edited by JKMabry on 12-14-2004 19:29)

First off, it wasn't "the homosexual snare" that caused the collapse of Rome. Certainly, there were lots of factors, but "the homosexual snare" wasn't one of them. (Not, anyway, without a significant stretch and reach of logic...)

Secondly, I suppose I did leave the question implicit. So, seeing as you didn't answer it, I'll ask it very explicitly.
Why legislate YOUR version of morality as opposed to others'?

Gideon, a specific answer to that question would help me better understand your point of view.

people seem to get all upset when someone brings up the idea of "legislating morality". what people seem to forget is that we already do it. you're not supposed to kill people, you're not supposed to steal things that don't belong to you...these are things that the general populace agrees on and abides to.

when it comes to something like homosexual marriage is there a reason the same general principle shouldn't apply?

(i'm not necessarily saying it should or shouldn't, just opening the idea for discussion)

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

Yes.

The other things you mentioned have a direct consequnece that is harmful to someone else.

Two men or two women getting married does not. It's not a question of morality.





(Edited by DL-44 on 12-14-2004 20:25)

I would say that it is wrong to legislate morality in any way. Our Founding Fathers would agree.

Look back to the people who influenced the Founders of the US of A.
Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau etc.
Their political philosophies differed a bit, but they did have one thing in common - that is, they answered the question "Why do people socialize?" (and thus, why have governments, laws, etc) in pretty much the same way. They all said that people give up a limited amount of freedoms in order to live more productive and happy lives.

If murder were legal (or, more accurately, if murder were not illegal) we would all have to spend some significant portion of our time looking over our shoulders, and not as much time making a living, inventing things, loving our lovers, doing our hobbies, and all the other sorts of things humans like to do.

So, according to the people who invented Liberalism in the first place (the abovementioned list of names, and others) - the people who "wrote the book(s)" on the founding of our country - we DO NOT legislate morality. We legislate those things that make our lives more productive.

That's not to say we actually live up to that ideal, but that is the ideal upon which this country was founded.
Shouldn't we all honor the memories of our Founding Fathers by trying at least half as hard as they did to make that ideal a reality?

That's part of what really pisses me off when some wacko-right-wing-nut says such things as "if you don't like it, go live somewhere else".
I want to respond, "No m-f'er! If YOU don't like it, YOU leave!"
I'm trying to promote the ideal for which Jefferson and Washington and Madison and Paine, and Franklin, etc fought so bloody hard.

(Edited by mobrul on 12-14-2004 20:31)

That is because I have a right to life and property

The law say that you can not commit murder, because if you were to murder me you would be taking my life from me. You can not steal from me because you would be taking some object from me.

The laws about morality that you talk about would be those such as, you can not commit suicide, or you can not smoke marajuanna, or you must be 21 in order to drink alcohol legally (int the US). The above 3 are moral because they are laws that prevent someone from doing something that affects only themselves (don't argue that doing drugs or drinking can lead to you killing someone or stealing from someone because we have other laws that are not morality based that deal with those specific actions, preventitive law tends to be a bad idea).

The top two are not laws that govern morality because they apply to someone doing something that directly affects someone else.

Homosexual marrige is a moral issue that should not be a part of the governments legal mandates, the same for laws that govern suicide, the personal use of drugs and alcohole, and many many other laws, that hang around in the legal books because some legislatures somewhere felt that they knew better than the people they are serving.

Dan @ Code Town

(Edited by WarMage on 12-14-2004 20:37)

quote:

---

mobrul said:

Baptists are against drinking alcohol

---

Actually against getting drunk, not alcohol.

quote:

---

mobrul said:

I could go on and on.Do you see the point?

---

Yup, I do see the point: Where is the line drawn? Where are things immoral, and where are they just stupid? That would be easy to fix if we had someone to fix it, but who has the power and authority to tell people what to think and do?

quote:

---

warjournal said:

Murder is forced.

---

Murder is forced upon another, but the murderer isn't forced.

quote:

---

warjournal said:

"You and yours leave me and mine alone."

---

I would, unless you are yours are hurting me and mine.

quote:

---

JKMabry said:

I guess I'd draw the line at hurting others

---

What would you define as hurting others? Directly? Indirectly? Both?

quote:

---

JKMabry said:

Not condemning any believer's conviction to take political stands or anything,
just felt the need to be a reminder of our purpose as the church, and to maybe
help prioritze our actions and the things we feel the need to make a fuss over.

---

Correct, Jesus did walk around with "sinners" (meaning "bad" sinners). He showed love. He loved the person but not the act. He loved homosexuals. I have nothing against the person. He despised homosexuality. So do I. You make it sound like I am homophobic. I am afraid of homosexuality not the homosexual. I still have hope for them, and with success stories like Sy Rogers, that hope stays alive for all homosexuals.

Jesus did love people, but don't forget:

quote:

---

Matthew 5:17-18
17 "Do not think that I [Jesus] came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

---

quote:

---

mobrul said:

Why legislate YOUR version of morality as opposed to others'?

---

I don't want to legislate MY version of morality. It is wrong.

quote:

---

Fig said:

you're not supposed to kill people, you're not supposed to steal things that
don't belong to you...these are things that the general populace agrees on and
abides to.

---

Not necessarily.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

Yup, I do see the point: Where is the line drawn? Where are things immoral, and where are they just stupid? That would be easy to fix if we had someone to fix it, but who has the power and authority to tell people what to think and do?

---

Clearly you don't see the point. Your bible may just be wrong. You may be praying to the wrong god (given that one even exists), all the morals you choose to live your life by may just be making some divine being more and more angry. Why should society be forced to live by your morals? What benefit is there? (Don't come back with a murder/rape/whatever analogy - this has nothing to do with those)

You don't seem to be able to put together obvious comparisons; instead you hyperbolize your side of the argument to no end. Let me try this just one more:

Some people believe homosexuality is wrong. Many of these people feel that gays and lesbians should not be allowed to marry.
Some people also believe Christianity is wrong. ...See where I'm about to go with this? Should we impose legislation to ban all things that anyone may find immoral? Impious? Scary? It would be ridiculous.

Since when is it acceptable for rules to be imposed on a society, when the rules are designed with only the purpose of hurting one group of the population, without benefiting another (regardless of how much clout the people who forced the law may have)?
(I realize all the pinkos no longer agree with me.. but on all the issues that they support, under these same consequences, they're wrong too)

Go ahead and start naming negative consequences gay marriage has on society.
Would any of them matter in a society that is avowedly atheist? No free country has a religion, and if it takes some brainless-asshole-socialist-fucker to remove the threat of religious interference in my, and everyone else?s lives... Then bring on the progressive taxes, and environmental/economical totalitarianism cause I'm going red.

quote:

---

It is immoral to have homosexual feelings.

---

In your OPINION.

That is pretty much the entire point. You can feel as strongly as you wish that your opinion is supported by your bible, and that it is "right".

But it is still just your opinion.

quote:

---

I don't want to legislate MY version of morality. It is wrong.

---

Please clarify, as I am unsure if I've seen you state what your actual position is on the issue -

do you wish to see it illegal for homosexual couples to marry in the US?

See, Gideon, the thing about saying "It is wrong." is that any of the abovementioned groups would say EXACTLY the same thing about each of the things I listed. Roman Catholics (or, at least the RC Church) would say, just as strongly as you did about homosexuality, that birth control is wrong. Orthodox Jews would say, just as strongly as you did about homosexuality, that breaking kosher is wrong.
And, at the Southern Baptist Council of 1999, in Atlanta, GA, "Southern Baptists expressed overwhelming support for a lifestyle of abstinence from alcohol...by approving the report of a drug task force June 15".... (my emphasis) and they would say, just as vigorously as you did about homosexuality, that drinking alcohol is wrong.

Furthermore, I can point to millions of people (I'm one of them) who say, just as emphatically as you do, that homosexuality is NOT wrong, but just a part of the human existence.

It is YOUR version of morality. It may not be exlusively yours, but it is yours.

So if you argue that homosexuals do not deserve civil rights, you must argue that those who use birth control, consume alcohol, or don't keep kosher also should be denied civil rights.


And finally, you say that "[Jesus] despised homosexuality." I challenge you to produce one Bible verse in which Jesus is said to have uttered even half a thought about homosexuality.

quote:

---

Furthermore, I can point to millions of people (I'm one of them) who say, just as emphatically as you do, that homosexuality is NOT wrong, but just a part of the human existence.

---

Right with you, 100%!! It is also a part of Nature (not just a part of human existence). Calling it wrong in Nature, would be tantamount to saying that God is also wrong, right? Didn't God make Nature? Apparently, God sees nothing wrong with animals doing it.

quote:

---

And finally, you say that "(Jesus) despised homosexuality." I challenge you to produce one Bible verse in which Jesus is said to have uttered even half a thought about homosexuality.

---

Now, THAT is going to be a tough one! I'm still waiting for Gideon to answer all the other questions that I posed.

(Edited by WebShaman on 12-15-2004 22:12)

quote:

---

And finally, you say that "[Jesus] despised homosexuality." I challenge you to produce one Bible verse in which Jesus is said to have uttered even half a thought about homosexuality.

---

And quoting Paul doesn't count - that tells us what Paul thought about it, not what Jesus thought.

quote:

---

Dan said:

Your bible may just be wrong. You may be praying to the wrong god (given that
one even exists), all the morals you choose to live your life by may just be
making some divine being more and more angry.

---

Perhaps. Then I would be a fool wouldn't I? Because if Christ didn't rise from the dead my faith is in vain. Heh, well, let's just hope you are right and my God is wrong then.

quote:

---

Dan said:

Some people also believe Christianity is wrong

---

Some people believe canabalism is wrong. You still have not answered my question. Who then makes the decisions that something is to be acceptable and something not? Who has that power. I know that I don't. Do you? Does a government? Who?

quote:

---

Dan said:

No free country has a religon

---

But then no free country has no religion.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

But it is still just your opinion.

---

Perhaps. That statement, if I agree with it or not, did not come from me. It is not my opinion. It is a statement.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

Please clarify, as I am unsure if I've seen you state what your actual position
is on the issue - do you wish to see it illegal for homosexual couples
to marry in the US?

---

My wishes are immaterial. If I want it or not I have no real power to influence it either way. I can voice my opinion, but without support that goes through the cracks anyway. My position is the position of God. That is it. My morals are mixed up. My opinion is biased. Do not accept them. God's aren't. He knows what works and what doesn't. That is why He explained life to us.

Mobrul, Southern Baptists as a whole may support it, but Jesus himself drank wine, so what do you think? Alcohol or drunkardness? (wine in that day was hard to get drunk on, you had to drink alot. Now you only have to drink a little to get drunk)

quote:

---

mobrul said:

And finally, you say that "[Jesus] despised homosexuality." I challenge you to
produce one Bible verse in which Jesus is said to have uttered even half a
thought about homosexuality.

---

I can do better than that. I can say one part where he denounces all sexual sin.

quote:

---

mobrul said:

It is YOUR version of morality

---

No, it is God's. Mine is immaterial.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Didn't God make Nature?

---

And man destroyed it.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

And quoting Paul doesn't count - that tells us what Paul thought about it, not
what Jesus thought.

---

Well, not precisely. What Paul wrote down is what was revealed to Him by God. But don't worry, I can find one that is not in one of his epistles. Many actually.

If you can wait a little, my time is up today. I can get them to you next time.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

Actually fellas there's plenty in the old testament regarding homosexuality. If you look at the first of the book of John in the new testament it explains that in the beginning was the word (Jesus), and the word was with god and was god, trinity stuff. They all agree, they're all the same person.

edit: daggum it, failed to see page 2 yet again



(Edited by JKMabry on 12-15-2004 19:20)

I understand, Mr. Mabry, that there are a handful of places in the Old Testament that denounce homosexuality. I am relatively comfortable with the contents of a Bible (RC and Protestant versions). I asked the question because

• I know damn well there is no place in the Gospels where Jesus is said to [directly] express any opinion on homosexuality
• I know (with almost certainty) that someone would bring up the Old Testament

Which brings me to those passages. I'm familiar with the passages in question. I also know that on either side of those passages are laws concerning

• the cutting of one's hair
• the composition of one's clothes
• the covering of one's head
• one's menu
• the treatment of women during menstration
• the marrying of one's brother's widow

...and many, many more laws that nobody makes any deal about today. If one is going to quote John (or Matthew) to show Jesus wishes for those laws to be upheld, then that lengthens my list of things we must outlaw if we base our laws on somebody's religious doctrine.

[SIDENOTE: To be perfectly clear, I don't believe JKMabry thinks these things should be laws. I believe JKMabry understands the seperation of church and state very well. I belive JKMabry does all he can to be both a pious, God-fearing man and a fair, honest, and patriotic citizen. I believe JKMabry is a reasonable human being.]

I point this all out for one reason, and one reason only. Gideon is (and others are) calling for laws to legislate someone's version of morality. Doing so opens one up to all sorts of problems. I'm usually wary of the "slippery slope" argument, but in this case, I believe it is warrented.

Gideon still has not answered the question, "Why legislate one set of morals and not another?"
Do you advocate the outlawing of Birth Control?
Do you advocate the prohibition of alcohol consumption?
Do you advocate the outlawing of non-Kosher diets?
Do you advocate the outlawing of cutting the hair on the sides of a man's head?
Do you advocate the outlawing of wearing clothes made from two different materials?

[edit: stupid spelling mistake]

(Edited by mobrul on 12-15-2004 23:05)

Hmmm...I see no evidence whatsoever that man has destroyed Nature. I see that man has altered some of it. Nature is huge. It also includes the ENTIRE Universe (all of existence, actually). Truly, Gideon, next time think before posting.

I also see no direct evidence of Jesus directly prohibiting just homosexuality. As Morbrul so eloquently posted, there are references in the Old Testament - but so are references to the other laws that Mobrul posted. I'm curious to see how Gideon responds to that. He says he follows his god's laws.

Gideon, das that mean you follow all those laws mentioned above in Mobrul's post, as well? Apparently, you must, because you believe in a literal translation of the Bible.

And in response to JKMabry - please show me a passage directly from Jesus himself prohibiting homosexuality. Not from the Old Testament, not from other authors - but from Jesus himself.

quote:

---

mobrul said:

all he can to be both a pious, God-fearing man and a fair, honest,
and patriotic
citizen.

---

Why can't both be the same?

quote:

---

mobrul said:

If one is going to quote John (or Matthew) to show Jesus wishes
for those laws
to be upheld

---

Actually, He addresses one of those directly if I remember right, and several others indirectly. Including the Homosexual issue.

Well, my stance, as a usual Baptist, is with the Bible. All quarrels are men just trying to interpret God's Words in different ways. If you want my personal opinion to those questions, I can give them, but it is the same as the Bible, so why don't I tell you what the Bible says about them?

quote:

---

mobrul said:

Do you advocate the outlawing of Birth Control?

---

Me personally, my morals say go for it, but that is why I am wrong. It sounds okay to me, but the Bible says that God has chosen a life for each person before they are born, thus all forms of the destruction or predestruction of a child is against the Bible.

quote:

---

mobrul said:

Do you advocate the prohibition of alcohol consumption?

---

Jesus, who never sinned, drank wine. Thus, it isn't a sin. Thus alchohol in moderation is okay.

quote:

---

mobrul said:

Do you advocate the outlawing of non-Kosher diets?

---

Romans does a good job of talking about that subject, read chapter 15 (I think).

quote:

---

mobrul said:

Do you advocate the outlawing of cutting the hair on the sides of a man's head?

---

That is for a ccertain person, can't remember the name now, but John the Baptist was one of them.

quote:

---

mobrul said:

Do you advocate the outlawing of wearing clothes made from two different
materials?

---

I don't remember this part, so could you help me out here?

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

Leviticus 19:19 talks about not sowing two different kinds of seeds in the same field, nor wearing clothes made of two different kinds of material. (In some translations, it says specifically, clothes made of wool and linen. Some translations leave it generic - any two materials.)

So, if I understand you correctly, you would like to make US law reflect how you/your church interprets the laws, regulations, and commandments of the Bible?

Do you not understand, that is the EXACT same attitude we condemn in fundamentalist/totalitarian regimes of the Middle East?
Making the US a theocracy, regardless of whose religions doctrine is used, can only result in one thing - ugly, violent, bloody, civil war.

It's OK for you to believe the things you do; please don't misinterpret what I'm saying. But to use the power of the federal and state governments to legislate morality and religious doctrine is just simply a horrible way to run a country -- any country -- but especially one as diverse as this one.

Ok, once again, I'd like to return to the original topic, at least to some extent.

Gideon - you are basically skirting every issue put before you, and very distinctly refusing to put your own opinion into the mix. You can say all you want that it is "god's" opinion, and not yours, but as you yourself stated, any person's belief, even if based on the bible, is dependant on your personal interpretation of it. Therefore your *own* opinion is of the utmost importance in such matters.

Now, what I really want to know is this (as asked before) -

are you arguing that homosexual marriage should be illegal, or are you simply throwing in your 2 cents by saying that you personally think it is 'wrong'?

There is, of course, a very big difference.

mobrul: thanks for the vote of confidence (I may have cried had you not put that in there, very merciful ). You bring up laws that I struggle with myself, that seem absolutely rediculous to me. But they are in the Bible, a book I hold in high regard regardless of whether I understand the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts inside out and within the context of the time they were written. I do not know a great deal about the Bible, I am not a religious person, but my faith is unshakable, as is my relationship with God, and my understanding of the Bible is most likely greater than most on the planet. These laws however, have always bothered me, and here I sit confronted with them yet again and not knowing how to answer, thanks, fartknocker.

I've heard some great "context of the time they were written" arguments for these types of laws in the past but haven't bothered to research them in great detail for my own satisfaction, that to me is very low on my priority list. I do believe however that there is an overwhelming amount of mention in the Bible, old and new testaments, regarding sexual sin. This is something I'm familiar with, looking at magazines as a kid started me on the natural path until I could've had quite a trophy room as a young adult were it kosher to make headmounts for such a thing. That admission to qualify my authority to say that things labeled as sexual sin in the Bible lead to no good at best, not optimal at least. In my case I was no respecter of women as independent worthy souls and I can say the same for lots of guys I've known. As for homosexuality not being optimal, it's just plain to me that Tab A is not to be inserted into Slot B, Slot A is much more accomodating and actually produces fruit (if you can follow that example, to me it's obvious).

Throughout the Bible family is a sign of blessing, offspring. There is no such fruit from a homosexual realtionship.

God is our Father, he doesn't hate any of us. He does however show us the law and tell us what's best for us as any father would. When our children don't heed our warnings they suffer the consequences of their actions, we may be dissapointed, furious, feeling like they're little ingrates, but we love them deeply, and when they see the light and decide to obey, lesson learned, don't we reeeejoice

God is my father, that's the relationship I have with Him, I feel that love in a very real way, I've experienced the fruit of heeding His wisdom. It's just a great relationship. He's not told me lately to forego the poly cotton blend, or to quit shaving.

That was a disjointed ramble, I apologize, I'm at work and don't have the luxury of composing my thoughts into coherent chunks. I just wanted to share a little bit about the faith I live as it was pointed out that I'm not the most open book in the room here.

quote:

---

ws said:
And in response to JKMabry - please show me a passage directly from Jesus himself prohibiting homosexuality. Not from the Old Testament, not from other authors - but from Jesus himself.

---

There is none that I'm aware of, that is why I pointed out what I did, so you'd see where Gideon comes from. Or any other Christian for that matter, though I wouldn't presume to speak on Gideon's behalf or any other Christian's, just a high level overview kinda statement that was.

Gideon:

I never meant to make you sound homophobic at all, sorry if you felt that way. I've gotta admit I've seen your name attached to some long posts within mostly philosophical/religious threads that I try to stay away from for the most part, but I've not read those posts so I hardly know you. I'd like to get to know you better and will try to read some of what you've said in order to do so. We are brothers no doubt, different parts of the same body even, none more critical than the other and each with it's function. I don't desire you to be like me, I just throw out who I am in Christ, when I mention my priorites, they are mine, I don't mean to imply that they should be yours, you just go man, shew y'self approved workman

^Amen to that faith JK

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Truly, Gideon, next time think before posting.

---

I did, and I stand by what I said. Man's actions destroyed nature, and all it's potential.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

He says he follows his god's laws

---

And I do (or at least try to. It is a hard thing with this sin nature.)

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Gideon, das that mean you follow all those laws mentioned above in Mobrul's
post, as well?

---

Some yes, most no. There are human interpretations behind those "laws" if you look a little deeper. I follow Jesus, not human interpretations.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

please show me a passage directly from Jesus himself prohibiting
homosexuality

---

All in good time.

quote:

---

mobrul said:

So, if I understand you correctly, you would like to make US law reflect how
you/your church interprets the laws, regulations, and commandments of the
Bible?

---

No, you don't understand me correctly. God's laws are exclusive, not inclusive. All people do not choose to follow Jesus. It is sad, but it happens. In that case, not all people are going to want to follow God's Word. It is a simple case in logic. I would like US law to reflect God's Word, but it can't if it is going to allow all people an equal voice and an equal share of freedom.

quote:

---

mobrul said:

Making the US a theocracy, regardless of whose religions doctrine is
used, can only result in one thing - ugly, violent, bloody, civil war.

---

And I agree. The US should not be a led by people who twist God's Word. That happened in the Middle Ages and that gave us the crusades.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

is dependant on your personal interpretation of it. Therefore your *own* opinion
is of the utmost importance in such matters.

---

My *own* opinion changes every day with new revelations from God. Every day. My opinion is changing, God doesn't change. His "opinions" (if that is what you want to call His laws that were there for a good reason) don't change. My point is that I can't base anything on my opinion because it really doesn't stand up to much, only God's does. Do you really want an opinion that might change tomorrow?

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

basically skirting every issue put before you,

---

Like what?

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

are you arguing that homosexual marriage should be illegal, or are you simply
throwing in your 2 cents by saying that you personally think it is 'wrong'?

---

I am saying that homosexuality is illegal, and should be recognized as such by the National Government.

quote:

---

JKMabry said:

I do not know a great deal about the Bible

---

Me too, another reason why my opinion doesn't count.

Thanks JK, will do. Sorry about having such long posts, but as my situation stands, I have about 6 or seven people I am responding to, and only once or twice to do it.

To anyone else, that is also the reason I might miss something, so if I do, please remind me.

quote:

---

JKMabry said:

I never meant to make you sound homophobic at all

---

It's okay. Some people get "homophobic" and "disgusted with the sin of homosexuality" mixed up. I am a part of the latter.

Oh, and Mobrul, I will definitly look up those leviticus verses. I too have had questions about the linen and hair things as well. No doubt that is why many ancient Jewish leaders (and Jesus) had long hair. I just wish I could remember the name of that type of person. If you recall the story of Samson, who had long hair, and if he kept his hair long he would have power from God. Then Delilah came along and seduced him to get it cut. Then he lost his super human strength and later died. He was one of those people, I just can't remember.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

(Edited by Gideon on 12-16-2004 22:07)

quote:

---

Gideon: No doubt that is why many ancient Jewish leaders (and Jesus) had long hair. I just wish I could remember the name of that type of person.

---

I believe the term is Nazarite. The Nazirites were people that had devoted themselves to God and given Him a pledge. As a sign of their pledge they let their hair grow long. Their long hair was the outer sign to people around them that they had devoted themselves to God.

Samson, IIRC, fell under this definition.

EDIT:
As far as homosexuality and the NT goes:

Romans 1:26-27

"(26)Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. (27)In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men commited indecent acts with other men, and recieved in themselves due penalty for their perversion."

Ramasax

(Edited by Ramasax on 12-16-2004 23:39)

Another:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

"(9)Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be decieved: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders (10) nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Skipping forward a bit:

1 Corinthians 6:18

"(18)Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body."

EDIT:
As for the old Testament and the 600 or so laws of the Pentateuch (clothing, pork, carrion, shellfish, stonings, etc.), unlike many Christian Fundamentalists, I do not folllow them. The Old Testament is mostly history in my view, pre-Christ history, and they were written for a specific people in a specific time. That people was the Jews and that time was pre-Christ.

Quite simply, the Bible states that Mosaic Law ended with the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Followers of Christ are not under the Law of Moses:
"He did away with the law of the commandments in regulations" (Eph. 2:15)

And to this can also be added the fact that Gentiles do not have to follow the Law of Moses:
"I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" (Gal. 2:14).

Ramasax

(Edited by Ramasax on 12-17-2004 00:20)

quote:

---

Gideon said:

I am saying that homosexuality is illegal, and should be recognized as such by
the National Government.

---

So you are saying that not only marriage, but any homosexual act should be illegal?

And yet you keep saying that you don't wish to force your views on anyone else?

You have to pick one or the other.....it can't work both ways

quote:

---

Gideon said:

My *own* opinion changes every day with new revelations from God. Every
day. My opinion is changing, God doesn't change. His "opinions" (if that is
what you want to call His laws that were there for a good reason) don't change.
My point is that I can't base anything on my opinion because it really doesn't
stand up to much, only God's does. Do you really want an opinion that might
change tomorrow?

---

If it's your own honest opinion, YES. That's what opinions are - thoughts that can change at any moment given different circumstances/newly found knowledge.

Saying that your views are god's views is very much a copout. Again, it must be reiterated: everything that you call the laws/views of god, is only YOUR OPINION of what the interpretation of those works is.

quote:

---

Gideon said:

Some yes, most no. There are human interpretations behind those "laws" if you
look a little deeper. I follow Jesus, not human interpretations.

---

But all you have to tell you of the wishes of Jesus are human interpretations!

These are two very irreconcilabe things, IMO....

You won't accept human interpretation.
You claim that parts of the bible which you apparantly disagree with are *not* the solemn and holy word of god?
Yet you insist that the bible is to be taken literally, cover to cover (you've said as much yourself many times now).

Please....explain this giant contradiction to me.

How can the bible be intended to be taken literally in its entirety, and yet have parts that must *not* be taken literally?



{{edit - Ramasax-

most of us are aware of parts of the bible which talk about homosexuality.

But Gideon spoke specifically of Jesus' view on it, which is what is in question for us. What did Jesus ever have to say about the issue?

(Edited by DL-44 on 12-17-2004 00:04)

quote:

---

How can the bible be intended to be taken literally in its entirety, and yet have parts that must *not* be taken literally?

---

See the end of my previous post concerning the OT. Since I am not sure which contradictions specifically you are referring to I am supposing it is in reference to OT/NT.

quote:

---

most of us are aware of parts of the bible which talk about homosexuality.

---

Gotcha DL, I missed the qualifier "directly from Jesus." My fault. I do believe that the writings of Paul and Timothy were directly inspired by Christ, but shant expect of you to believe the same so I guess this one is a dead end road for.

Direct usage of the word homosexual, or the equivalent, by Christ, does not exist as far as I know.

Ramasax

(Edited by Ramasax on 12-17-2004 00:47)

quote:

---

How can the bible be intended to be taken literally in its entirety, and yet have parts that must *not* be taken literally?

---

just my personal view on this, but taking the bible as truth but not necessarily taking every bit as literal is certainly possible. a number of the items quoted from leviticus, for example, need to be looked at as a set of rules put forth for the levitical priests of that time (which is what they were if you do some research). homosexuality is referenced in a number of places aside from leviticus in the OT.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

(Edited by Fig on 12-17-2004 02:35)

Well, ALL the religous members of the Asylum have failed the "Jesus vs Homosexuality" test.

No evidence. I find this incredible. Yes, we are ALL aware that it is mentioned in the OT. But Jesus came after the OT. Apparently he came to "wash away our sins" - but he never once personally mentions that Homosexuality is a sin. Following that train of thought - Jesus was against other types of sin, and made mention of such. I find it incredible, that some believers of christ can take some of what is in the Bible literally, take some of it in opinion, and throw the rest of it out as "not relavant" to themselves!

Gideon says he follows Jesus - Jesus never said directly that Homosexual activity was wrong. But Gideon says that it is illegal. Gideaon follows the Bible literally (according to his own words) and that of opinion??!!

I think I have had enough of this type of illogic. It is for inherent illogic like this, and descrepancies and conflicts within the Bible itself that eventually lead me away from it, and the christian faith.

quote:

---

taking the bible as truth but not necessarily taking every bit as literal is certainly possible.

---

Certainly - I can agree with that.

But Gideon has argued extensively that the entire bible is to be taken literally.

This is the contradiction in question in my previous post Ramasax - specifically that Gideon states that the bible *must* be taken literally, and yet just now brushes off parts of the bible with which he disagrees as something that should *not* be taken literally.

That is an irreconcilable contradiction.

To take something "literally" is not open to grey areas. Either you DO or you DON'T.

quote:

---

I do believe that the writings of Paul and Timothy were directly inspired by Christ, but shant expect of you to believe the same

---

Good thing

quote:

---

Ramasax said:

I believe the term is Nazarite. The Nazirites were people that had devoted
themselves to God and given Him a pledge. As a sign of their pledge they let
their hair grow long. Their long hair was the outer sign to people around them
that they had devoted themselves to God.

---

That is right, thanks Ramasax. I just discovered that last night in my reading. Samson, John the Baptist, and Saint Paul were some of the most know ones.

They also could not:
-Drink wine
-Go near dead bodies
-Cut their hair.

They did this to be "specially devoted" to God. You can read about it in Numbers 6.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

any homosexual act should be illegal?

---

Is illegal, not should be.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

is only YOUR OPINION of what the interpretation of those works is.

---

Very true, but most of God's laws are pretty straight forward. My point for that was that for truth I look in the Bible. I can form an opinion about the truths presented in there, but again, they pale to truth. My Pastor says this every Sunday:

quote:

---

Remember! Anything is say to you pales in comparison to what is written in here. This is the Words of God, and they hold absolute truth.

---

That is my beliefs as well.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

You claim that parts of the bible which you apparantly disagree with are *not*
the solemn and holy word of god?

---

Which parts? I agree with all the Bible.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

You won't accept human interpretation.

---

No, I am saying that human interpretation might be wrong, which is why you must always go back to the Bible to affirm the positions.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

Yet you insist that the bible is to be taken literally, cover to cover

---

Correct, possibly not the translations, but the ancient texts have no errors, and the new texts are as close to those as we can get.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

How can the bible be intended to be taken literally in its entirety, and yet
have parts that must *not* be taken literally?

---

The entire Bible is literal, but there are symbols in the Bible. You can tell when something is a symbol and when it is not. I am currently reading a Revelations novel that is trying to explain many of the symbols in Revelations. The problem is that you have to know when they are symbols/parables, and when they are literal occurances. I am learning how that works.

Please don't ask me anymore questions about this, because I know where you want to go with it and there is another thread for that discussion.

quote:

---

Fig said:

a number of the items quoted from leviticus, for example, need to be looked at
as a set of rules put forth for the levitical priests of that time (which is
what they were if you do some research).

---

That would make sense. That would make lots of sense considering the rest of the book.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Gideon says he follows Jesus - Jesus never said directly that Homosexual
activity was wrong. But Gideon says that it is illegal. Gideaon follows the
Bible literally (according to his own words) and that of opinion??!!

---

Okay, there is a part from

quote:

---

Genesis 2:23-24 23 The man said, " This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man." 24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

---

This speaks of a man for a woman. Now lets look at

quote:

---

Leviticus 18:22
' You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

---

Okay, now at what Jesus said:

quote:

---

Mark 10:2-9 2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. 3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? 4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. 5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

---

Now, granted Jesus was talking about divorce when He was questioned, and like Ramasax said there is no direct saying that homosexuality is bad, but Jesus never said that murder was bad either. He stood on the Biblical truths written in the scriptures. This was one of them. That a man should leave his parents and marry a woman. It repeates throughout scripture that that is the plan for a marriage. Jesus said:

quote:

---

Matthew 5:17
"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.

---

He still adhered to the law and wanted His people to do the same. He just wanted to say the He was the fulfillment, where the laws killed, He redeemed. He took all the sins in the Laws of old, and died with them. He gives each person the chance to accept His gift of righteousness. If someone was a homosexual, he could accept Jesus' gift of holy righteousness and become fully redeemed. They were no longer condemned to the death they were supposed to have. Paul says that the Corinthians were homosexuals, but now by the Grace of Jesus Christ's gift, they were not homosexuals any longer. They are now redeemed, and anyone can do it too.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

You still cannot present ANY evidence, that Jesus was himself against Homosexuality. None. Nothing. Not one little iota.

And don't forget, Gideon, the Bible was written by men. Thus, you are faced with quite a dilema - have they truly written, what God revealed to them? Isn't speech a problem, when translating from thought to word? Are you sure you are following the direct word of god, or are you instead following the interpreted (filtered) word of some men?

In any regards, some parts are literal, and some parts symbolic? And you just "know"?

Oh, that is just splendid.

Good grief.

I'm done here.

quote:

---

No, I am saying that human interpretation might be wrong, which is why you must always go back to the Bible to affirm the positions.

---

No, that's not what you said.

You said that the laws in question which Mobrul spoke of in the bible contained 'human inmterpretations' which need not be applied literally.

How is it that this particular part - specifically the laws you disagreed with - are "human interpretations" but the part - in the same set of verses - speaking of homosexuality is not?

As for knowing "where I want to go with this" - THIS is exactly where I want to go with this. beyond that, I have no idea what you are talking about.

The laws in question (the ones that mobrul spoke of) are obviously *not* parable or symbol.

Yet you hold one up as the true word of god, and the rest you disparage as "human interpretation". Both are in the bible, which you say is truth, and in the same part of the bible at that.

But - honestly....I'd rather not bother going round in circles over this again. If your answers are going to remain as vague and meaningless as they have been, don't even bother (and I won't bother pushing further).

quote:

---

This is the contradiction in question in my previous post Ramasax - specifically that Gideon states that the bible *must* be taken literally, and yet just now brushes off parts of the bible with which he disagrees as something that should *not* be taken literally.

That is an irreconcilable contradiction.

To take something "literally" is not open to grey areas. Either you DO or you DON'T.

---

I can't speak for Gideon, and I am not sure on his exact words, but I think there is a misunderstanding here. Yes, many believe the Bible is the literal word of God, meaning inspired by His will, but that does not mean everything in it is supposed to be perceived in a literal sense. There is a big difference. The book of Revelations is the obvious example. While inspired by God, and being the literal word of God, it is obviously not meant to be perceived literally.

I don't prescribe to any manmade church's doctrine, and do not attend church in the organized sense, so I could be wrong. If he actually said that it *must* be taken literally, then I tend to disagree.

In any case, I am not here to quibble over semantics.

Back to the homosexual discussion.

There are a couple of important points which are being overlooked. They are:

1. Scripture does not condone sexual relations of any type out of wedlock.
2. Scripture clearly defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

We can logically conclude from these points that any and all sexual relations, homosexual and/or heterosexual, without marriage, are sinful. Furthermore, one can also conclude that homosexual marriage is not a possibility because we are explicitly told that it is reserved for unions between a man and a woman. Hence, it goes without saying that homosexual activity is a sin just as fornication is a sin.

What we do not know for certain is the scale of the sin, but sin is sin.

That ultimately brings us back to the original topic, more or less, should the secular government act in a theocratic way by legislating a certain viewpoint? The answer is no. We saw what happened in the early Christian Church when this happened, and we still see it today in many Muslim countries.

My main concern still goes back to the impact on society and culture.

Ramasax

(Edited by Ramasax on 12-17-2004 23:53)

About Jesus, if he did speak of homosexuality and not the depraved habit of roman upper class to f**k little boys, why didn't he say something about lesbians, but only men doing it to men?
- There was a "Michael Jackson"-problem going on at that time, and Jesus would probably take offense, and probably speak against that.
So, what's the likelyhood that christians - who even today try to confuse matters in an attempt to trivialize the scandals - would try to do the same back then?
The catholic church recently said that they did'nt have a pedophile-problem, but rather homosexual priests, and then promptly tried to confuse the two, since homosexuals are looked upon more kindly, thereby reducing the damage done to the church.
- Bring the children, Jesus said, but I doubt that this was what he meant.
I think he was upset about adult men into young boys.. and not homosexuals at all.

(^-^)b

quote:

---

why didn't he say something about lesbians, but only men doing it to men?

---

'homosexual' is not gender specific.


(The word "lesbian" comes from the island of Lesbos and the communities of women there.)

http://womenshistory.about.com/library/bio/blbio_sappho.htm

Ram - If you have problems with gay 'unions' causing a negative impact on society I would really ask you to step back and spend your time working on the divorce issue instead. That is scientifically and theologically proven to be a detriment to children and society. I can't see why anyone would want to step away from this issue to worry about anything so marginalize as homosexual cival unions.

Dan @ Code Town

quote:

---

The catholic church recently said that they did'nt have a pedophile-problem, but rather homosexual priests, and then promptly tried to confuse the two, since homosexuals are looked upon more kindly, thereby reducing the damage done to the church.

---

please do not confuse or lump in the decisions of the catholic church with those of the general christian population. they're two entirely separate things, the opinion of one does not reflect the other in any way.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

quote:

---

NoJive said:

quote:

why didn't he say something about lesbians, but only men doing it to men?


'homosexual' is not gender specific.(The word "lesbian" comes from the island of Lesbos and the communities of women there.)http://womenshistory.about.com/library/bio/blbio_sappho.htm

---

I know that - that's the whole point.
Jesus said nothing about homosexuals, he talked only about men with men, and he was'nt sloppy with his wording either.
- Infact, he was very articulate and specific in everything he said.
And knowing of this situation in the roman upper class, one might suspect he was'nt referring to homosexuals at all...but to something else entirely.

(^-^)b

quote:

---

And it's not murderer's fault they muder, liar's fault they lie, thieve's fault they steal... I mean, there is nothing wrong with canabalism or anything. I mean since there are people who think those things are right then they should be okay to do it, right?

---

That is a bad example. But you know what in some twisted way you are right. See most murders have some kinda of mental illness so in THEIR own mind its right to them. That statement shouldnt be used for homosexuals either, or for every murder. Because not every homosexual or killer has some kinda of mental illness there maybe some out there but not every single one. And in case you are wondering how I would know about homosexuals, well think about it. Why do people steal? Some steal because they dont have the money to pay for something they want or need. I am not entitled to say whats right and whats wrong, I am a very open minded individual, and what others do in their own personal lives I dont need to know nor care to know. Unless it affects me directly.

I dont know what you or anyone else has against homosexuals, I would like to know what and why people think it is so wrong but whatever. As long as homosexual marriages dont affect you directly why care? And if you think they would affect you directly how so? If you were to get married it wouldnt really affect me. So why even bother.

I also agree that we are just trying to make everyone happy, but you cant make one happy with out at least trying to make another happy. And I somewhat am starting to see (or have been seeing) that you cant make someone happy and have everyone else agree or be happy also. There is always someone some where that will always be unhappy about something.

BiGCaC

The depressing part is that these people made this issue a big deal.
It's not - especially not today.
It's like in Chicago, when the cops gave out traffic tickets because they could'nt touch Al Capone.
The Pope himself released a statment saying that being gay was a minor sin in any respect - and that there where many other, accepted practices - that where to be regarded as much worse sins.

It's "traffic tickets", and it's bloody pointless.

(^-^)b

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

In any regards, some parts are literal, and some parts symbolic? And you just
"know"?

---

You're right, my mistake. I said the Bible is all literal, it isn't. I was mistaken and switched some words around. Again, I am sorry.

Actually, what I believe (I'm sorry, if I lead you to believe that some all is literal) is actually in the GARBC (General Association of Regular Baptist Churches) booklet I got at my Baptism. It is quite interesting that I found this:

quote:

---

Biblical Authority The Bible is the final authority in all matters of belief and practice because the Bible is inspired by God and bears the absolute authority of God Himself. Whatever the Bible affirms, Baptists accept as true. No human opinion or decree of any church group can override the Bible. Even creeds and confessions of faith, which attempt to articulate the theology of scripture, do not carry scripture's inherent authority. 2 Timothy 3:15-17; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Peter 1:20, 21.

---

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

Yet you hold one up as the true word of god, and the rest you disparage as
"human interpretation"

---

There are many human interpretations of the Bible (about as many as there are Christians and non-Christians). My thoughts on the matter are that some people look at parts of the Bible, like drunkardness, and say that all alcohol is wrong. It isn't, the Bible points out that Jesus Himself drrank wine. He just didn't get drunk.

As for the linen and cutting of the hair, I don't know for certain what those mean. They could possibly be literal for everyone, or for Levites, or for Nazarites, I don't know 100%, enough to say with certainty what the answer for your question is, I am sorry.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

in the same set of verses

---

Actually, where the cutting of hair is touched on once, it is quite clear that throughout the Bible homosexuality is on the same bar as extra-marital relationships. It is a sin like any other. I am not saying that homosexuality is worse worse than murder, nor is it worse than stealing, nor is murder worse than homosexuality, nor is stealing worse that homosexuality. They are all on the same level and labeled as sin. The cool part is that they are all redeemed by Jesus' gift.

quote:

---

Ramasax said:

That ultimately brings us back to the original topic, more or less, should the
secular government act in a theocratic way by legislating a certain viewpoint?
The answer is no. We saw what happened in the early Christian Church when this
happened, and we still see it today in many Muslim countries.

---

This is true that many times when men get a hold of something good they tend to corrupt it. The thing is that if we even look at nature, taking God out which I hate doing, it is still wrong. I want to say something: the parts don't fit!
You can go on and on how much you like about how animals do things like that (I have witnessed that disgusting thing myself when my cats do it to eachother), but the point is that the parts weren't made to do it. Animals don't know better, they can't think like that: we can. Why don't we show that we are better than the animals? All they are looking for is an outlet for their lusts and desires, why can't we show that we are more civilized and better than animals?

quote:

---

amikael said:

The catholic church recently said that they did'nt have a pedophile-problem, but
rather homosexual priests, and then promptly tried to confuse the two, since
homosexuals are looked upon more kindly, thereby reducing the damage done to the
church.

---

Actually the Pope just issued a decree for all Catholics to make a stand against same sex marriage. It has been on the news a lot.

quote:

---

amikael said:

There was a "Michael Jackson"-problem going on at that time, and Jesus would
probably take offense, and probably speak against that.

---

That is another reason why Jesus probably never said anything directly against homosexuality: the people in His area of ministry didn't have a problem with it. Homosexuality was already considered wrong by them. He didn't have a need to speak about it like Paul did to the Gentile churches.

quote:

---

WarMage said:

I can't see why anyone would want to step away from this issue to worry about
anything so marginalize as homosexual cival unions.

---

Because people want to take the spotlight off themselves. The Bible speaks much about how divorce is wrong. God hates divorce.

quote:

---

amikael said:

Infact, he was very articulate and specific in everything he said.And
knowing of this situation in the roman upper class, one might suspect he was'nt
referring to homosexuals at all...but to something else entirely.

---

Perhaps, but He was God, as His name suggests, and He spoke out against against homosexuality, and virtually all sexual stuff prior to His first coming. He really had no need to reiterate it to a people who had been living with that mind set for thousands of years.

quote:

---

BiGCaC said:

I am a very open minded individual, and what others do in their own personal
lives I dont need to know nor care to know. Unless it affects me directly.

---

So you don't do anything unless it helps you out personally?

quote:

---

BiGCaC said:

Some steal because they dont have the money to pay for something they want or
need.

---

Exactly, and that is wrong. Turn the television on and you will see things on TV about homosexuality. I saw a Drew Carey episode where he turned gay to keep his job and allow his boss to stay in the counrty. Do the ends justify the means?

quote:

---

BiGCaC said:

I dont know what you or anyone else has against homosexuals

---

I have nothing against homosexuals. I have perhaps sinned worse than many of them. I have something against homosexuality which is what I have said before.

quote:

---

BiGCaC said:

As long as homosexual marriages dont affect you directly why care?

---

Because they affect me inderictly, and over a couple of decades perhaps they will do more damage than I could dream of.

quote:

---

BiGCaC said:

If you were to get married it wouldnt really affect me.

---

Possibly, right now, not much. In the future, it will.

quote:

---

BiGCaC said:

There is always someone some where that will always be unhappy about
something.

---

That is true, but my thoughts are that why should we change something that has worked for thousands of years? Why redefine marriage?

quote:

---

amikael said:

The Pope himself released a statment saying that being gay was a minor sin in
any respect - and that there where many other, accepted practices - that where
to be regarded as much worse sins.

---

Yes, he could have that opinion, but it is still a sin, no matter how small the sin a man says it is, it will still keep you out of Heaven.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

"Perhaps, but He was God, as His name suggests, and He spoke out against against homosexuality, and virtually all sexual stuff prior to His first coming. He really had no need to reiterate it to a people who had been living with that mind set for thousands of years."

Homosexuality was widely accepted by that time, so it would'nt have hurt if he did speak up, since basically *nobody* agreed at that time that homosexuality was wrong.
- Quite the opposite actually.
- There was no such mindset.
And the priests were'nt exactly Jesus best friends, and it wouldn't suprise me one bit if the reasons where the same back then as they are now.

And we ARE second guessing Him here, which is a sin in itself, since there's really nothing written anywhere about God saying anything about homosexuality specifically.

(^-^)b

Ok Gideon, so you dont want to redefine marriage. Fine so what, theres things called Civil Unions. They are similar to marriage but they are not titled as a marriage. Reason for this is god for bid if marriage isn't exactly what it is said to be in your bible.

quote:

---

So you don't do anything unless it helps you out personally?

---

Did I say that? No. I said I dont let things bother me so much when it DOES NOT effect me directly.

quote:

---

Exactly, and that is wrong. Turn the television on and you will see things on TV about homosexuality. I saw a Drew Carey episode where he turned gay to keep his job and allow his boss to stay in the counrty. Do the ends justify the means?

---

The Drew Carey show? Wow that is a reliable source of what is really going on in the world huh? I mean I normally stick to CNN or Fox headline news but the Drew Carey show wow I never knew. I do watch tv, and I think I would or at least should know what is going on with homosexuals in the news because if you haven't figured it out yet I am one.

quote:

---

I have nothing against homosexuals. I have perhaps sinned worse than many of them. I have something against homosexuality which is what I have said before.

---

Isnt that a little hypocritical? You cant have one with out the other, right?

quote:

---

Because they affect me inderictly, and over a couple of decades perhaps they will do more damage than I could dream of.

---

How can homosexuals do more damage to you indirectly? Are you refering to going to the PTO meeting at your childs school and seeing that the president of the PTO is in fact homosexual?

Us homosexuals do not agree completely with the way you heterosexuals chose to live life, but we dont sit here and bitch about it. Its your own life and we have no jurisdiction to tell you any different, and the same goes for everyone else.

BiGCaC

quote:

---

I have nothing against homosexuals. I have perhaps sinned worse than many of them. I have something against homosexuality which is what I have said before.


Isnt that a little hypocritical? You cant have one with out the other, right?

---

not at all hypocritical. my grandfather was an alcoholic when i was very young, i hated the way his behavior affected my mom and other parts of our family. i loved him despite his alcohol problem.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

quote:

---

Ramasax: Yes, many believe the Bible is the literal word of God, meaning inspired by His will, but that does not mean everything in it is supposed to be perceived in a literal sense. There is a big difference. The book of Revelations is the obvious example. While inspired by God, and being the literal word of God, it is obviously not meant to be perceived literally.

---

I understand this view, and the differences between the two types of views completely.

I addressed this specifically because Gideon has said that the entire bible *must* be taken literally.

I addressed it specifically to Gideon because he is the one who said it.

I am not speaking generally, but addressing a specific issue with a specific person who has professed a specific belief.

In his latest post, which I don't care to address directly, he further side-stepped and circled the issue with no relevant conclusion....again. So, that can be the end of it.

Just wanted to be sure there is no misunderstanding - I realize there are many views of the bible, but was addressing one specific one, because the person in quesion has been an adamant supporter of a completely literal reading of the bible. And yet contradicts himself very strongly with his most recent arguments.

</lengthysidenote>

quote:

---

amikael said:

Homosexuality was widely accepted by that time, so it would'nt have hurt if he
did speak up, since basically *nobody* agreed at that time that homosexuality
was wrong.

---

Not in the Jewish community. Jesus came at a time of great "law abiding." He had to constantly tell Priests that people's soul are worth more than traditions. In that time if you were caught as a homosexual, adulteress, etc. you were stoned to death. I think you are refering to Rome, Greece, Crete. Those civilizations did have homosexuality (not many if any marriages) and that is why Paul wrote in so many of his letters that it was wrong. That was not his conclusion, though. He said there is hope for every single homosexual. Not just homosexuals, but murderers, theives, liars, etc. Those were letters of hope to lost communities.

quote:

---

amikael said:

And we ARE second guessing Him here, which is a sin in itself, since there's
really nothing written anywhere about God saying anything about homosexuality
specifically.

---

I beg to differ. Just read in God's Word some time. The Paul Epistals, Genesis, Leviticus, and possibly some other epistles.

quote:

---

BiGCaC said:

Reason for this is god for bid if marriage isn't exactly what it is said to be
in your bible.

---

God forbid marriage isn't what it was started in the Bible and continued for 5-10,000 years.

quote:

---

BiGCaC said:

Wow that is a reliable source of what is really going on in the world huh?

---

Not the world, American media. People spend so much time in front of the television now, it is amazing. It just goes to show what the American media accepts, more often than not, the American public accept. There are instances they don't, but it happens.

quote:

---

BiGCaC said:

Isnt that a little hypocritical? You cant have one with out the other, right?

---

No, I love homosexuals. Just like I love all other sinners in this crapped out world. From God's perspective we should all die, and I'm in the same situation as many other murderers, homosexuals, "swingers," etc. I try my best to just love everybody like my family. It is hard sometimes, like when your brother or sister calls you a bad name you want to sock them, but I am getting better, and Jesus is being great about helping me out.
I hate homosexuality. I hate the sin, love the sinner. Just like Jesus hated my sins, but loved me enough to die on the cross for me.

quote:

---

BiGCaC said:

How can homosexuals do more damage to you indirectly? Are you refering to going
to the PTO meeting at your childs school and seeing that the president of the
PTO is in fact homosexual?

---

No, I am refering to a particular mind set. It is the mind set of doing something wrong, and not knowing it, or ignoring that it is wrong. You may or may not be a Christian for various reasons, but my God has revealed to me that the homosexual act is wrong.

Now, if someone has the mind set that speeding only a few miles above the speed limit is against the law, but not bad, then they have that mind set unless it is changed. Going on a few years let's say that the "lead foot" teaches her son that speeding just 5 miles over the speed limit is against the law, but not too badly that you can't do it. Later on that son teaches a drivers ed class and tells those students that, "Eh, the speed limit should be taken, but it is okay if you feel like speeding when there are no cops around." Then all those children go out and speed just 5 miles over the speed limit. Then Congress passes a law saying that all broken laws result in imprisonment, then they hire enough cops to catch all who break the law (I know it is far fetched, but work with me). Then all of those children who were taught that it "isn't too bad" all go to jail for speeding.

I know that is a little far fetched, but that is what will happen with homosexuality being displayed as "not too bad."

quote:

---

BiGCaC said:

Us homosexuals do not agree completely with the way you heterosexuals chose to
live life, but we dont sit here and bitch about it.

---

I wouldn't use all inclusive words like "us" and "we", because it is happen with a few. Minorities have a big voice, particularly if they are in Holywood.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

In his latest post, which I don't care to address directly, he further
side-stepped and circled the issue with no relevant conclusion....again. So,
that can be the end of it.

---

My conclusion was this DL: I was wrong!

I am sorry if you don't like how I write, I am still trying to improve it. The point still stands that I used the wrong word, I am wrong, and I am sorry.

quote:

---

BiGCaC said:

Because not every homosexual or killer has some kinda of mental illness there
maybe some out there but not every single one.

---

Correct, then why do killers kill? Would they do something they have not already justified in their minds?

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

"Not in the Jewish community. Jesus came at a time of great "law abiding." He had to constantly tell Priests that people's soul are worth more than traditions. "

Yeah, but the point of Jesus was to reach out to others oustside the Jewish community, and there, it was - again - widely accepted.

Not quite awake yet, are we?

(^-^)b

That is incorrect.

Jesus' main focus was the Jewish community. He was a jew.
His main goal was really to bring the jewish community back to their faith.

"Jesus' main focus was the Jewish community. He was a jew.
His main goal was really to bring the jewish community back to their faith."

Think not - because if that was the case, he sure failed, and made some pretty corny moves in the process - inviting all kind of peoples that was'nt jewish at all.

Me thinks you're reaching...

Sure he wanted that, but his main focus was the human race, and that's why there's quite a lot non-jewish christians out there today.. not that this is all good by the way, considering world war 2 and all that..

(^-^)b

And calling those people dogs all the same. Inviting them in for the scraps is far from inviting them in arms wide.

And no, his main focus were the Jews. He was a Jew. The Jews also believe Jesus to have been a good person with some good ideas but they don't believe him to be the son of god. They still await their Messiah. Take a good gander at the gospels again. Jesus way trying to save the Jews and the Jewish religion from the laws that governed the jews but stifled their faith.

The Christian religion chases after those scraps that Jesus tossed us. The Jews, as stated in the bible, are gods choosen people, not us goys.

Dan @ Code Town

quote:

---

Sure he wanted that, but his main focus was the human race, and that's why there's quite a lot non-jewish christians out there today..

---

The end result has nothing at all to do with the original intent.

Of course "non-jewish christian" is a bit redundant.
Yes, his word spread all over, but he constantly strove to get 'his people' back on the right track. Many of the things he did were based on the idea of following scripture properly, and the basic idea of 'living by the spirit of the law, rather than the letter'.

quote:

---

Me thinks you're reaching...

---

Me thinks you need to learn more about the subject matter

"The end result has nothing at all to do with the original intent. "

*LoL*
I'd love to say that to the Lord.

"Sorry dude, you messed up.."

I'm giving up, man, you are killing me..

(^-^)b

Messed up?
Who said anything about messing up?

And what does it have to do with the topic at hand?

(Edited by DL-44 on 12-21-2004 21:24)

"The end result has nothing at all to do with the original intent. "

If the Lord has an original intent and the endresult is something else, he messed up.
If I start building a house, I really hope I end up with a house - and not something else.

I can't wrap my brain around the concept that Jesus would enter this would trying to accomplish one thing, and then accomplish something else entirely.
- The Jews still dont recognize him by the way.

(^-^)b

quote:

---

The Jews still dont recognize him by the way.

---

It's not a matter of whether "the jews" recognize. Some did, some didn't. From there, two seperate paths formed - those who accept him as messiah, and those who don't. Those who acccepted him as the messiah developed a whole different religion based on his teachings, which grew futher and further from the traditional jewish religion.

Obviously the jews are still awaiting their messiah. It is at least as plausible that they are correct that jesus was not the messiah as it is that he was.

Given the fact that there is no god, it's all academic anyway


But a great many of his followers did come from the Jewish community. Otherwise there would have been no followers, as the prophecies he supposedly fulfilled were jewish in nature....and the god he was supposed to be the son of was a jewish god. So nobody else would have cared in the least...

"Given the fact that there is no god, it's all academic anyway "

- And this you know for a fact, huh?

So, you are some superhuman intelligence, and the billions of people who live by Him every single day of their lives are all some inferior stupid halfwits?
- Ever heard of hubris?

The fact remains that it's an accepted truth that Jesus came to broaden the message, and include mankind as a whole.
- The whole "lost son" theme is'nt just the about sinners of the world, but the world, since mankind are all sinners by nature.

(^-^)b

quote:

---

The fact remains that it's an accepted truth that Jesus came to broaden the message, and include mankind as a whole.

---

...and you're going to talk about being hubris?

That is certainly far from an accepted truth. Plenty of people believe in all kinds of things that arn't true, we don't judge the value of these beliefs on how many people believe them, or how much we want them to be true. Besides... more people believe that the Christian faith isn't true, then believe it is (as I recall, less than 1/3 of the world is Christian).

"accepted truth.. among christians"

Soooooorrrryyyyyyyyyy....

It's still a far cry from bluntly stating that half the planet is totally wrong, and even considering this, the best you get away with is that we both suffer from hubris, which in no way make you right in any case.
- Possible, it could make for a future as a laywer, you seem to have the required skills for it.

What you speak of is completely off, since we where discussing how christians view gay marriages, and therefor it's kinda interesting how they view Jesus.
- See, there's a connection there..

(^-^)b

"(as I recall, less than 1/3 of the world is Christian)."

Yeah, well, that changes all , doesn't it?
Now you only know better than a third of earths population, not mentioning that you stated that "there's no God", and that there are others than the christians who also belive that there infact IS a God.
I think the total of it all kinda covers 1/2 of the planet anyway, dont you think?

(^-^)b

For starters, you may notice you are talking to 2 different people, and referring to both of them as if they are one.

You may find it more practical to note who it is that said what before prattling off in reply...

quote:

---

amikael said:

"Given the fact that there is no god, it's all academic anyway "

- And this you know for a fact, huh?

---

Notice the " "?

Most people here know my views well enough to grasp that comment, but for any who don't let me sum up: I can say that I "know" there is no god with the same certainty and at least the same likelihood of being correct as any christian can say that they "know" that there is a god.

quote:

---

...and the billions of people
who live by Him every single day of their lives are all some inferior
stupid halfwits?

---

A good chunk of them anyway...

quote:

---

- Ever heard of hubris?

---

Kind of like hummus, but a little more zesty, right?

quote:

---

The fact remains that it's an accepted truth that Jesus came to broaden the message, and include mankind as a whole.
- The whole "lost son" theme is'nt just the about sinners of the world, but the world, since mankind are all sinners by nature.

---

Accepted truth???

Hardly!
Ever heard of Islam? Judaism? Buddhism? Hinudism? Atheism? Shintoism? And maybe anopther 6,000 or so religions whose beleivers do *not* accept this "truth"?

quote:

---

"accepted truth.. among christians"

Soooooorrrryyyyyyyyyy....

---

Uh.......yeah.....and???????

In other words "it's an accepted truth, among people who accept it as trtuh".

Well....no shit.




(Edited by DL-44 on 12-22-2004 18:15)

"In other words 'it's an accepted truth, among people who accept it as truth'.

Well....no shit."


In that context - how christians view Jesus, it is the accepted truth, yes.
No shit.
And that was the context in which the discussion took place.
If you want to discuss wether or not there was a Jesus, or if he was the son of God or not, is another discussion.
The whole thing is about wether or not Jesus spoke out against gay people or not, and in what context he's actual remarks should be seen.
- How far back does your memory stretch - a full five minutes??

(^-^)b

"Ever heard of Islam? Judaism? Buddhism? Hinudism? Atheism? Shintoism? And maybe anopther 6,000 or so religions whose beleivers do *not* accept this "truth"?"

My previous comment on that was

"..you stated that "there's no God", and that there are others than the christians who also belive that there infact IS a God."

See how neatly this ties together?
See, God is not the same as "the christian God", it means "A God", as in "supernatural power", and a lot of people think there is - be it one or more "Gods".
Funny enough, a lot of those you listed above, belive that as well.

Are you sure that you are actually reading these posts, or do you just feel the overwelming need to write something??

(^-^)b

Just my 2c on the some of the latest points..

quote:

---

... and that there are others than the christians who also belive that there infact IS a God.
I think the total of it all kinda covers 1/2 of the planet anyway, dont you think?

---

Now there's an academic question..


If you look at statistics on the number of members of Christian churches and teh likes in the world and compare that to actual christian believers my bet is that you'll find a discrepancy.

In all such reports I've seen Sweden is considered a Christian country, since something like 90% of the population are members of the Swedish Christian Church. The only problem with that statistic is that you automaticly become a member when you're born, and have to make an active choice to leave the church.


The interesting thing is that I, being an Atheist, still add to the numbers of "Christians" in Sweden since I can't be bothered with the paperwork to actually leave the church. And I know for sure that I'm not the only one.. Not that many people here go to church on a regular basis, and most people I know that even go there at all (including me) usually just go there on special occasions. I still appreciate to go see the christmas concerto in our local church, but that has nothing to do with faith.

I would assume that there are similar cases across the world where you are actually a member rather than a believer.

oh well.. carry on..



(Edited by Nimraw on 12-23-2004 08:50)

Here in Germany it is similiar, Nimraw. Except it occurs at Confirmation (which every German child is "pressured" into going through - from the society. The pressure is huge, at least it is in these parts).

Thus, most go through it as a social ritual, and not because they are believers. The children recieve presents ,etc for it. Later, as adults, they get the dubious "honor" of paying a part of their wages to the church., and it is incredibly difficult to get out of. My wife recently attempted it - we managed to get out of paying most of the taxes for the Church, but a small "tilthe" still exits, there doesn't seem to be any way to get out of paying it.

amikael - I would respond to your posts....but you didn't post anything relevant to the quotes you pulled from me....which leaves me nothing to respond to.

~shrug~

I have no desire to engage in the type of prattling you seem to enjoy. My points stand as they were made - if you figure them out, feel free to comment.

'till then....

quote:

---

amikael said:

Yeah, but the point of Jesus was to reach out to others oustside the Jewish
community,

---

Yes and no. Jesus came to die. He knew that from the beginning. The Holy Spirit is actually the New Teacher. The Holy Spirit revealed to the Disciples the things they needed after Jesus died. But What Jesus said time and again is that He was there first for the Jews. He loves us all, but as Paul put it "first the Jew, then the Gentile."

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

His main goal was really to bring the jewish community back to their faith.

---

Actually, His main goal was to do His father's work and take the sins of the world and crucify them.

quote:

---

amikael said:

Sure he wanted that, but his main focus was the human race, and that's why
there's quite a lot non-jewish christians out there today.. not that this is all
good by the way, considering world war 2 and all that..

---

Actually, the main reason why there are Jews that aren't Christians is because they don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah. It is sad, but it happened.

quote:

---

WarMage said:

The Christian religion chases after those scraps that Jesus tossed us. The Jews,
as stated in the bible, are gods choosen people

---

Actually, God loves us all equally. He chose the Jews through Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, but that just means that He was trying to help one group first. He needed someone who would listen and Abraham did that. Romans says that all who die in Jesus claim the covenant that was made to Abraham. Essentially we all become circumcized by faith without needing the body to be circumcised.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

Many of the things he did

---

Were fulfilling prophesies about Him and being a perfect person, as His name suggests. He is a roll model.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

Messed up?Who said anything about messing up?

---

By saying that God didn't do what He intended to do, you are saying that He messed up.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

Dan said:

less than 1/3 of the world is Christian).

---

Most likely less than that.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

I can say that I "know" there is no god with the same certainty and at least the
same likelihood of being correct as any christian can say that they "know" that
there is a god.

---

Where does that knowledge come from?

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

A good chunk of them anyway...

---

Yup.

quote:

---

Nimraw said:

I would assume that there are similar cases across the world where you are
actually a member rather than a believer.

---

Yes, there are unfortunatly many more people who are registered as Christians than actually believe that Christ is the risen Savior. I just hope that changes soon.

Hey Nimraw, what do you find most appealing about those concerts?

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

but a small "tilthe" still exits, there doesn't seem to be any way to get out of
paying it.

---

So the "church" is forcing you to pay it even when you don't attend? That's terrible! Even forcing you to pay when you attend is bad. I know it won't count for much, but I want to apologize for the way some people can act when given resposiblity. I just wish some people can see and feel the cool stuff that is going on in my life from just accepting Jesus' gift. I wonder if some of those people are like the Pharisees of old... It wold make for an interesting conversation.

But Amikael is right, we need to get back on topic. I have a question is Jesus gay? Forget about Him thinking Homosexuality is bad or not, was He Himself one?

Another thing about the media. They can do pretty much anything. All you have to do is sugar coat a message or philosophy of yours, then air it on a famous show, and pretty soon people think it is okay. A movie I watched yesterday did that. They had two teenagers who had sex, then they didn't have any consequences, infact it actually helped them through some things, then they lived happily ever after. The thing is that these big time producers can add what they want and some people will say, "Well, it worked for them, why not me?" That is where the thought that homosexuality is a cool thing, a "new age" way of thinking. "Being gay is just another life style you can have much like any other." Is what many show are saying. They neglect to say that bad things happen from homosexual relationships. The media does that. Statistics and feelings can be swayed easily.

And that is my ramble for the day.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

How can any rational mind can take anything in any of the various bibles as having any credibility whatsoever?

Let alone to accept it as the immutable word of some airy myth.

Here is what, at it's best, is a collection of old shepherds tales and ancient myths, which has been imperfectly translated through a dozen languages, bowdelrized, re-written to reflect the biases of who knows how many petty despots and priests?

To sit smugly and claim these are the words of a god is the ultimate case of sphincter-vision.

To use such a questionable source to try to justify one's bigotry, surpasses stupidity and would be laughable if it were not so sad.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

quote:

---

I have a question is Jesus gay? Forget about Him thinking Homosexuality is bad or not, was He Himself one?

---

Is? No. Or are you talking about someone named Jesus?

Was? We don't know. I think the common thought is that Jesus didn't engage in any sin, right? So he must have died a virgin? Carnal Knowledge and all that.

*shrugs*

Still doesn't mean that he was or was not homosexual. Was he attracted to men or women? I don't know.

quote:

---

They neglect to say that bad things happen from homosexual relationships.

---

Heh. Time for you to bring out your facts here! One could reasonably take the opposite stance here, as well - that bad things happen from heterosexual relationships, according to your...total lack of evidence to the contrary.

One of the advantages to not being religious is the lack of sin, it being a strictly relious concept.

Apparently, statistically, gay people make better parents than hetero's. A fact much ignored by 'focus on the family' sorts. If their focus was truly on the family and not their narrow view there-of, they would welcome everything which would improve family life.

The broad general statements made by some here show a remarkable ignorance of all views but their own.

As Webshamen points out, bad things happen in all classes and categories of relationships.

Furthermore, the religous make blanket statements that 'this is wrong' or 'that is bad' which are demonstrably false.

For them to say something like 'I believe this is wrong' or ' I believe that is bad ' would be more reasonable and an opportunity for them to be right for a change.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

Apparently, statistically, gay people make better parents than hetero's.

---

The fact of the matter is statistics can be biased, easily. Unless there is a widespread, well thought out, purely 3rd party survey, that statistic would be hard to come by (Don't try to argue with me on this. I know all about the little biasis of statistics, and would happily tell you about just a few things that could go wrong in a survey like this.) So just please don't use statistics that you don't know the full length of thier existance.

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

Furthermore, the religous make blanket statements that 'this is wrong' or 'that
is bad' which are demonstrably false. For them to say something like 'I
believe this is wrong' or ' I believe that is bad ' would be more reasonable and
an opportunity for them to be right for a change.

---

Those statements are made based on the Bible. If they would just say "I think," then that would be thier own opinion. Everyone's opinion is different, so it really doesn't matter what you think on the matter, someone will disagree with you. Thus, "religious people" use something that is not their own opinion, and use that as the basis for their beliefs.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

But it *still* comes down to this: nobody can agree on what the bible means by what it says, and any jackass can find parts of the bible to support what they want it to.

So even when you get your info from the bible, you are still only expressing YOUR OPINION on what you think the meaning is.

Well, I have to agree with you about statistics Gid. But that will probably be the last thing we agree upon.

Point is, gays have every bit as much chance of being good parents as heteros and perhaps a bit better as, in my experience, they tend to be quite a bit more tolerant than your average person. Perhaps this is due to having experienced so much intolerance in their lives.

DL-44's response is right on the mark. However there was something about your reply which struck me as very telling.

"...religious people" use something that is not their own opinion, and use that as the basis for their beliefs".

This merely confirms my opinion that the religious are encouraged neither to think, nor have any opinions not sanctioned by the church.

This is why the xian right will always be on the losong end of any rational argument. But then you guys always did admire to be martyrs.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

Don't confuse the poor bloke more than he already is, DL! He's liable to have a conniption.

Seriously, Gideon has no idea what he really believes in - he is just following the stuff vomited out by Demogogues and reciting passages out of the Bible, and then putting that forth as his belief. He may truly believe he knows what he believes, but I think that the past months have proven without a doubt that he doesn't.

I believe his "faith" is so unstable, that he constantly needs to remind himself of it, to retain it. Someone who is confident and secure in their beliefs, and in their Faith, doesn't do such. Bugs is a prime example of this, and so are other members of the Asylum that I could mention.

As such, there is no purpose, whatsoever, in attempting to communicate with him for all one gets is parroted dung and recitals.

Say Web, were we seperated at birth?

I had to look back at the author, thought I was reading my own words.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

nobody can agree on what the bible means by what it says

---

Do you know why? It is quite simple really. Perspective. Also a little bit of where you are in readings. Each person's perspective on the Bible is different. Also, to add to that, the Holy Spirit can point something new out each time you read the same passage. I love it.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

you are still only expressing YOUR OPINION on what you think the meaning is.

---

Yes, that is correct. Most of the time though, that opinion is backed by scripture, and if any scripture would contradict that opinion, then you know it is not true.

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

as much chance of being good parents as heteros

---

Well duh. They are people too. The only problem is with "tolerance" is that there is a line, and sometimes that line is crossed. I see it in the media a ton that the line is widening, and becomeing more of a gray scale then a line. People are doing things now that would be considered hanious 50 or even 30 years ago.

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

religious are encouraged neither to think, nor have any opinions not sanctioned
by the church.

---

I don't think you got my message then. The Bible encourages thinking, learning, and striving to understand things. But one of my favorite verses is "the fear of the Lord is the begining of wisdom, and knowledge of His Holy One is understanding." The Bible doesn't say to stop questioning, but just to look for the answers in the Words that God gave us. All the answers are there! Some people think you need philosopies and sciences and social activites to gain answers, but God has already lined out everything in His Word.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

I believe his "faith" is so unstable

---

Actually, I question my faith, and what I am doing every day. It makes me stronger, because God has always given me an answer.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

All the answers are there!

---

Poor child, no, they are not. They may be there for you but don't kid yourself - that doesn't apply to anyone else but you. You believe that all the answers are there - I know that they are not.

Where is that Warp engine that would be nice to have, to explore the Universe with? Show me the blueprint in the bible, please.

Circular reasoning is you forte Gid.

http://www2.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/circular.html

What is means is, you cannot justify the idiocy in the bible by quoting the idiocy in the bible.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

You believe that all the answers are there - I know that they are
not.

---

Well, faith is the evidence of things unseen, and trust is about believing what someone close to you has told you. I have both. I have faith that things I do not see with my eyes (but percieve with other senses) are at work here. I trust that the One who saved me is not lying when He said that all I needed was Jesus. (And WS, just for future reference, you cannot know the Bible if you haven't read it for yourself.)

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

What is means is, you cannot justify the idiocy in the bible by quoting the
idiocy in the bible.

---

One of the rhetorical fallicies. Very good! I was waiting for someone to catch that. You are absolutely correct. Circular reasoning is something that many teachers of the Law are guilty of doing (especially those tele-evangelists. I love 'em, but boy are they wrong on some minute things). One little thing, though, is that the Bible is not one book, but a collection of books. That is one very shaky cop-out to stand on. The real truth of the matter is that nothing can be proven for certain. Nearly everything takes faith. You can argue with me on that, but while you are doing so, you have to have faith that your post will come through .

As for the infallicy of the Bible, there are many different reasons out side of the Bible. One major one is how it has stayed intact, another is martyr support, and there are a few others I could list if you would like me to. The point of the matter is that there is more than enough proof for me in my own life, that I believed the Bible before I went to Church or read anything about it (I was a Bible reading Christian for about a year before I went to church or did anything afiliated with church. What I have is from my own experiences, not some religious spewing of a man.)

That reminds me of something. It was a pretty good point made in a book I was reading. A pastor was asked to go to a formal debate about Atheism and Theism by an Atheist. More of a challenge, really. The pastor said he would, if the man could find someone whose life was restored by Athiesm. Well, sure enough, the man finally found someone, and walked into the debate with a teen mother (I think). But the Pastor had a couple hundred men and women with him, plus a list of a few thousand whose lives had been changed by Jesus: Alcoholics, teen mothers, murderers, rapists, drug dealers. The hurt and defeated. The Athiest decided to withdrawn the debate.

That was a pretty big tangent, and don't let it distract you from the issue at hand, but it is a good point.

One other thing, I would suggest that you read and try to comprehend my post and not discard it as "religious dogma" or "spewing out what others have said." When you do that you just show that you are one of those people who are narrow minded, and don't want to take seriously what another has said. If you do not decide to take others seriously, why should they take you seriously?

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

(Edited by Gideon on 02-05-2005 19:05)

(Edited by Gideon on 02-05-2005 19:07)

quote:

---

Yes, that is correct. Most of the time though, that opinion is backed by scripture, and if any scripture would contradict that opinion, then you know it is not true.

---

Yes... then let's get to 'editing' shall we.

Hey... look! We're down to two pages. Took what...about an hour? Oh I forgot... we went for coffee.

"One major one is how it has stayed intact,"

Point is it hasn't. I posted elsewhere on why the silly accretion of old shepherds tales doesn't have any but the vauguest relation to whatever the original versions were. Add to that the different churches which have edited out entire books and chapters because they didn't agree with the writing and...well, most people could see the absolute fallacy of thinking the thing has remained unchanged for 2000 years or so.

Hell, the various xian cults can't even agree on one bible today.

Sorry Gid, you are treading water again.

What the hell you mean by "Martyr support" I have no idea.

Your little parable about the pastor and the atheist is typical of the kinds of stories xians tell each other late at night when reality gets uncomfortably close and they need to buck up their courage.

I note you 'heard about' it. Heresay carries little weight.

I do read and fully comprehend your posts, but I find it hard to take seriously anyone who believes in mythological beings in the sky that only ther 'saved' can be aware of, of cherubim, serafim, devils, demons, hells and heavens.

Do you know, there is more physical evidence to prove the existance of Camelot than there is of xist? And Camelot is an acknowledged myth.

If you want to be taken seriously, speak seriously.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

quote:

---

And WS, just for future reference, you cannot know the Bible if you haven't read it for yourself.

---

You really do suffer from memory lapse, don't you?

I told you, I used to be a christian (and I used to go to church). I wasn't all that different in my faith than you are now. I have read the bible many times, pondered it, studied it, not only alone, but in study groups.

But I already told you that I had read the bible.

And for future reference - homosexuality has nothing to do with the bible.

quote:

---

NoJive said:

Yes... then let's get to 'editing' shall we.

---

You know, you are right. You can edit the Bible if you want too. No one forces you to believe anything in the Bible (and if they do, they have no right to). You can believe what you want. If you think Martin Luther King Jr.'s speech should be in the Bible, then take your holy paste and slap that thing in there. And if you don't like what Revelation says, then take your blessed scissors and cut that thing out of there. Just hope that the curse in Revelation isn't true. The point is, you can believe what you want to believe, and you are only answerable to God in the end. Just remember that God never intended to be "politically correct."

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

And for future reference - homosexuality has nothing to do with the bible.

---

quote:

---

1 Corinthians 6:9
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,

---

quote:

---

1 Timothy 1:9-10
9 realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers 10 and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,

---

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

But I already told you that I had read the bible.

---

But just becuase you read it once, does not mean you know it. And if you did intensive Bible Study, you should have known what God really says. To know God is to know the Bible. You have to know God first, then you can know the Bible. Prayer, and Bible study bring you to know God. One of my favortie verses, again:

quote:

---

Proverbs 9:10
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisodm, and knowledge of His Holy One is Understanding.

---

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

old shepherds tales

---

If you would do some research, you would know that some disciples were fishermen, but one was a doctor, and one was a tax collector. They were not all uneducated men. Paul, the author of most of the NT books, was a Pharisee. They could read and write, and were the scholars of the Jewish community. Jesus had diversity, believe it or not.

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

doesn't have any but the vauguest relation to whatever the original versions
were.

---

Do you know about the dead sea scrolls? They have been discovered recently, and are being translated. Those scrolls have many of the oldest known written texts of the Bible. Amazingly, when they were translated it was found that there were miraculously few mistakes between the Dead Sea version and the version in most Bibles today.

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

Add to that the different churches which have edited out entire books and
chapters because they didn't agree with the writing and...

---

Well, of course they did. But that is the privledge of those churches. They can be ignorant if they want. But the fact remains that the Bible that I have is an English version of the Bible from about 1800 years ago.

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

Hell, the various xian cults can't even agree on one bible today.

---

On one English Bible. As I said, the English versions (KJV, NKJV, NIV, etc.) are what are in question, not the Bible. Certain people think that one translation does a better job at portraying what the author was saying than another. It is all about translation. I bet if you ask any one of them, they will say that they agree that the original texts are infallible. (This is translation, and if you have ever done something like that before, you would understand the problem.)

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

What the hell you mean by "Martyr support" I have no idea.

---

Many people who died in the 1500s to try and preserve the Bible, and get an English copy to normal people so that they could read it; Martyrs

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

Heresay carries little weight.

---

Well, in that case I would like for you to post a written documentation of all your sources of information after each of your posts.

I try when I can Etheist, but my brain has limitations. I am sorry.

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

only ther 'saved' can be aware of

---

Actually, many people who are unsaved are aware of them too. They just don't put 2 and 2 together.

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

more physical evidence to prove the existance of Camelot

---

Well, sure. Proving that God exists would kinda null faith wouldn't it? I read a book from a statician who tried to calculate the probablity of God. It was interesting, and he came out to, I think, 67 or 64%. Very interesting. Of course, then he went on to way that even if it was just .0001%, that the infinitly good outcomes from that belief make it the most favorable choice anyway. I don't think God likes the "well, I guess I'll believe" faith, but it makes for an interesting read.

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

If you want to be taken seriously, speak seriously.

---

I do. I also take others seriously in the hope that they will take me seriously. I can't just expect others to take me seriously if I don't do the same.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

(Edited by Gideon on 02-07-2005 15:22)

quote:

---

quote:WebShaman said:

And for future reference - homosexuality has nothing to do with the bible.


quote:1 Corinthians 6:9
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,


quote:1 Timothy 1:9-10
9 realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers 10 and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,


quote:WebShaman said:

But I already told you that I had read the bible.


But just becuase you read it once, does not mean you know it. And if you did intensive Bible Study, you should have known what God really says. To know God is to know the Bible. You have to know God first, then you can know the Bible. Prayer, and Bible study bring you to know God. One of my favortie verses, again:

---

The bible does NOT determine whether or not someone is heterosexual or homosexual or bisexual, etc. It has absolutely nothing at all to do with it. It is just a book.

It may pass judgement on it, but that is something entirely different. Why are there things that occur in the world today, that are not covered in the bible? Like cloning, for instance? Why wasn't this covered Gideon? I'll tell you why - because the bible is not the word of god, it is the word of religous men. And back then, they had no idea that man would be able to clone things. No answer for this one - no rule to go by. God was strangely silent on cloning. Same thing goes for abortion.

And I didn't say I had read it "only" once - you need to learn how to read, as well as add. And I don't believe in god anymore, Gideon. What you are saying is the purest of crap. Studying the bible brought me slowly to know that any literal acceptance of it is clearly in conflict with science fact. And then it comes down to subjective acceptance. And that can be warped into just about any form, depending on who is doing the translation. My ancestors created stories that are just as valuable, subjectively. Therefore, the bible is just a book for me. And therefore, not all the answers are in it.

Good response WS.

Gid I am sure you are serious when you speak of the bible and your faith in it and that mythical being.

But to defend and quote the thing in it's own defense does not make you look as though you are serious, merely dogmatic.

It is hard to accept you have a copy of an 1800 year old bible in English. English not having been a spoken language at the time.

It is impossible to accept that anything which has been translated as often as it has retains anything of it's original content.

As for the Qumran chronicles, I am currently wading through the translations and don't find much but a ranting, militiaristic religious sect bent on furthering it's own ends.

In fact there is so little remarable or particularly germane to xianity about them, one wonders why the Catholic church tried for 30 years to prevent their publication. BTW, they were discovered in 1947 which is hardly recent.

Perhaps your disciples were mostly 'educated' men, however the OT yarns predate the alleged xist by some hundreds of years and it is upon these old shepherds tales (too bad the humour of that escapes you) that your NT is based.

I am sure you have some great emotional or psychological need to believe in this tripe and I hope the faith provides for you whatever solace you are seeking.

But you need to speak in a more rational manner when discussing religion. To make an out and out statement that 'this is such and so' without qualifiers invites others to push your face in the falsity of your allegations.

Perhaps then, some will take you seriously.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

I'm alittle late on getting involved in this topic .. my only question would be .. why is a story book involved in this conversation? .. a single book has never influenced nor shall it ever influence the way people wish to live their lives .. for that matter .. if those that follow their book would look around alittle .. they may notice there are Gay-Christians and Catholics already among them .. not to mention Mormons anyway


let's not forget what our founders of this country included in their vision of this great country

'religion and government are to be seperate bodies neither one influencing the other'
[not a direct quote .. just a single interpurtation(sp) of the bill of Rights.Amendment I]

this came to be because we as 'outlaws' to the Royals of england were tired of the religious bigotry we had dealt with on the 'Mother land'

on doing a little research I found this - Autobiography by Thomas Jefferson
the autobiography is very interesting but I was looking to quote this paragraph

"In 1769, I became a member of the legislature by the choice of the county in which I live, & continued in that until it was closed by the revolution. I made one effort in that body for the permission of the emancipation of slaves, which was rejected: and indeed, during the regal government, nothing liberal could expect success. Our minds were circumscribed within narrow limits by an habitual belief that it was our duty to be subordinate to the mother country in all matters of government, to direct all our labors in subservience to her interests, and even to observe a bigoted intolerance for all religions but hers. The difficulties with our representatives were of habit and despair, not of reflection & conviction. Experience soon proved that they could bring their minds to rights on the first summons of their attention. But the king's council, which acted as another house of legislature, held their places at will & were in most humble obedience to that will: the Governor too, who had a negative on our laws held by the same tenure, & with still greater devotedness to it: and last of all the Royal negative closed the last door to every hope of amelioration. "

interesting read from a liberals POV .. and this country is over 200 yrs old .. yet this liberal POV of jefferson's has yet to really take effect this countries POV .. interesting read I must say for atleast myself

.::. cEll .::. 513

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

And I didn't say I had read it "only" once

---

I know, I was just trying to prove a point through exageration. Every time I open the Bible, I learn something new. You can read it your whole life time, and still not have it all learned. There is a bunch of stuff in there.

You are right though. A good question is, why isn't there more? If this is a book about life, and how to live it, why isn't there more? Good question, one that many theologians are probably stewing over right now. But the thing I come back to is that if God gave us all the answers in one book, 1.) it would be too large for carriage and reading for that matter, 2.) that would take the fun out of learning. If God told you all the answers up front, what would be the point of living and learning?

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

The bible does NOT determine whether or not someone is heterosexual or
homosexual or bisexual, etc.

---

Well, it may not give the details (possibly for the said reasons above) but it does give the overall concepts. People are homosexual, rapists, murderers, thieves, liars, etc. beacuse of the Fall of Man. What Adam did pretty much ruined it for the rest of us.

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

But to defend and quote the thing in it's own defense does not make you look as
though you are serious, merely dogmatic.

---

Well, I defend with a quote when it's words are attacked directly. When someone says George Bush is a nice guy who went to war for the liberty of the Iraqi people, someone might counter using his own words that it was for the threat against the US. Same concept with the Bible.

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

It is hard to accept you have a copy of an 1800 year old bible in English.
English not having been a spoken language at the time.

---

You are right, that would be hard to accept since English came after French, and French wasn't even born yet. But what I guess I was trying to get across is that the version of the Bible that I read is an English translation of the Hebrew/Latin/Greek/Aramic Bible that was read in the 300s. The Bible cannon was pretty much set around 200AD. It hasn't changed since then.

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

It is impossible to accept that anything which has been translated as often as
it has retains anything of it's original content.

---

You are right, ofcourse. Something that is a translation of a translation should have many errors. The Bible was not actually translated into English until the 1500s. Up until then it had just been the originals copied down. That English version was the KJV. The NIV is actually a revisitation of the old texts. The Bible I have has foot notes that announce if old texts do not have a certain verse or word. Surprisingly, that seldom happens in the OT, and even rarer in the NT.

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

Qumran chronicles

---

I don't think I have heard of that before. What is it?

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

however the OT yarns predate the alleged xist by some hundreds of years

---

And if you would look, many of those books were again written by scholars and pharisees, and prophets. There were even a few books written by kings!

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

that your NT is based.

---

You just pointed out one other test that books had to pass before they were accepted into the NT. Good job.

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

I am sure you have some great emotional or psychological need

---

Everyone has a great need. And if you say you don't, then yours is spreading falsehoods.

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

I hope the faith provides for you whatever solace you are seeking.

---

Oh, it provides more than enough solace. But I wasn't really seeking solace when I got saved. It was more of a quick death to get away from the bad stuff I did. But that is a different story...

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

But you need to speak in a more rational manner

---

You are right again. I do need to rationalize my arguments more. The problem is that they are rationalized with all the knowledge that I have swimming in my head, but when it comes time to write stuff down, the details seem to get lost on the way. Bad problem that is... But you will be happy to know that I am working on it. I am learing rhetoric and fallicies (interesting stuff, you wouldn't believe how many people make fallicies all the time). But I suggest that the pot also get on the band wagon, because rationality comes in many forms, and just because one does not have the same thought process as another, does not make one irrational.

Your right, Ramm, that was a good read. I have just got out of a unit in English about the colonial period and all the bad stuff that went on there. Jefferson was a very intelligent man. You are right, also that there are homosexual Christians. A sad fact, but true. Some people can get led away from purity. It happens, happened to me a while ago actually. But there is the chance that they can come back. It also has something to do with basis in the literal Genesis, because as soon as that is taken literally, Homosexuality is wrong. But unlike some people in the past I will not mention who wanted to burn homosexuals (in the US too you know), Christians are called to love, not hate. I love people. Homosexual, murderer, thief or liar, I love them. Jesus loves them no matter what they did. That does not make it right, but Jesus still loves them.

quote:

---

RammStein said:

'religion and government are to be seperate bodies neither one
influencing the
other'

---

As it should be. But the government has no right to be limiting any religion, and that is what is happening with Christianity. Maybe not much, and I can only speak for what is happening in my school, but it is happening. Not to mention other countries, and all the real martyrs there. Wow!

quote:

---

RammStein said:

let's not forget what our founders of this country included in their vision of
this great country

---

Did you know that the majority of the founding fathers were Christian? Something that I just learned is that George Washington, considered the founder of our country, was well known for how much he prayed? Talk about a solid foundation for our country!

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

Where to start?

[quote]Well, I defend with a quote when it's words are attacked directly.

This is not defence it is parroting dogma.

quote:

---

the version of the Bible that I read is an English translation of the Hebrew/Latin/Greek/Aramic Bible that was read in the 300s. The Bible cannon was pretty much set around 200AD. It hasn't changed since then.

You left out a few languages it has been translated through in between. You also ignore the fact it has been re-written by every petty despot and ambitious priest since who know how long. Each one altering the thing to reflect their own ends or biases. These would be your kings, scholars, pharisees etc.

---

phar·i·see ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fr-s)
n.
Pharisee A member of an ancient Jewish sect that emphasized strict interpretation and observance of the Mosaic law in both its oral and written form.
A hypocritically self-righteous person.

[Middle English pharise, from Old English fariseus, and from Old French pharise both from Late Latin pharsaeus, from Greek pharsaios, from Aramaic priayy, pl. of pri, separate, from pra, to separate. See pr in Semitic Roots.]

BTW a king is only the biggest, baddest, toughest, meanest guy on the block, or his descendant.

For you to believe that book you read has come down unchanged for over 2500 years...well..I have a nice big bridge for sale, interested?

You consider yourself a biblical scholar and don't know about Qumran?

I'll leave it up to you to do some research. One learns better that way.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

I gotta go, but I just gotta say that I *loved* this quote:

quote:

---

We're heading toward what's called "hyper-democracy" - a political system which knows no values other then liberty and equality.

---

*Amen*

By the way, you guys would love this book (available for reading online)-

Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do

Gideon, you are so full of it, it is leaking out of every oriface. First you say

quote:

---

All the answers are there!

---

and then you totally contradict yourself by saying

quote:

---

but the thing I come back to is that if God gave us all the answers in one book, 1.) it would be too large for carriage and reading for that matter, 2.) that would take the fun out of learning. If God told you all the answers up front, what would be the point of living and learning?

---

I'm sorry but no-one is taking you seriously with illogic like that, outright dishonest statements that even contradict your own stances.

quote:

---

But just becuase you read it once, does not mean you know it. And if you did intensive Bible Study, you should have known what God really says. To know God is to know the Bible.

---

Bullshit. That is the biggest load you have dumped on the boards to date. Even within the Xian faith, theologians disagree as to exactly what "God really says". "To know god is to know the bible" - hooboy. Umm, Gideon, EXAMINE your own religion before making stupid statements like this! You even admit to that here

quote:

---

Do you know why? It is quite simple really. Perspective. Also a little bit of where you are in readings. Each person's perspective on the Bible is different. Also, to add to that, the Holy Spirit can point something new out each time you read the same passage. I love it.

---

So you admit that it is the perspective on the bible that determines what it means. In other words, just your opinion, nothing more, nothing less. You know, I can read the back of a cereal box a million times - it doesn't mean that I know how it tastes or whether I will like it or not.

quote:

---

I have faith that things I do not see with my eyes (but percieve with other senses) are at work here.

---

What other senses?

And you bear false witness so often, you must be begging for forgiveness every night, Gideon. First you say

quote:

---

nd WS, just for future reference, you cannot know the Bible if you haven't read it for yourself.

---

. I then showed you that was in error, and then you post

quote:

---

But just becuase you read it once, does not mean you know it.

---

Then you say

quote:

---

I know, I was just trying to prove a point through exageration.

---

In other words, you lied through your teeth, and you did it purposefully. You bore false witness, once again. Why should I even make an effort to try to follow anything you say, when you keep bearing false witness purposefully?

Then you say

quote:

---

No one forces you to believe anything in the Bible (and if they do, they have no right to). You can believe what you want.

---

Well, if that is true, then "Creationism" doesn't belong in the classroom, does it? You agree that "they" have no right to force one to believe it.

And I said

quote:

---

The bible does NOT determine whether or not someone is heterosexual or
homosexual or bisexual, etc.

---

and you side-step the issue with this totally assinine post

quote:

---

Well, it may not give the details (possibly for the said reasons above) but it does give the overall concepts. People are homosexual, rapists, murderers, thieves, liars, etc. beacuse of the Fall of Man. What Adam did pretty much ruined it for the rest of us.

---

You fall into the same old "trap" that most of your ilk do : whoever said I was talking about just humans? I am talking about animals in general. Homosexuality is a now well documented natural occurance in animals (of which we humans are but one). Nowhere in the bible is this explained.

You have no proof of this, whatsoever. None. Nada. Zippo. The passages in the bible are not factual evidence in this case. And that is beyond the point - the bible does not determine one's sexual inclinings, whatsoever. It only provides a parable for how it came about and it passes judgement over it.

You know, my leg is getting tired of kicking your behind all over the place, and I am getting tired of pointing out huge, glaring holes in your, well, what passes for reasoning in your head, and just the plain outright lying that you engage in. You have more than demonstrated that you are not a serious discussion partner dedicated to a dialog, but a pre-programmed liar. You fail to back up your positions, screw up your own points with contradictory statements, and quote bible passages and expect us to "accept" that as fact (which it is not), and you even admit that it is not fact! but opinion.

Take you seriously? Grow up first, learn to communicate honestly, and stop contradicting yourself. I'm done with you. I'm tired of having my words mistreated by you, and having to point it out again and again. I warned you about that before. You apparently didn't listen.

(Edited by WebShaman on 02-09-2005 21:40)

quote:

---

Bullshit. That is the biggest load you have dumped on the boards to date. Even within the Xian faith, theologians disagree as to exactly what "God really says". "To know god is to know the bible" - hooboy. Umm, Gideon, EXAMINE your own religion before making stupid statements like this! You even admit to that here

---

Being a xian also, I can agree with you Web, and disagree with Gideon's view of the " To know god is to know the bible" One can know the God of the bible without reading scripture but it helps to know him better if your bible read. I would phrase it like "To read scripture is to know who God was and is"

Gideon, I believe your view is unscriptual. In the last chapter of John,(NT) it states to us that the knowledge about God cannot be contained in a written book. Great theologians 2000 plus years later are still trying to open keys to the meaning of scripture.

Come on Web, your impatience is showing. Don't throw in the towel just yet. Gonna get some more microwave popcorn.

I can appreciate your frustration WS. However, there is some value in continuing to allow the Gids of the world remind us just how stupid blind faith in anything is and this includes political parties.

As well, they are usually good for a belly laugh or two.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

wow I think I got a taste of Gideons blind observations and objectives .. taking what I said to only mean toward himself and himself alone .. in some sense that is what many in America are .. self involved .. Gideon think of this objectively and not directed at yourself .. for this sake .. our founding fathers wrote it's declaration objectively .. and nah not all of them were christian .. anyway I have one question for you Gideon .. how old are you?

as for this story book(the bible) you so love to quote and I shall quote you

quote:

---

But just becuase you read it once, does not mean you know it. And if you did intensive Bible Study, you should have known what God really says. To know God is to know the Bible.

---

being that I was once catholic then became christian then born again .. during my younger years I actually attended a christian school from the grades 6th to 9th .. every year having bible study .. only during the 9th grade did I really begin my dislike for the way the bible was represented to me and this began my stray from this faith and further research on other religions around the world .. for in 9th grade my professor proceeded to give me an 'F' for Bible Study class .. I attended classes, did what I had to do, but wasn't very good with memorizing script which determined most of our grade .. so as a result my professor gave me an 'F' and after receiving my grade card .. I looked to my mother and said one thing

"how can I fail 'MY' own God"

so Gideon .. when you state "to know God is to know the Bible" .. I STRONGLY disagree .. for I believe We are co-creation of God .. meaning we are all visions of Gods beauty and creativity .. hense we are co-creations of God .. so I believe to know God is know oneself .. not someone elses inturpertation of what their God's vision is .. because honestly .. though we believe all in one God .. your belief in God is different to that of mine .. for you believe your God works in different ways then I that I believe my God works in different ways as well .. but I know you and I still believe in the same God .. just view his majesty different .. because we all think differently .. do you understand what I mean?

[awaiting blind eyes]


.::. cEll .::. 513

(Edited by RammStein on 02-09-2005 17:51)

quote:

---

Come on Web, your impatience is showing.

---

quote:

---

I can appreciate your frustration WS

---

You both are missing the point - it is an excercise in futility. One cannot have an honest dialog with another that is being dishonest. At least, I won't. It serves no real purpose, at least not for me. I have warned Gideon before about this.

Because he is incapable of grasping the importance of this, I must take the initiative and curtail communication from my side.

So be it.

So be it WS, ya gotta do what ya gotta do...but he is still good for a few yuks.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

*pout*

Nobody read my book...

I am sorry Webshaman, please accept my deepest apology. What I did was wrong, and I had no right to do it. If you ever see me twisting your words around again, please inform me in the most blunt of manners, becuase I do not want to be mean and hurt you. I am sorry.

As for the contradictions in my posts about answers, actually you are getting two different messages. It is kinda a paradox, but not really. I will use video games as an example. Video games were obviously not around in biblical times. So video games are never mentioned in the Bible. Right? Well, no and yes. The specific nomen "video games" is not mentioned, but a general mention of idolatry and violence can be applied. Does that make more sense? I'm sorry I didn't elaborate on that earlier. It makes me sound like a fool doesn't it?

As for the perspective things: it is something no comprehendable to most people. I don't even comprehend it some of the time. But when a man (or woman) has the Holy Spirit active in thier lives, the pages seem to come alive for that person. Things fit. But when a man or woman is spiritually dead to God, then it is just another book with some ideas that contradict what "normal" humans think.

As for Creation in the class room, "they" as much right to inforce the extended learning of young people in the confines of historical science as ohters do math. I am being forced by the state to have an education, I would at least like that education to include all plausible theories and models, instead of focusing on one and ignoring the rest.

Homosexuality in animals is explained by the same thing it is explained with for humans. God cursed the whole earth for our sake. Animals, trees, plants, the Earth in general is suffering right now for what we did. (And when you look at industrialization of the forests; what we are still doing.)
(There aren't any parables I know of in any of the history books in the Bible. I could be wrong of course, but I don't remember any.)

Jade, thanks. I needed that rebuke. You are right, God cannot be contained in anything, let alone our puny human minds. He needed a whole temple just to hold His Name! Yes, to read the Bible is not to know all of God (the Holy Spirit helps you to learn what you need to know, though). Yeah, the Bible only gives a glimpse into what God knows, but it does show His love for His people. I love it when people refer to the Bible as a love note, because I am beginning to see more and more that is what it is.

Well Ethiest, blind faith is a bad word to use for it, because I know for a fact that you have blind faith that the chair you are sitting on will not colapse. That may be logic, but it could fall you know. It is the faith in your chair that allows you to just plop down and get to work on the comp. I have faith in God that He is helping me to grow and become more Christ-like every day. Amen to that! I can see it happening! But I still have a long way to go as indicated above...

Ramm, I know they were not all Christian, but many people like to beat that ad nausem until it seems as though there were only a few who were. That is not true! Many were Christians, and most of thier ideas either came from the Bible, or line up with the Bible.

I understand exactly what you mean Ramm, and it makes sense. I am greatful for the firm rebuke too. I don't necessarily believe that knowing yourself lets you know God (it certainly helps), but I am pretty sure it is the Holy Spirit that reveals much of God's majesty and direction for us. Because look, if you and I didn't have the Holy Spirit, could we see God? (By seeing I mean in the future literally and in the present figuratively for those who get disgruntled at such things.) Seeing the craftsmanship of the crafter is a clue to what He is like, and what He thinks, but why just look at the creation, when you can speak directly to the Creator (aka. through the Jesus Christ)?

You are right WS, and I would not like to carry on a conversation with a person who twists my words either, and I will completely understand if you never respond to my posts again. But I want you to know that people (I) do stupid things sometimes. But when they try and make amends, please don't shove them off.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

Jade, thanks. I needed that rebuke. You are right, God cannot be contained in anything, let alone our puny human minds. He needed a whole temple just to hold His Name! Yes, to read the Bible is not to know all of God (the Holy Spirit helps you to learn what you need to know, though). Yeah, the Bible only gives a glimpse into what God knows, but it does show His love for His people. I love it when people refer to the Bible as a love note, because I am beginning to see more and more that is what it is.

---

Your a very gracious debater. You do not have the arrogance as if you contained a wealth of knowlege as those who do not believe have. I did not mean rebuke you. If I conveyed arrogance, please forgive me. I know we don't know all the answers about God. Trying to understand scripture can be and is very interesting & then confusing for some. I can see you have a sincere heartfelt quest to know who God is. May the holy spirit continue to help and guide you.

Thanks Jade, but I mean it, if you ever see me doing something like that again I would be grateful if you would correct me. It was not arrogance, it was just what I needed. Thanks.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

quote:

---

because I know for a fact that you have blind faith that the chair you are sitting on will not colapse. That may be logic, but it could fall you know. It is the faith in your chair that allows you to just plop down and get to work on the comp.

---

Gid: Statements like that ^ are where you pretty much blow it.

There's absolutely no faith involved with a chair of any description. Never has been ...never will be... no how no way.

Principles of engineering and physics allow a certain level of confidence that the basic design of the chair can be trusted. That's it.