Printable View
That's why I apologized to Clammy before highjacking the thread, it was off topic of the original thought. Nor was it an argument supporting or opposing homosexuality.Quote:
Originally posted by Platypus
I may be mistaken, but I didn't get the impression it was being put forward in this thread that homosexuality is learned......
I was just injecting my er...evolutionary thoughts. :D
Says you, but there is no scientific proof to back that up...they have tried, but thus far all data is inconclusive. It is a choice that can be turned. Just like smoking, minus the chemical addiction.Quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Clam
You're WRONG. Nobody chooses to be gay.
Here is another point...Even if it was proven that being homosexual is genetic and irreversible, what is to say that all gays are genetically gay, or for that matter that all heterosexuals are straight?Quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Clam
You're WRONG. Nobody chooses to be gay.
There is a plethora of thoughts that can be provoked by a discussion such as this, what is worse, there is no cut and dry conclusions, really. But one thing is sure, what I believe and what you believe are two unchanged points of view. (No sh!t, right)
To ILOVETHEUSERS, the suggestion you make that homophobes have a tendency to be gay themselves is a fallacy. It is a mindless retort in an effort to spark rage and anxiety in those that oppose the week view of acceptance.Quote:
Originally posted by Ya_know
Works pretty well huh? I kind of suspected that to be so but it's so cool to see a persons reaction to it when they hear it for the first time. We live to annoy.;)
To start, people that oppose homosexuality don’t necessarily fear anything, and I know certainly that I am not a homophobe. I simply believe that this behavior is wrong.
Good for you.
I mean, you admit that you are not religious so what's the hang up? I can see it if your god tells you to, I mean, it's your god so whatchagonnado, but if that's not it then what? Please explain in a non religious way what is wrong with 2 adults declaring love for one another. That's pretty much what the issue is isn't it> You are saying that if Greg meets Paul and they fall in love then it's somehow wrong? Why?
I have heard it all from both sides, and studied this subject in Humanities where I gained a full perspective through some intense classroom arguments that never made it to name calling or disrespect from either side. You can make all of the cheep shots you want, but this only discredits your argument;
Sure, ok. So you have senseofhumorphobia too... :rolleyes:
and by the end of the day no one has proven this is an irreversible genetic occurrence,
Yeah I've seen the scientific studies as well and you may be right but having lived in and around gay people for a long time I can tell you that most truly gay people didn't really have a choice. If it's not genetic I really don't know what is. Man I know some chicks that are more man than I will ever be and guys that are more woman than my girlfriend is or will be. I am telling you personally that there are a number of gay people that never, and I mean never had a choice in the matter.
or that it should be openly accepted with good reason.
How about just live and let live? Why dislike or even care what 2 consenting adults do when it doesn't have any impact upon you?
So back to the question. What is it that gets people down on homosexuals if it’s not religious? Seriously, what?
I have to side with WC and ILTU on this one. It's genetic. Their born with the right hardware...they're just wired different. An anology for your theory would mean Michael Jackson has proven that just because your born Black doesn't mean you have to stay that way. ;) :DQuote:
Originally posted by Ya_know
Here is another point...Even if it was proven that being homosexual is genetic and irreversible, what is to say that all gays are genetically gay, or for that matter that all heterosexuals are straight?
There is a plethora of thoughts that can be provoked by a discussion such as this, what is worse, there is no cut and dry conclusions, really. But one thing is sure, what I believe and what you believe are two unchanged points of view. (No sh!t, right)
The point of debate isn't to change the mind of the person you argue with all the time. Sometimes it's so you can understand what the other person is thinking.Quote:
Originally posted by Ya_know
There is a plethora of thoughts that can be provoked by a discussion such as this, what is worse, there is no cut and dry conclusions, really. But one thing is sure, what I believe and what you believe are two unchanged points of view. (No sh!t, right)
Besides, it's not too often you can find an educated person to argue with and it's kinda fun when you do.
OK I would like to ask an on topic question. I want someone to show me, like I had no knowledge of the bible, what are the anti-homosexual passages in the New Testament?
*proviso - you can't use I Corinthians 6:9-10 and I Timothy 1:9. ;)
Absolutely not. The fact that two or more people write similar things does not make them divinely inspired. Lets take your examples. None of these example represents documentation of historical events. Human nature and human experience dictates that people recount events in their lives differently, often distorting the facts of the events themselves. The gospels represent a similarity that is unique in historical literature. The only was these similarity could have been reproduced would be for the authors to sit down at a table and write them together, which would have been physically impossible given that the books were written at different times in different locations.Quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Clam
Kingofbleh, essentially your response to me boils down to "several people happen to have written similar things independently of each other", therefore God must have inspired them. Am I the only person who finds this spurious? I am entirely certain that throughout history, several people have written Anti-Semitic literature and pornographic stories and motherboard instruction manuals without direct inspiration from each other. Does that prove that God was guiding their hands?
It is certainly true that many evil things have been done in the name of the "will of God". However, there is no evidence that the authors of the Gospels (or the rest of the Bible) had any knowledge that what they were writing would become a part of the most widely distributed book in history. Keep in mind that gospels were written as historical accounts of the life of Christ and most of the rest of the New Testament is a series of letters. The authors of these writings had not idea of the doctrinal and historical significance they would take on. In fact, it wasn't until one of the last books of the New Testament to be written (Acts) that we even see any mention that the New Testament writings might be canonized as "scriptural".Quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Clam
And furthermore, where is your proof that "Divinely inspired" means "100% accurate"? the fact of the matter is, people are human beings. We are not perfect. Even if we are genuinely trying to do the right thing, we make mistakes. We screw up. Examples litter history and the present day of people who THOUGHT they were doing the work of God, but were in reality being extremely evil.
As to the historical accuracy argument, over the last 2000 years we have yet to see another written account of the life of Christ dating from the first half of the first century AD that contradicts the gospels. There have been other writings in the last few centuries where the authors "assert" that the accounts of the gospels are questionable, but there assertions are unsubstantiated and based upon complex and tenuous reasoning instead of cold hard evidence.
The writers of the Bible were regular people just like us. Some were educated others uneducated. Some wealthy, some poor. All were imperfect sinners just like people today. It's a good thing that God doesn't require perfection from people in order to use them to get his message across.Quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Clam
How do you know whether the writers of the Bible aren't these people as well?
Romans 1:27-28. Although I would suggest that you read the entire first chapter to get context. I hate it when people isolate scripture verses to make a point when they clearly do not understand the context.Quote:
Originally posted by Major Kong
OK I would like to ask an on topic question. I want someone to show me, like I had no knowledge of the bible, what are the anti-homosexual passages in the New Testament?
*proviso - you can't use I Corinthians 6:9-10 and I Timothy 1:9. ;)
Again, you're essentially saying that because some people wrote the same thing as each other that proves it must have been God's doing. I'm sorry but I just don't buy it. Have you ever taken Logic in school? If you had, you would realize that your argument is spurious.Quote:
Originally posted by KINGofBLEH
Lets take your examples. None of these example represents documentation of historical events. Human nature and human experience dictates that people recount events in their lives differently, often distorting the facts of the events themselves. The gospels represent a similarity that is unique in historical literature. The only was these similarity could have been reproduced would be for the authors to sit down at a table and write them together, which would have been physically impossible given that the books were written at different times in different locations.
Hmmm, dya think if they had known they might have written it differently? :DQuote:
Originally posted by KINGofBLEH
...there is no evidence that the authors of the Gospels (or the rest of the Bible) had any knowledge that what they were writing would become a part of the most widely distributed book in history...
Ah, but it is interesting to see how much OTHER written history disagrees with the Bible, to say nothing of archaeological findings...Quote:
Originally posted by KINGofBLEH
As to the historical accuracy argument, over the last 2000 years we have yet to see another written account of the life of Christ dating from the first half of the first century AD that contradicts the gospels.
Aren't you essentially admitting that the Bible is imperfect here?Quote:
Originally posted by KINGofBLEH
It's a good thing that God doesn't require perfection from people in order to use them to get his message across.
Ah, understood. Anyway, hope my response was relevant.Quote:
Originally posted by Major Kong
That's why I apologized, it was off topic
I agree with your quote...as to Paul's Letter to the Church of Rome I have always found it interesting that in his gospel for salvation of faith and retribution of God against the gentile and jew he speaks of people rejecting God. God in turn abandons them to their vices. Basically Paul is telling the church in Rome those who foresake god should die. The original Latin traditonal text of v.31 & 32 states:Quote:
Originally posted by KINGofBLEH
Romans 1:27-28. Although I would suggest that you read the entire first chapter to get context. I hate it when people isolate scripture verses to make a point when they clearly do not understand the context.
I have always found Romans a most interesting gospel, especially Romans 11.Quote:
They knew that God is just, and yet they they did not understand that those who behave like this deserve to die, and not only those who did this but those who encourage them.
Years ago, in a conversation with a Methodist Minister, Romans 1 was discussed at some length. An interesting part of conversation centered on v. 22 & 23 was that Paul's wrath was pointed at those who had enbraced imitation (Rome had many Pagan dieties). It was never Paul's intention to condemn those who still embraces the word of God even those who were homophilia.
The reason for my singling out of I Corinthians 6:9-10 and I Timothy 1:9 is that these two passages are most frequently cited condemning homophilia. The problem is that the Greek has been "twisted" from it's original meaning to the connotation we have now. The word arsenokoita has been wrongly interpreted as "meaning" homophilia. The true meaning of the word is defiler of children.
Honestly Clam, in the end, there is one major thing that you are missing. Your logic, your arguments, everything will in one way or another fail in this one small concept. To be religious, to take the fervor, the feeling into your heart you must have FAITH. It is through that faith that you take the blind step beyond logic, it is through faith that you accept.Quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Clam
Again, you're essentially saying that because some people wrote the same thing as each other that proves it must have been God's doing. I'm sorry but I just don't buy it. Have you ever taken Logic in school? If you had, you would realize that your argument is spurious.
Some take faith so blindly and so fully that they are blind to all the world, and yet some barely know or understand what faith is.
But, that is why this argument can go for an eternity on this board. Faith, at its core can't be fully defended, it can't fully be rationlized or be explained by logic.
For some, their faith their devotion tells them that all the words of the bible are true, and in that truth homosexuality is bad(a sin), for others their faith is in the feel of the bible and that homosexuality is not that bad, and others have a faith more in their gov't that will tell everyone what is good and what is bad. When mixing it all up, the gov't will always look and be the bad guy when they try to legislate morality by either accepting homosexuality or outlawing portion of any religion.
As for the cleetus, well, I think I had some bad milk on my cereal this morning.
I actually had a friend in High School who was a devout Christian ( not sure what denomination ) We talked about science at one point. Which of course ended up in a debate on Evolution. Of course he was Adam and Eve and I was Monkey into man. the point is he was told by his church/ pastor that science was created to defeat the bible/god.Quote:
Ah, but it is interesting to see how much OTHER written history disagrees with the Bible, to say nothing of archaeological findings...
The Evolution debate i gave up on but i SH*T myself when he told me the Dinosaurs never existed and they were made up by science.
WTF
so like Thousands of scientists around the world made fake bones and burried them... ok makes sense to me
:confused:
Cheers Cleetus.:cool:
I never missed your point.
The problem I have is exactly the point you just made: that faith by DEFINITION requires you to believe in something that cannot be proved.
Therefore it is wrong for anyone to impose their faith on anyone else.