Oh, THAT's who it is!
Er... I mean.. I never watched celebrity boxing, honest! :D :D :D
Although it was fun watching Joanie Laurer punch the hell out of Joey Butt-a-face-o.
Printable View
Oh, THAT's who it is!
Er... I mean.. I never watched celebrity boxing, honest! :D :D :D
Although it was fun watching Joanie Laurer punch the hell out of Joey Butt-a-face-o.
Romans 1:27-28Quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Clam
Now here's where I have the problem with your statement... can you present to me any sort of convincing evidence that the Bible actually describes what God wants, and that He doesn't think it is a bunch of bullcrap as well?
"27: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28: And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;"
The purpose of Christ's presense on earth was not to get involved in the pseudo-political sctruggles against the oppressive priesthood of the day. Christ transcended these issues by coming to offer people a way out of the oppression. As he said, "I have come to seek and to save that which was lost".Quote:
Originally posted by NooNoo
That is an extremely important statement.
The fact that homosexuality is even mentioned in the Old Testament bears witness to how long homosexuality has been around. It is not going to go away regardless of punishment or restriction.
A lot of the "christians" I have met spout their love of Jesus, but have an Old Testament mentality.
From my point of view Jesus was a sensible guy that looked around him at the punishment and horrors perpertrated in God's name and called time on them, because he found that the priests and high officials enjoyed the power and the control and probably the punishment of others too.
My other concern is that if Jesus really did return would the Catholic and other christian churches believe? I say probably not.
Also, the verses reference in the post above specifically indicate that God is NOT trying to stop homosexuality. On the contrary, he is acknowledging that it exist and will continue to do so. Homosexuality is a sin like any other sin and sin without forgiveness and salvation is punishable by death. However, those who accept forgiveness and repent of their sins will never see punishment.
That is far from an Old Testament notion.
I am in no way sticking up for the pervert Catholic priests. I just think that because of their enourmous influence in their communities, priests who are charged with molesting children seem to get an inordinate amount of press attention, which often translates into a negative stereotype against all people of faith. I think these priests should get the maximum sentence and then some for what they did.Quote:
Originally posted by ilovetheusers
Never known you to ever say anything you couldn't back up but - how do you know that? I would bet almost any amount of $$ that you have a stat somewhere or you would not have said it, but... Are child molesters lining up to take a survey?:rolleyes: :D
The argument was that if they were not priests, more would have gone to jail. Further if this was say "procter and gamble" doing the ocver up you would be assured that there would have been a prosecuter nailing someone to the wall. The bishops (or whoever) who moved the priests around (and basically aided them in molesting others) were never held acountable. Having your name in the press does not make up for aiding molesters in raping and harming more children.
If this was a different, non major religious group they would have been nailed to the wall. That was what I was getting at. they got a pass because they were Christian. Any other group would have been persecuted. Any "persecution" that went on in the press was overwhelmingly deserved and honestly was no where near enough IMHO.
BTW - glad to see you posting again. :)
You're right. I don't have any stats at hand to back up my statement, but I'll bet they wouldn't be hard to find now.
ROFL!!!!!Quote:
Originally posted by meatwad
Look Cletus, if you want to sleep with your mother or sister, I'm fine with that. But sleeping with your brother. Eeeeeew. :p :D
In fact, God did NOT write the bible himself. He inspired godly men to write the books of the Bible. I arrived at this conclusion after reading the Bible all the way through several times. There are far to many elements of the architecture of the Bible that smack of divine design to believe any other explanation. To date, scholars have yet to refute this. They may have made specific arguments against specific passages, but the overwhelming preponderance of evidence rests on the side of divine inspiration.Quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Clam
How do you know God wrote the Bible? The simple answer is, you don't. Your priests and your parents told you it was true, so you assume it must be.
Okay, now I am very interested. What sort of evidence are you talking about? How does one prove that a given piece of writing is divinely inspired, and another piece is not?Quote:
Originally posted by KINGofBLEH
In fact, God did NOT write the bible himself. He inspired godly men to write the books of the Bible. I arrived at this conclusion after reading the Bible all the way through several times. There are far to many elements of the architecture of the Bible that smack of divine design to believe any other explanation. To date, scholars have yet to refute this. They may have made specific arguments against specific passages, but the overwhelming preponderance of evidence rests on the side of divine inspiration.
For example, let's take a religious text written by a gay minister who feels that God has guided him to write it to explain how God loves and accepts gays for who they are. He would tell you that his writing is Divinely inspired.
What makes him wrong and you right? What evidence proves your Bible is better than his writing?
The only validity to your argument here is that I chose the name Ya_Know, the same that homosexuals chose to be gay. But this is still apples and oranges in comparison to the original argument I presented, so you will have to do better.Quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Clam
Who says?
What if I say that bottom line, people named Ya_Know are just strange, and I don't want to be a part of a society that so easily accepts them as normal?
What is the difference, Ya_Know?
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. 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.
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; and by the end of the day no one has proven this is an irreversible genetic occurrence, or that it should be openly accepted with good reason.
1. That four accounts of the life of Christ can be written by four different authors in different locations and different decades without any means of direct communication between them, and the four accounts have remarkable similarity.Quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Clam
Okay, now I am very interested. What sort of evidence are you talking about? How does one prove that a given piece of writing is divinely inspired, and another piece is not?
For example, let's take a religious text written by a gay minister who feels that God has guided him to write it to explain how God loves and accepts gays for who they are. He would tell you that his writing is Divinely inspired.
What makes him wrong and you right? What evidence proves your Bible is better than his writing?
2. That poor uneducated fishermen reference detailed texts in the Old Testament given they had little to no formal education.
3. That the majority of the New Testament writings are restatements of the words of Christ, some of which by authors who never knew Christ personally while here on earth.
There are many other somewhat less significant evidences that can be cited here.
Many Christian writings outside of the Bible have claimed to be divinely inspired, and some are. But for the most part these writings are just reinterpretations of the orginal source.
I do not claim to be a top notch scholar in these areas. There are people who have put in many years of research and analysis. In case you are interested, you may want to check out some of the writings by Josh McDowell and Ravi Zacharias (sp. "Evidence That Demands a Verdict"). I am not trying to promote these guys in any way, just giving a more articulate source of these arguments than myself.
I couldn't agree more. While on the debate team in college, my debate partner of two years was gay. For those who do not know, collegiate acedemic debate requires an average of 20-25 hours a week of debate topic research and practice. Additionally, we traveled to 10-15 debate tournaments a year where sometimes the guys were required to share hotel rooms due to school budget constraints. During that time I never once complained about sharing a hotel room with him or having to be on the same team with someone who was openly gay. I did not hate him or fear him or his homosexuality. In fact we became known as "The Odd Couple" of the debate circuit....he was the neat and clean gay guy and I was the filthy slob straight guy.Quote:
Originally posted by Ya_know
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. 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.
:D
I was and continue to be secure in my heterosexuality. He knew where I stood on the issue and there was no need for me to constantly badger him about it
This is a most relevent topic and has been a spirited debate on the subject. I am sorry I have not been able to post responses in a timely fashion, but we have been swamped with projects lately at work and one of my coworkers just quit and another is going out on jury duty for 60 days. Some nights I get home and I and just too beat to even turn on the PC. So if I dont respond to your posts in a timely fashion, please accept my apologies in advance.
Sorry Clammy I'm going to highjack this thread for just a second ;) .
I have a question(s) to all. Homosexuality is not confined to humans. Other mammals exhibit the trait, most notably Bottlenose Dolphins, and there are several others, how is this reconciled with the belief that homosexuality is a learned behavior? These behaviors have been observed for many, many years. It's been observed in the wild and in captivity.
My conclusion:
This perplexed me through my college years, when I first heard of it in biology classes, but as I have gotten a lot older :( I have come to the conclusion that homosexuality is predisposed, not to be legislated, condemned, or judged. It's not a religious moral, a social deviation, or family shame. It just is.
I may be mistaken, but I didn't get the impression it was being put forward in this thread that homosexuality is learned, I remember discussion suggesting whatever the cause, there are cases where it can be un-learned, and vociferous opposition to that suggestion. I would point out that establishing that a behaviour can be natural in no way proves that it cannot be un-learned, or that there is anything wrong or detrimental in un-learning it.Quote:
Originally posted by Major Kong
Sorry Clammy I'm going to highjack this thread for just a second ;) .
I have a question(s) to all. Homosexuality is not confined to humans. Other mammals exhibit the trait, most notably Bottlenose Dolphins, and there are several others, how is this reconciled with the belief that homosexuality is a learned behavior? These behaviors have been observed for many, many years. It's been observed in the wild and in captivity.
My conclusion:
This perplexed me through my college years, when I first heard of it in biology classes, but as I have gotten a lot older :( I have come to the conclusion that homosexuality is predisposed, not to be legislated, condemned, or judged. It's not a religious moral, a social deviation, or family shame. It just is.
However my reaction to the situation with animal behaviour is to note that although animals do a lot of things, it doesn't convince me that necessarily means anything in defining human behaviour.
Some animals eat dung, either their own or that of others. It's perfectly natural, it's not a religious moral, a social deviation, or family shame. It just is. But that does not convince me I should do the same, or that I should regard coprophilia as normal or sensible for humans.
So as a person, and as a Christian, I don't conclude that animal behaviour is any more useful in defining human sexual behaviour.
To add to Platypus's example, most males in the animal world use physical violence against and even kill other males of their species for the purpose of dominating the heard during breeding season. However, humans do not resort to such methods when on a date, for example. This is one of those things that distinguishes humans from the rest of the animals. We come up with much more crafty and less violent ways of wooing a breedmare (i.e. manipulation, etc.).Quote:
Originally posted by Major Kong
Sorry Clammy I'm going to highjack this thread for just a second ;) .
I have a question(s) to all. Homosexuality is not confined to humans. Other mammals exhibit the trait, most notably Bottlenose Dolphins, and there are several others, how is this reconciled with the belief that homosexuality is a learned behavior? These behaviors have been observed for many, many years. It's been observed in the wild and in captivity.
My conclusion:
This perplexed me through my college years, when I first heard of it in biology classes, but as I have gotten a lot older :( I have come to the conclusion that homosexuality is predisposed, not to be legislated, condemned, or judged. It's not a religious moral, a social deviation, or family shame. It just is.
You're missing my point. I didn't intend that as a cheap shot. Perhaps a better example would be for me to find out what hair color you have, and decide that that is wrong in the eyes of the Lord.Quote:
Originally posted by Ya_know
The only validity to your argument here is that I chose the name Ya_Know, the same that homosexuals chose to be gay. But this is still apples and oranges in comparison to the original argument I presented, so you will have to do better.
You're WRONG. Nobody chooses to be gay.
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?
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.
How do you know whether the writers of the Bible aren't these people as well?