NationStates Jolt Archive

I would not usually join a flame war but I have noticed a trend in these posts to dwell on the controversy of homosexuality...

We all have our sides on the issue, and we have our reasons, and on this issue many resonable people disagree... i hope that to everyone i can come across as reasonable...

I cannot pretend I don't have a stance on the issue, but what i don't want is to be ignored and cast aside for that stance. I do not side with Homosexual "Rights" activists... the reasons are my own and I don't care to discuss them... The only reason that I give my stance is because the topic on which i do want do discuss is not understood without that pretext...

What I really want to know is why homosexuals and/or their agendas sympethtic followers ignorantly dismiss the Bible as an authoratative book on life and spirit, and yet wouldn't dare try and refute the any other religious text or religion.

I just want to know if Homosexuals realize that Christianity is just one of the many religions in the world, and I have yet to hear of one single recognized practiced religious philosophy that endorses open practiced sodomy. I know that Christianity is most practiced in Western culture but why is it the only one that is singled out as bigotry when it states its views about the issue.

Please... just respond with answers and not the typical "flame-war" one-liners

looking forward to serious debate... keep it civil

nicely put

The Bible also endorses slavery, polygamy, incest, and a whole host of brutal punishments for offenses that aren't even crimes by today's standards.

The Bible also endorses slavery, polygamy, incest, and a whole host of brutal punishments for offenses that aren't even crimes by today's standards.

yes it does in parts, but that doesn't answer that question... Why do you only reference the Bible... It's not as if Hinduism doesn't equally view homosexality as an "abomination". You seem very narrow-minded in trying to discredit only Christian Philosophy.

Well...the only thing I've got is this...


I'm an athiest, and I like boys and girls.


And part of the reason I don't follow religion is because my beliefs are NOT supported by ANY religion.

I refute any organized religion in which I'm condemned for ANY of my personal belifes....


yeah. that's all I got.

The Bible also endorses slavery, polygamy, incest, and a whole host of brutal punishments for offenses that aren't even crimes by today's standards.
And for the record, your referenced endorsements are open for interperatation, especially polygomy, Solomon and David both were shameful after taking more than one wife.

yes it does in parts, but that doesn't answer that question... Why do you only reference the Bible... It's not as if Hinduism doesn't equally view homosexality as an "abomination". You seem very narrow-minded in trying to discredit only Christian Philosophy.

Because quoting from the Bhagavad Gita in a majority Christian nation would be silly?

Simple. To me the bible is not the "authoritive book on life and spirit" and I don't appreciate any one trying to make me live by it. You'd squawk too if someone tried to make you live by a religious book you don't believe in. I don't want to live by biblical law anymore than you want to live by Sharia.

The first Christian missionaries to Japan were shocked, shocked!, to find the Japanese having rampant homosexual intercourse. At the time the Japanese were primarily Buddhist, with a hint of what we now call Shinto. There you go, at least two religions that don't really care where you stick your penis, or at the very least, don't condemn homosexual practices.

I'm sorry that atheists pick on Christianity, though. There are all sorts of other religions they could spend their time tearing down.

I don't think George Bush was using Muslim, Jewish, or Hindu beliefs when he decided to endorse a constitutional amendment denying certain rights to American citizens.

yes it does in parts, but that doesn't answer that question... Why do you only reference the Bible... It's not as if Hinduism doesn't equally view homosexality as an "abomination". You seem very narrow-minded in trying to discredit only Christian Philosophy.
No one brings those up as an argument against. If we started railing on one of those texts, we'd have to be bringing them up and that would just seem schitzophrenic.

Well...the only thing I've got is this...


I'm an athiest, and I like boys and girls.


And part of the reason I don't follow religion is because my beliefs are NOT supported by ANY religion.

I refute any organized religion in which I'm condemned for ANY of my personal belifes....


yeah. that's all I got.
This is a good response, Thank you. I can respect this answer, it is honest. You see what my problem is that the activists that are Pro Gay "Rights" cannot simply state their beliefs with confidence that what they fight for is right, and not simply argueing that "Christians are evil and corporate bullies and are wrong in their beliefs"

No one brings those up as an argument against. If we started railing on one of those texts, we'd have to be bringing them up and that would just seem schitzophrenic.
on the other hand if you don't refute every religion with Christianity you sound paranoid and dilusional.

I don't think George Bush was using Muslim, Jewish, or Hindu beliefs when he decided to endorse a constitutional amendment denying certain rights to American citizens.
No you are right, but you're not arguing against George Bush, although i accept and treasure the compliment.

I just want to know if Homosexuals realize that Christianity is just one of the many religions in the world, and I have yet to hear of one single recognized practiced religious philosophy that endorses open practiced sodomy.
l

Unitarian Universalists do not condem gay marriage. They will actually perform a type of "marriage" ceremony. Also wiccans don't mind it either, but from the content of your post i doubt you would view that as a religion.....

yes it does in parts, but that doesn't answer that question... Why do you only reference the Bible... It's not as if Hinduism doesn't equally view homosexality as an "abomination". You seem very narrow-minded in trying to discredit only Christian Philosophy.

I referenced the Bible because you did. You want to talk about the Mahabharata, we can.

I get sick of people using the Bible to beat others over the head with their bigotry and small-mindedness. In Acts Peter says, "God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean...I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation...."

And in Matthew it says,

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

I do not, and could not, discredit Christian Philosophy, but I have no problem discrediting Christians who, in the name of God, use their religion to judge and condemn.

The Bible also endorses slavery, polygamy, incest, and a whole host of brutal punishments for offenses that aren't even crimes by today's standards.

Slavery: yes, there were rules taid out to govern the practice, hence endorsing it. But the practice was much different than we generally conceive of slavery. A person couldn't be made to work more than 7 years, masters werre supposed to give them much better treatment than is the norm, and there was no ethinc element to it. On the whole, a lot different than we're used to. Also, there were divorce laws as well. Jesus denounced those later, and said that those were given becasue God new that people would do it anyway. The same could be said about slavery.

Polygamy: stating that it existed does not constitute an endorsement.

Incest: again, it existed, but that doesn't make it right. It states in the Law that incest was wrong.

Brutal punishments: yep. Wrong was taken much more seriously then.

What I really want to know is why homosexuals and/or their agendas sympethtic followers ignorantly dismiss the Bible as an authoratative book on life and spirit, and yet wouldn't dare try and refute the any other religious text or religion.

I just want to know if Homosexuals realize that Christianity is just one of the many religions in the world, and I have yet to hear of one single recognized practiced religious philosophy that endorses open practiced sodomy. I know that Christianity is most practiced in Western culture but why is it the only one that is singled out as bigotry when it states its views about the issue.

Because most people here are christian, were christian, or are at least reasonably aware of what it is. Most people feel more comfortable making criticisms about things they have some knowledge of, as opposed to something they know little about.
I would feel more justified criticizing Catholicism, as I used to be a Catholic. It would be kinda weird for me to go on a rant against Islam, since I was never a Muslim, nor do I know much of anything about it.

on the other hand if you don't refute every religion with Christianity you sound paranoid and dilusional.
No. We're just addressing the argument given.

"My bible says that god hates fags."
"Your bible is wrong."

Is a little more on target and less like a fire hose than responding:
"You bible and every other religous texts not mentioned here are wrong."

Why would anyone do that?

I do not, and could not, discredit Christian Philosophy, but I have no problem discrediting Christians who, in the name of God, use their religion to judge and condemn.

While the Bible tells us not to judge people, it also says that we should not let wrongs go unnoticed. I can't tell someone that the murder tehy committed was wrong? Sorry, I don't buy that.

Well...the only thing I've got is this...


I'm an athiest, and I like boys and girls.


And part of the reason I don't follow religion is because my beliefs are NOT supported by ANY religion.

I refute any organized religion in which I'm condemned for ANY of my personal belifes....


yeah. that's all I got.
You have an anti-religion that amounts to a sort of religion because to be an athiest you have to have faith that there is no god. Therefore it could be said that you belong to the religion that supports your beliefs :p

Well there are many reasons. But for me it's simple. I was taught that it was supposed to be abou inclusion and not exclusion.

If Christians didn't treat them like crap, then there would probably be more respect for it.

As one Priest told me. "The Bible is supposed to help you live your life. It's not for you to tell other people how to live their lives."

I have know some exceptional people that were gay. I have met some gay people that were bastards.

I have know some exceptional people that were Christians. I have met some Christians that were bastards.

The world would be a better place if people only worried about their own "souls."

Simple. To me the bible is not the "authoritive book on life and spirit" and I don't appreciate any one trying to make me live by it. You'd squawk too if someone tried to make you live by a religious book you don't believe in. I don't want to live by biblical law anymore than you want to live by Sharia.
You bring up an interesting point, but my point is that you fail in denouning all world cultures along with Biblical law... that doesn't come across as progressive it comes off as ignorance.

on the other hand if you don't refute every religion with Christianity you sound paranoid and dilusional.

I will say right now, that every religion going right now is shit. Every major religion has undergone centuries of complete reconstruction by those in power in order to maintain their own power. Their original premises may have been just fine, but major modern organized religion does not even come close to resembling its roots.

With that said, I generally concentrate on the Christian hypocricy of loving your neighbor as long as they are just like you, simply because they are the ones that I generally encounter.

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."
Hah. Best quote ever :D :D

Basically, to put it simply, because there are no Bhuddists (or really any non-bible readers) in D.C. making laws about homosexuality.

Slavery: yes, there were rules taid out to govern the practice, hence endorsing it. But the practice was much different than we generally conceive of slavery. A person couldn't be made to work more than 7 years, masters werre supposed to give them much better treatment than is the norm, and there was no ethinc element to it. On the whole, a lot different than we're used to. Also, there were divorce laws as well. Jesus denounced those later, and said that those were given becasue God new that people would do it anyway. The same could be said about slavery.

Polygamy: stating that it existed does not constitute an endorsement.

Incest: again, it existed, but that doesn't make it right. It states in the Law that incest was wrong.

Brutal punishments: yep. Wrong was taken much more seriously then.

Actually, freeing them every jubilee (7 years) was only required for Hebrew slaves. Non-Hbrews could be held indefinitely. If you took proprety from another Hebrew to pay a debt, it went back after seven years.

Well there are many reasons. But for me it's simple. I was taught that it was supposed to be abou inclusion and not exclusion.

If Christians didn't treat them like crap, then there would probably be more respect for it.

As one Priest told me. "The Bible is supposed to help you live your life. It's not for you to tell other people how to live their lives."

I have know some exceptional people that were gay. I have met some gay people that were bastards.

I have know some exceptional people that were Christians. I have met some Christians that were bastards.

The world would be a better place if people only worried about their own "souls."
Now wait a minute, if we aren't supposed to worry about anyone else why should we pay attention when gays think they are under apreciated in society? Your logic is backwards, I think if you really look deeper at the subject you'll find people are not "bastards" when they are concerned about others.

I don't think George Bush was using Muslim, Jewish, or Hindu beliefs when he decided to endorse a constitutional amendment denying certain rights to American citizens.
Dammit people, legal marriage is not a RIGHT. Irrespective of my personal beliefs on the subject, legal marriage is a privilege that holds sway over things like inheritance rights etc.. etc..

You bring up an interesting point, but my point is that you fail in denouning all world cultures along with Biblical law... that doesn't come across as progressive it comes off as ignorance.
Nobody ever tries to make laws governing my behavior based on Muslim or Hindu law. In this country, when someone decides I should not do something because it's against a religious book's tenets, it's always the bible they bring up.

I referenced the Bible because you did. You want to talk about the Mahabharata, we can.

I get sick of people using the Bible to beat others over the head with their bigotry and small-mindedness. In Acts Peter says, "God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean...I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation...."

And in Matthew it says,

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

I do not, and could not, discredit Christian Philosophy, but I have no problem discrediting Christians who, in the name of God, use their religion to judge and condemn.

Judging and Condemning are different from rejection of a philosophy... I never judged you and i didn't condemn you, you infered that i did... i said i do not agree. And there are far more offensive words for homosexuality in Arabic than abomination.

Dammit people, legal marriage is not a RIGHT. Irrespective of my personal beliefs on the subject, legal marriage is a privilege that holds sway over things like inheritance rights etc.. etc..

Please tell me about the other groups that have it forbidden to them. What exactly makes it not a right? There are a limited number of people the government will try to prevent me from marrying.
Someone of my own sex
A close relative (unless you live in Arkansas)
Someone who's already married
Someone under age

And for the record, your referenced endorsements are open for interperatation, especially polygomy, Solomon and David both were shameful after taking more than one wife.
Polygamy: stating that it existed does not constitute an endorsement.

Well, god certainly does not condemn Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Caleb, Gideon, Solomon, or David for having more than one wife. In fact, in the case of David, God would have given him more wives had he asked for them,

“This is what the LORD , the God of Israel, says: 'I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. I gave your master's house to you, and your master's wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more." (2 Sam. 12:7-8).

God gave David these wives as a BLESSING.

Zol, there are a lot of similarties in the responses you've received. Let me point out one glaring similarity.

Those who believe that homosexuality is just fine seem to believe that they are not the ones who started the argument. In fact, if they did start the argument, they would not have brought up religious texts. They would have started with "they're humans; I believe that humans should be treated equally." If somebody then proceeds to use a religious text to counter this argument, one does not need to debunk every religious text. One only needs to address the specific text that was (ab)used in the argument.

Please tell me about the other groups that have it forbidden to them. What exactly makes it not a right? There are a limited number of people the government will try to prevent me from marrying.
Someone of my own sex
A close relative (unless you live in Arkansas)
Someone who's already married
Someone under age
The question here to ask is what makes it a right. Now, if the ERA had passed back in the 70's? it would have been a right, but currently it is not. Unfair, certainly. But many things in life are unfair. I still say they should do away with the term marriage altogether and just use civil union for everything legality wise. Solve a whole hell of a lot of problems.

Well, god certainly does not condemn Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Caleb, Gideon, or David for having more than one wife.
Alright, there will be no mentioning of Jacob for the next two weeks. I have to read "The Red Tent" and I'm ready to visit stabbity death upon those who use it in my presence again :p

Because most people here are christian, were christian, or are at least reasonably aware of what it is. Most people feel more comfortable making criticisms about things they have some knowledge of, as opposed to something they know little about.
I would feel more justified criticizing Catholicism, as I used to be a Catholic. It would be kinda weird for me to go on a rant against Islam, since I was never a Muslim, nor do I know much of anything about it.
This is an honest answer, but I would encourage you to consider educating yourself on what other societies view homosexuality as. If you are familiar with Catholic and the general Christian view, why not consider other viewpoints. I know that we disagree, but why is it that you single me and my particular sect while the world in general is against your position.

The question here to ask is what makes it a right. Now, if the ERA had passed back in the 70's? it would have been a right, but currently it is not. Unfair, certainly. But many things in life are unfair. I still say they should do away with the term marriage altogether and just use civil union for everything legality wise. Solve a whole hell of a lot of problems.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I take it as an implied right. I we think about it we could probably both think of things we assume we get that aren't specifically given to us in writing. Perhaps it might help if we defined "right."

I do enjoy how, the vast majority, maybe all, (I won't check) of the actual quotes of religious texts are coming from the side opposing Christianity.

This is an honest answer, but I would encourage you to consider educating yourself on what other societies view homosexuality as. If you are familiar with Catholic and the general Christian view, why not consider other viewpoints. I know that we disagree, but why is it that you single me and my particular sect while the world in general is against your position.

That is proabably the best evidence it's not really about morals.

I know that we disagree, but why is it that you single me and my particular sect while the world in general is against your position.

"The world in general" is a pretty broad horizon of people there buddy.

I do enjoy how, the vast majority, maybe all, (I won't check) of the actual quotes of religious texts are coming from the side opposing Christianity.

Tsk, tsk. Not opposing Christianity. Opposing Christians who use their Christianity as a means of minding the affairs of others when they most assuredly have enough on their hands worrying about their own sin.

but why is it that you single me and my particular sect while the world in general is against your position.

The world in general has a pretty shady reputation on human rights, and generally organized religion is at the forefront or said abuses.

Tsk, tsk. Not opposing Christianity. Opposing Christians who use their Christianity as a means of minding the affairs of others when they most assuredly have enough on their hands worrying about their own sin.

Opposing generally held Christian views, and the modern organized Christian religion, is what I was referring to.

Well, god certainly does not condemn Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Caleb, Gideon, Solomon, or David for having more than one wife. In fact, in the case of David, God would have given him more wives had he asked for them,

“This is what the LORD , the God of Israel, says: 'I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. I gave your master's house to you, and your master's wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more." (2 Sam. 12:7-8).

God gave David these wives as a BLESSING.
Again, the point of debate is not your adeptness at pointing out Bible references that taken out of context support your view... the point of debate here is to come to grips with the fact that you are not true to your own standards of equallity when you single out Christians that disagree with you strongly as biggots and pre-judging individuals.

Again, the point of debate is not your adeptness at pointing out Bible references that taken out of context support your view... the point of debate here is to come to grips with the fact that you are not true to your own standards of equallity when you single out Christians that disagree with you strongly as biggots and pre-judging individuals.

I think it has been more then pointed out to you why that is. Get off your soap box and accept the fact that Christians "cast the first stone" and put homosexuals on the defensive. That's it, in black and white, the answer to your question. Don't force your religion on someone if you don't expect themto get angry about it.

Again, the point of debate is not your adeptness at pointing out Bible references that taken out of context support your view... the point of debate here is to come to grips with the fact that you are not true to your own standards of equallity when you single out Christians that disagree with you strongly as biggots and pre-judging individuals.

I'm going to have to say that I despise all bigots, no matter what they use to justify their hate.

You have an anti-religion that amounts to a sort of religion because to be an athiest you have to have faith that there is no god. Therefore it could be said that you belong to the religion that supports your beliefs :p


nope. I've been over this on numerous occasions.


And (unfortunatluy) it falls to personal definition.

Any faith thus far has failed to give me reason to conform. Don't make the blanket statement that because I believe in not believing, I am a part of a religion. I said I don't believe in any faith that condemns my beliefs. Show me one that nurtures and I will. But since *I AM* the *ONLY ONE* who believes what I believe. I am an athiest.

That's like saying True Anarchy doesn't exist.

The world in general has a pretty shady reputation on human rights, and generally organized religion is at the forefront or said abuses.
You'd be scared at how much the Buddha, Confucus, and even Jesus Christ agree with you, in fact I tend to agree with that statement. That is the general view of the world almost world over, but Homosexuals not bound by recognized marital bonds of single partner relationships seem pretty small when compared with real human suffering.

nope. I've been over this on numerous occasions.


And (unfortunatluy) it falls to personal definition.

Any faith thus far has failed to give me reason to conform. Don't make the blanket statement that because I believe in not believing, I am a part of a religion. I said I don't believe in any faith that condemns my beliefs. Show me one that nurtures and I will. But since *I AM* the *ONLY ONE* who believes what I believe. I am an athiest.

That's like saying True Anarchy doesn't exist.
He is merely stating that Atheism is a faith based philosophy of life, you just happen to have faith that man is a statistical anomole.

Does religion necessarily override logic, and personal morality:

"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."
~Buddha

good and benefit of one and all

Accepting homosexuality will be beneficial for homosexuals. Would it do others harm.

-----------------------------

On a Bush bashing tone:

George bush is a religious fanatic, a fundamentalist, strongly believe things should be done his way and imposing his upon those with different ways.

So how can the perspective of a fanatice be used to represent the church as a whole.

Secondly, literature is not everything, church (well at least the R.C church) has teachings and ideas that are refined, so not ass to be obsolete anachronisms.

Again, the point of debate is not your adeptness at pointing out Bible references that taken out of context support your view... the point of debate here is to come to grips with the fact that you are not true to your own standards of equallity when you single out Christians that disagree with you strongly as biggots and pre-judging individuals.

You know this is a rather interesting approach. The poor oppressed Christian. I have seen this approach more and more and wondered who started it until I read the Vatican wan'ts the UN to declare "Christianophopia" wrong.

Many Christians I don't mind. The ones I will "oppress" are the ones that harass and or terrorize women over the horrible choice of Abortion. The ones that seek to censor radio and TV. The ones that seek to ban books and subjects in school. The ones that expect that everyone else has to live the way they live. The ones that preech hatred.

It's a fact of life. The bad Christians give the good ones a bad name. The bad Muslims give the good ones a bad name.

What I really want to know is why homosexuals and/or their agendas sympethtic followers ignorantly dismiss the Bible as an authoratative book on life and spirit...

The Christian Bible is a pretty big book - nearly 800,000 words - written by many people. The Bible and its many passages can be interpreted in a variety of ways.

Some people do dismiss the Bible as an authoritative book, just as I'm sure you dismiss the Qur'an, the Mahabharata, and the Tao-te-ching as not having the authority others may attribute to them. However, for me, it is not the book being dismissed, but rather the bigoted interpretations of people who read the book with prejudice and a predetermined agenda.

At one time, not too long ago, the Bible was used as an argument against inter-racial dating. In fact I believe Bob Jones and Liberty Universities still invoke the Bible in their opposition to inter-racial couples. In antebellum America the Bible was used to justify slavery. People have used the Bible to justify spouse abuse and beating their children. The Bible has been used to condemn the study of the universe and to assert the earth is flat.

Therefore, when someone starts welding the Bible as part of their holy crusade to tell me what is right or wrong I keep in mind just how frequently similar moral advocates have been wrong in the past.

You'd be scared at how much the Buddha, Confucus, and even Jesus Christ agree with you, in fact I tend to agree with that statement. That is the general view of the world almost world over, but Homosexuals not bound by recognized marital bonds of single partner relationships seem pretty small when compared with real human suffering.

The magnitude of the injustice is irrelevant.

I would not usually join a flame war but I have noticed a trend in these posts to dwell on the controversy of homosexuality...

What controversy?



We all have our sides on the issue, and we have our reasons, and on this issue many resonable people disagree... i hope that to everyone i can come across as reasonable...

I cannot pretend I don't have a stance on the issue, but what i don't want is to be ignored and cast aside for that stance. I do not side with Homosexual "Rights" activists... the reasons are my own and I don't care to discuss them... The only reason that I give my stance is because the topic on which i do want do discuss is not understood without that pretext...


*makes note*



What I really want to know is why homosexuals and/or their agendas sympethtic followers ignorantly dismiss the Bible as an authoratative book on life and spirit, and yet wouldn't dare try and refute the any other religious text or religion.

Uhm... because its quoted out of context, its used in parts to justify a huge number of things by mostly ignorant people who have rarely ever read it, let alone looked at what it says in the context it was written.

Simply put, when I meet someone who is following all the laws set down in the Bible, then I'll listen to them. Until then - you're selectivists, which makes you hypocritical. And I am very well aware of what Jesus said about hypocrites; are you?



I just want to know if Homosexuals realize that Christianity is just one of the many religions in the world, and I have yet to hear of one single recognized practiced religious philosophy that endorses open practiced sodomy. I know that Christianity is most practiced in Western culture but why is it the only one that is singled out as bigotry when it states its views about the issue.

Please... just respond with answers and not the typical "flame-war" one-liners

looking forward to serious debate... keep it civil

Lets see.. Buddhism... Taoism... Wicca... Shinto... we could go through most of the Native American beliefs... Eskimo...

Most people don't care. Its your knickers in a twist - which is really laughable to me, as I believe you're coming back as what you fear most, to learn that after all, they're just people and there is no "them" only a greater "us".


Let's look at another of your posts:


Judging and Condemning are different from rejection of a philosophy... I never judged you and i didn't condemn you, you infered that i did... i said i do not agree. And there are far more offensive words for homosexuality in Arabic than abomination.

Hate to tell you this (well, no, I don't), but by your stance of "THEY'RE WRONG!" you are judging and condemning in the first post referenced. Which makes your stance in violation of Biblical Authority. As you state the Bible is an "authoratative book on life and spirit", that makes you a hypocrite, logically:


Hypocrite: a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

If the Bible is an authoritative book AND it says "Judge not" AND you are judging someone THEN you are a hypocrite.

I'm going to have to say that I despise all bigots, no matter what they use to justify their hate.
Equating disagreement with hatred is simply ignorant, and people justifying their position with that statement are simply not thinking.

I didn't read any other posts. Don't care.
Homosexual people are completly and utterly normal. The fact that they like the same sex is the only "deviation". Many, many homosexuals are Christian. The fact that their faith somewhat condems them doesn't particularly matter. They are entitled to their beliefs and many of them believe in God.
So meh.

Again, the point of debate is not your adeptness at pointing out Bible references that taken out of context support your view...

Ok, then do point out the Biblical references - in the context in which they were originally written - which support your view on homosexuality.

I'll save you time - there aren't any. None. Zip. Zero. Nada.


the point of debate here is to come to grips with the fact that you are not true to your own standards of equallity when you single out Christians that disagree with you strongly as biggots and pre-judging individuals.

A bigot is a bigot. And someone who states "BIBLE IS AUTHORITY!" then violates the rules set down inside the book is a hypocrite. For that matter, anyone who states anything is "THE AUTHORITY!" then disobeys is a hypocrite. It's pretty simple.

Equating disagreement with hatred is simply ignorant, and people justifying their position with that statement are simply not thinking.

If you simply disagreed with homosexuals, you would voice your opinion, choose not to endorse them, go on about your life, and let them go on about their lives.

It takes the motivation of hate to actually work as hard as Christians have worked, to ban people from an thing as mundane as legal marriage.

What controversy?




*makes note*




Uhm... because its quoted out of context, its used in parts to justify a huge number of things by mostly ignorant people who have rarely ever read it, let alone looked at what it says in the context it was written.

Simply put, when I meet someone who is following all the laws set down in the Bible, then I'll listen to them. Until then - you're selectivists, which makes you hypocritical. And I am very well aware of what Jesus said about hypocrites; are you?




Lets see.. Buddhism... Taoism... Wicca... Shinto... we could go through most of the Native American beliefs... Eskimo...

Most people don't care. Its your knickers in a twist - which is really laughable to me, as I believe you're coming back as what you fear most, to learn that after all, they're just people and there is no "them" only a greater "us".


Let's look at another of your posts:



Hate to tell you this (well, no, I don't), but by your stance of "THEY'RE WRONG!" you are judging and condemning in the first post referenced. Which makes your stance in violation of Biblical Authority. As you state the Bible is an "authoratative book on life and spirit", that makes you a hypocrite, logically:



If the Bible is an authoritative book AND it says "Judge not" AND you are judging someone THEN you are a hypocrite.

I simply recognized the Christianity as one of the worlds major religions, and if you are measuring me to its' standards than please consider this before you make a biased conclusion.

The Judging and Condemning in the Bible is referencing the idea that a Christian should recognize that "All have sinned and come short of God's glory", also Jesus charges Christians to go throughout the world professing their faith in him.

Judging and condemning a Homosexual would be publicly and openly regarding him less of a person because of a sinful nature that Christianity states we all possess.

I don't think I'm a hypocrit but then you are entitled to interperate anything anyway you want to, just understand that you are considered ignorant and childish when doing so.

You must have missed my post before, so I will requote:

"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."
~Buddha

If you simply disagreed with homosexuals, you would voice your opinion, choose not to endorse them, go on about your life, and let them go on about their lives.

It takes the motivation of hate to actually work as hard as Christians have worked, to ban people from an thing as mundane as legal marriage.

Are you so sure that it is hatred of people that motivates Christians to live persuaded that an institution as integral to their beliefs as marriage is sacred. I think you need not only to be educated on World views of homosexuality, you need education on Christian worldview.

Are you so sure that it is hatred of people that motivates Christians to live persuaded that an institution as integral to their beliefs as marriage is sacred. I think you need not only to be educated on World views of homosexuality, you need education on Christian worldview.

I am pretty sure most homosexuals would be more than happy with legally recognized civil unions. They don't need to be recognized by a religion to be given basic human rights, like being able to see your significant other when they are on their death bed.

I am pretty sure most homosexuals would be more than happy with legally recognized civil unions. They don't need to be recognized by a religion to be given basic human rights, like being able to see your significant other when they are on their death bed.

Or be protected by marital laws. I know of a couple that split and one has basically squatted in their home. The other wants it sold and the money split. They have been a lawsuit for 2 years and no end in sight. Nothing in place for them to solve it legally.

Then there is the son that was disowned by his Christian Family. He dies of aids and the family swams in to take everything(he was wealthy).

Are you so sure that it is hatred of people that motivates Christians to live persuaded that an institution as integral to their beliefs as marriage is sacred. I think you need not only to be educated on World views of homosexuality, you need education on Christian worldview.

My grandfather was a preacher and I attended a Christian school from grades K-6. I attended church regularly until the age of 15. I have a keen interest in religious discourse. I don't need an education on the Christian worldview.

You need an education on Jesus's world view. He preached that we are all sinners, so that it would be hypocritical to not accept someone due to their sins.

I am quite positive it is hatred that motivates the modern Christian to prohibit the actions of others. There is nothing sacred about modern day marriage in America, and the constant work of Christians to prohibit people from engaging in something that would have nothing to do with their religion could only be motivated by hate. It certainly isn't motivated by love.

You must have missed my post before, so I will requote:

"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."
~Buddha
Nice quote, this is what i was looking for...
Your highlighted quote is profound, I'll give you the Christian rebutle...
A Christian is charged to test everything against God's standard which is the Bible, and flee what is evil, and embrace what is found to be good, and being careful never to confuse other christians be fully pursuaded in his or her beliefs on good and evil. Now a Christian is given discretion when they cannot be fully pursuaded in their interperatation of good or evil, and as long as another christian is not tempted into sin by any given disgretion (ie: offering a glass of wine to another who is prone to Alcoholism while sitting at dinner) than there is where the individual is given freedom to decide for his or herself based on their interperatation.

Put simply, a Christian decides what is right or wrong based on what he or she interperates from the Bible, and where there is disagreement on interperatation is of no consequence because as a Christian one is forgiven once for all for all his sins.

Or be protected by marital laws. I know of a couple that split and one has basically squatted in their home. The other wants it sold and the money split. They have been a lawsuit for 2 years and no end in sight. Nothing in place for them to solve it legally.

Then there is the son that was disowned by his Christian Family. He dies of aids and the family swams in to take everything(he was wealthy).

Exactly my point. Homosexuals don't care if a religion backs their union (unless of course they are of that religion) they just want their rights protected.

P.S. That second example is terrible. How could anyone do that to their own child?

My grandfather was a preacher and I attended a Christian school from grades K-6. I attended church regularly until the age of 15. I have a keen interest in religious discourse. I don't need an education on the Christian worldview.

You need an education on Jesus's world view. He preached that we are all sinners, so that it would be hypocritical to not accept someone due to their sins.

I am quite positive it is hatred that motivates the modern Christian to prohibit the actions of others. There is nothing sacred about modern day marriage in America, and the constant work of Christians to prohibit people from engaging in something that would have nothing to do with their religion could only be motivated by hate. It certainly isn't motivated by love.

I have actually used that quote before on this post, and i heartily agree with the principle that we are all sinners, and i especially do agree that marriage as it is practiced today in America is not sacred to most people, even those professing to be Christian. But I would restrain even the thought that hatred is the motivation behind the Christian agenda, because if the agenda is motivated by Hatred is ceases to be Christian and is perverted.

And as for motivation for the love of God is thier reason for their opposition, any Christian who loves God in truth and is convinced that Homosexuality is wrong for them would not wish to give knowing support to a flagrant sin in their eyes.

you simply do not understand Christianity

And as for motivation for the love of God is thier reason for their opposition, any Christian who loves God in truth and is convinced that Homosexuality is wrong for them would not wish to give knowing support to a flagrant sin in their eyes.

you simply do not understand Christianity
I take it you won't be sitting down to share a meal with any tax collectors.

\any Christian who loves God in truth and is convinced that Homosexuality is wrong for them would not wish to give knowing support to a flagrant sin in their eyes.

you simply do not understand Christianity

What was that thing you said about biggotry? You just moved yourself into the camp you are complaining about.

People, People....

I know that Homosexuals do not care who they get recognition from in a civil union or marriage, that isn't the point. The point of my arguement was that in general Christians can't betray their own beleifs and satisfy what they view as a sin. Just as anyone who believes in any cause by virtue of their beleifs wouldn't support anything that gave right to an action they believe is wrong.

The person i was writing to says Christians are purely motivated out of spite for the other side and i was letting him know that no one who is truely Christian is motivated by hate.

The person i was writing to says Christians are purely motivated out of spite for the other side and i was letting him know that no one who is truely Christian is motivated by hate.

And I agree with you completely. That is why I feel that, of the entire Christian population, maybe 10-15% do qualify. You do not qualify.

you simply do not understand Christianity


woah woah...


in everyone's defense.


I WILL stand behind my beliefe that everyone's perception of ideals/morals/beliefs are their own.


Because a person does not view religion in *your* light...does not mean they don't interperate it in their own...

no one who is truely Christian is motivated by hate.
According to them they are truly christian. According to you they are not. What makes your viewpoint anymore valid than theirs? Before you say it, they also justify everything the say with bible quotes, so that pony doesn't float. They are christians, you just don't like to acknowledge that.

People, People....

I know that Homosexuals do not care who they get recognition from in a civil union or marriage, that isn't the point. The point of my arguement was that in general Christians can't betray their own beleifs and satisfy what they view as a sin. Just as anyone who believes in any cause by virtue of their beleifs wouldn't support anything that gave right to an action they believe is wrong.

The person i was writing to says Christians are purely motivated out of spite for the other side and i was letting him know that no one who is truely Christian is motivated by hate.

Yup many of you conviently forget that judge not lesson.

Homosexuality is a point. It is the fact that many Christians wish to exclude people because they don't fall into a nice mold that everybody is expected to live. Never mind the fact they might not even be Christians.

Show me any other Religion that has a site like godhatesfags.com. So yes. there are many Christians that hate and are filled with spite.

And I agree with you completely. That is why I feel that, of the entire Christian population, maybe 10-15% do qualify. You do not qualify.


lmao. You either.


You aren't god (yeah. No. I dun spell THAT *G*od....) your priveladge to pass judgement is equal to the rest of the world...



oooo Ima bad noob.

People, People....

I know that Homosexuals do not care who they get recognition from in a civil union or marriage, that isn't the point. The point of my arguement was that in general Christians can't betray their own beleifs and satisfy what they view as a sin. Just as anyone who believes in any cause by virtue of their beleifs wouldn't support anything that gave right to an action they believe is wrong.

The person i was writing to says Christians are purely motivated out of spite for the other side and i was letting him know that no one who is truely Christian is motivated by hate.

If the problem is that they can't allow other people to sin, homosexuality is the lest of their worries. There's tons of better causes for them to get riled up about. Being gay isn't even in the big seven (which are violated constantly) so yeah, big deal others are sinning, how about they worry about their own priests and what they're doing with the alter boys (hate to hit below the belt like that, but this guys whining is getting annoying).

lmao. You either.


You aren't god (yeah. No. I dun spell THAT *G*od....) your priveladge to pass judgement is equal to the rest of the world...



oooo Ima bad noob.

You are damn right I am not a Christian, and I am no better than whoever this person is I am responding to. I just prefer the gutter, whereas he prefers the pulpit. I'd like to see him step down off of it, and lose the self-righteousness.

According to them they are truly christian. According to you they are not. What makes your viewpoint anymore valid than theirs? Before you say it, they also justify everything the say with bible quotes, so that pony doesn't float. They are christians, you just don't like to acknowledge that.

Muslims do the same thing. The terrorists aren't Muslims you know.

It's intresting but I don't find them saying there are bad Christians/Muslims.

I guess it's easier to simply say they aren't really.....

What was that thing you said about biggotry? You just moved yourself into the camp you are complaining about.
how so? i didn't say anything but this, that if a Christian thinks something is a sin (which is not "bigotry" it is simply basing right or wrong for themself using the Bible) that christian will not support any participation in that sin.

Where is the "Hatred" in that statement, listen if someone is gay, this doesn't mean that the Christian community disgriminates against that individual, they jusy don't condone that persons actions. It's not judging the person, it's seeing what someone does, reading the Bible and concluding either good or evil, and interperatation is everything.

Christians are the most arrogant people when it comes to their religion where I live. They seem to think that what imaginary friend they choose to have should affect me and that society should listen to them.

If any other religious person acts like that, then he'll get a tongue lashing from me as well. I won't discriminate. All religions are inane, and I can't for the life of me understand how they can be so dimwitted to believe in something so utterly stupid. But I will not condemn them or seek to affect their rights to believe in sky wizards. It's only when they use that belief as a justification for something that affects me that I will let them know exactly how idiotic they are being.

Muslims do the same thing. The terrorists aren't Muslims you know.

It's intresting but I don't find them saying there are bad Christians/Muslims.

I guess it's easier to simply say they aren't really.....
Good point Black Forrest... maybe they are just "bad" -insert religion here-... i prefer to lock them out of the ideals they profess if they make a blatent contradiction... It's not fitting to associate an evil interperatation of any religious beleif with the doctrine it perverts....
i suppose there are false prophets of more than just Islam and Chrisianity though, that was kinda my point with the topic post.

I will say up front that I am a Christian. I have had several Homosexual friends over the years and I still support them. Make no mistake I do not endorse or even agree with their lifestyles but I am also a student of humanity. If you look at the historical behaviour of humanity you will find patterns. It was common places for centuries for a man to have multiple wives, this by it's very nature means that the women were more often than not forced to turn to each other for the comforts he could not supply to everyone of them whenever they wanted. And given the homes of the time, anything from a 1 room tent to a castle, they ended up sleeping in a communal bed so even when he was with one woman the other(s) were still likely to be there. So by the very genetic coding inherint to women they are more likely to be attracted to other women even if it is only visually. This is a major part of the reason that women genetically want to be wanted for their bodies and are so critical of other women. The other side of the equation shows that gay males only show up in societies that are either; completely male or in decline. Given that our society is definitly not all male, thank God, then this helps us understand patterns that are showing up in society today. Lets just hope that we can learn from the mistakes of the past and find our way back on track.

PS: NO I am NOT saying that gays are the reason that a society declines. The society is ussually already in decline or peaked before they show up in any numbers.

You are damn right I am not a Christian, and I am no better than whoever this person is I am responding to. I just prefer the gutter, whereas he prefers the pulpit. I'd like to see him step down off of it, and lose the self-righteousness.


Ohhhh I see...so then...when you dictate to whom is a "good christian" and "who isn't" even though you your statement "damn straight I'm no christian" Pretty much puts you in the position to...well. Have NO say in the matter...ESPECIALLY when you aren't even a member of the faith.


EDIT: before I get defensive...I'll ask you to specify who your asking to "step down from the pulpit..."

Christians are the most arrogant people when it comes to their religion where I live. They seem to think that what imaginary friend they choose to have should affect me and that society should listen to them.

If any other religious person acts like that, then he'll get a tongue lashing from me as well. I won't discriminate. All religions are inane, and I can't for the life of me understand how they can be so dimwitted to believe in something so utterly stupid. But I will not condemn them or seek to affect their rights to believe in sky wizards. It's only when they use that belief as a justification for something that affects me that I will let them know exactly how idiotic they are being.

well i guess we are all blessed to be on the same planet with someone humble enough his view is bigger and better than all human civilization...

tell me what is more boastful, to have faith in any god, or to cast them all away as equals saying "My Personal Knowledge Is More Trust Worthy Than An Infinite Majority That Disagrees With Me"

sorry I have broken reasonable debate with this comment... but such disregard for other opinions shouldn't be tolerated whether or not one agrees with the premise or not.

Ohhhh I see...so then...when you dictate to whom is a "good christian" and "who isn't" even though you your statement "damn straight I'm no christian" Pretty much puts you in the position to...well. Have NO say in the matter...ESPECIALLY when you aren't even a member of the faith.


EDIT: before I get defensive...I'll ask you to specify who your asking to "step down from the pulpit..."

I was not referring to you, I was referring to Zol Hader, he has told me several times that I don't understand Christianity or world viewpoints.

You do not have to subscribe to a religion to understand its tenets and know its teaching. If anything, my distance from Christianity may provide me with a more objective view of what would constitute a good christian.

Christians are the most arrogant people when it comes to their religion where I live. They seem to think that what imaginary friend they choose to have should affect me and that society should listen to them.

If any other religious person acts like that, then he'll get a tongue lashing from me as well. I won't discriminate. All religions are inane, and I can't for the life of me understand how they can be so dimwitted to believe in something so utterly stupid. But I will not condemn them or seek to affect their rights to believe in sky wizards. It's only when they use that belief as a justification for something that affects me that I will let them know exactly how idiotic they are being.
This just shows your own ignorance. Many people feel small when they look at the universe; however no one wants to feel insignificant next to a being as powerful as God-by any name.

Unfortunately Vittos Ordination is correct. There are far too many people that claim to understand other religions as well as their own and yet know nothing about even their own. People like this do more harm to the truth than they help it. Glad to see that Vittos Ordination has studied religions. I will not push Christianity on anyone but I will encourage you to challenge your own beliefs (including Christians) and look at all religions. This is the only way that you will come to understand what you believe and become solidly based in it.

If the problem is that they can't allow other people to sin, homosexuality is the lest of their worries. There's tons of better causes for them to get riled up about. Being gay isn't even in the big seven (which are violated constantly) so yeah, big deal others are sinning, how about they worry about their own priests and what they're doing with the alter boys (hate to hit below the belt like that, but this guys whining is getting annoying).
Ah you forget, since everyone sins and all fall short of God's glory, therefore all sin is equally condenming, there are those in christian circles who do think that there are sins that are more condenming than others, which is why they wouldn't seek the death penalty against petty theft...

the point is just because there are worse sins doesn't mean you would disregard the little sins as sins... thats like saying that terriers aren't dogs because they are smaller than great dane's.

I was not referring to you, I was referring to Zol Hader, he has told me several times that I don't understand Christianity or world viewpoints.

You do not have to subscribe to a religion to understand its tenets and know its teaching. If anything, my distance from Christianity may provide me with a more objective view of what would constitute a good christian.
I keep telling you that you don't understand because you don't... I don't care if your father was a preacher, i don't care if you have spent 90 years in a catholic monostary...

Anyone who says that the majority of Christians are motivated by hatred in the pursuit of their Christian agenda doesn't understand it...

I keep telling you that you don't understand because you don't... I don't care if your father was a preacher, i don't care if you have spent 90 years in a catholic monostary...

Anyone who says that the majority of Christians are motivated by hatred in the pursuit of their Christian agenda doesn't understand it...

No, I said that those who are motivated by hate do not follow the tenets of Christianity. And that modern organized Christianity is dominated by hate, the majority of Christians do not follow the tenets of Christianity.

You are damn right I am not a Christian, and I am no better than whoever this person is I am responding to. I just prefer the gutter, whereas he prefers the pulpit. I'd like to see him step down off of it, and lose the self-righteousness.
Listen, I would rather be wrong and made a fool than be right and live as one.

ah well.


I'll stand by my belief that neither of you have the right to dictate eachothers "right to understanding". If you aren't a christian, you don't understand, but if you are you're completely biased.

So how's about Ya'll just respect the fact that neither of you agree....



hmm?


:fluffle:

Listen, I would rather be wrong and made a fool than be right and live as one.

What?

ah well.


I'll stand by my belief that neither of you have the right to dictate eachothers "right to understanding". If you aren't a christian, you don't understand, but if you are you're completely biased.

So how's about Ya'll just respect the fact that neither of you agree....



hmm?


:fluffle:

No, I won't respect his views as long as he doesn't respect mine or those of others.

Listen Everyone Thank You!!

there were a lot of great answers to my original question... i tried to get an honest answer out of each respondant... if i didn't respond directly with you it was either because i missed your post or because you agreed with me to the point where no response or reinforcement was needed...

im glad that i could finally discuss this issue because it has bothered me whenever i read broad generalizations about Christianity that simply aren't true... im going to repost sometime during the day so we can get more on the subject...

thanks for being civil, it's a compliment to the users on nation states that 91 users could read this post and not one of them get inflametory ... agian thanks...

Anyone who says that the Bible endorses slavery or incest is either completely misguided or can be interpreted as attempting to "flame-bait."

The Bible is, for the most part, a historical record of ancient times. Its authenticity is doubted only by those revisionist historians who choose to cloud, disregard, and confuse. Over 63% of all locations mentioned in the Old Testament have been discovered and verified; over 98% of all locations mentioned in the New Testament have been discovered and verified (and yes, that does indeed include the tomb of Lazarus).

As to its alleged bigotry, one might as well suppose (as many have done, I think) that George Washington was evil because he owned slaves; one might as well suppose that just because there are ignorant people who believe that the Bible claims that the world's population was brought about through incest, then all must be evil or tainted in some way; one might as well suppose that just because Sir Isaac Newton lived in an age where there weren't quite as many "feminazis" then as there are now, that he was blatantly unfair and an ardent sexist and therefore worthy only of disregard.

As to homosexuality (which is not inherent, as many would like to suppose), the Bible takes a very clear position on it - it is immoral, according to those ancient authors. Personally, I agree with them, not because I am religious or anything in particular other than a philosopher.

As for its credibility above other religious doctrines, I recognize that this is neither the time nor the place to digress into a debate on that topic - the main reason why Christianity is knocked more than any other religion is obviosuly because it is more pronounced and widespread than any other religious doctrine. It also flies right in the face of the modern way of life, which includes such unseemly things as unabashed sodomy, the murder of unborn humans, and a corrupt school system which would have a truly nutty and entirely ill-contrived philosophy passed off as absolute and unbreakable science.

That, my dear friends, is the reason why Christianity and the Bible are put down more than any other religion and/or religious text.

According to them they are truly christian. According to you they are not. What makes your viewpoint anymore valid than theirs? Before you say it, they also justify everything the say with bible quotes, so that pony doesn't float. They are christians, you just don't like to acknowledge that.
Holding all Christians accountable for those who would pervert the Faith is like holding us responsible for the Politically motivated Crusades. Similair comparrisons have been made for the entire Muslim Faith holding them all held unjustly responsible for the actions of a cult of zealots who are out to profit from other peoples death and misery. Only those who actually follow the original Faith can claim to be of that Faith all others are a spin-off or cult of the original.

If you want to just take bible quotes out of context and use them to backup any view point you want then the homosexual community must be right when they say that Jesus was gay ecause he "loved" his Disciples. Well at least until you look at the original text in the Greek where they have different words for love and you discover that it was agappa (sp?) love or a brotherly love.

Just becauase you say you are from the Hood and talk the talk doesn't make the white boy a "brotha" does it?

It also flies right in the face of the modern way of life, which includes such unseemly things as unabashed sodomy, the murder of unborn humans, and a corrupt school system which would have a truly nutty and entirely ill-contrived philosophy passed off as absolute and unbreakable science.


THIS is the reason christianity has faced so much resistance as of late.

I agree with Omega the Black.

What?
It means that I would rather be christian and live in a fantasy world than live in your reality that you yourself call a gutter... because if hope in the Bible's teachings is living in a fantasy than that fantasy seems better than your inevetible reality...

If you want the orgin of this idea read C.S. Lewis' The Silver Chair ... in it a character named Puddleglumm says basically the same thing when he is mocked for having a faith in something beyond life or death...

THIS is the reason christianity has faced so much resistance as of late.
but we will fight the resistence to our beleifs until such time as God takes us from the position to do so... Which i hope won't be for a long long time...

Props Omega, say it like it is...

You know, all this arguing about christianity is all very well, but I think you people are missing the point.

The author of this thread said they wanted to start a serious debate about homosexuality. However, noone is going to be able to do that if you consider this a religius debate.

This is NOT a religious debate. Morality does NOT depend on the Christian religion or any other. Trying to justify your stance on homosexuality by refuting or bowing to the christian religion is pretty much a waste of time.

Yes, religions, Christianity in particular, haven't been particularly tolerant of homosexuality. This fact is not about homosexuality, it is about religion.

You can include religion in your arguments against homosexuality if this inclusion does not cause fallacies and over-assumption, but you CANNOT say it is the final word, or even the main one. You've got to give evolution, socio-economics, psychology, human nature and philosophies not relating to religion equal room in the debate.

Society today is pretty multiculti and likely to get even more so, which means religion will be increasingly a matter of personal choice - thus when you say "I am Christian" what you are really saying is "My moral system is based on that in the Christian bible, and I believe it is dictated by god."

You know, all this arguing about christianity is all very well, but I think you people are missing the point.

The author of this thread said they wanted to start a serious debate about homosexuality. However, noone is going to be able to do that if you consider this a religius debate.

This is NOT a religious debate. Morality does NOT depend on the Christian religion or any other. Trying to justify your stance on homosexuality by refuting or bowing to the christian religion is pretty much a waste of time.

Yes, religions, Christianity in particular, haven't been particularly tolerant of homosexuality. This fact is not about homosexuality, it is about religion.

You can include religion in your arguments against homosexuality if this inclusion does not cause fallacies and over-assumption, but you CANNOT say it is the final word, or even the main one. You've got to give evolution, socio-economics, psychology, human nature and philosophies not relating to religion equal room in the debate.

Society today is pretty multiculti and likely to get even more so, which means religion will be increasingly a matter of personal choice - thus when you say "I am Christian" what you are really saying is "My moral system is based on that in the Christian bible, and I believe it is dictated by god."

I think I have oversought a straight answer out of those whome with i have been side tracked...

but still I would say that my point was actually the opposite of your conclusion... My point is simply that defenders of the Homosexual "Rights" Movement are clearly not incorporating religion or religious philosophy of any kind with their agenda which is hurting their cause...

It means that I would rather be christian and live in a fantasy world than live in your reality that you yourself call a gutter... because if hope in the Bible's teachings is living in a fantasy than that fantasy seems better than your inevetible reality...

If you want the orgin of this idea read C.S. Lewis' The Silver Chair ... in it a character named Puddleglumm says basically the same thing when he is mocked for having a faith in something beyond life or death...

Maybe you should try concentrating on life instead of the afterlife, and then you might see that the gutter isn't so bad after all.

Maybe you should try concentrating on life instead of the afterlife, and then you might see that the gutter isn't so bad after all.
Maybe life wasn't meant to be lived in a gutter at all, and maybe you are simply settling for less because it is to much of a stretch to achieve a better outlook... Look just because your Atheist doesn't mean that life has to be any less aspirational ... I know plenty of Atheists and Agnostics who view life as the greatest miracle ever percieved by man...

And Furthermore, I'm not saying that I'm better for being Christian, I'm saying that no one ought to be in a gutter their whole life, as you put it. Man Nietche was less depressing than that...

Maybe life wasn't meant to be lived in a gutter at all, and maybe you are simply settling for less because it is to much of a stretch to achieve a better outlook... Look just because your Atheist doesn't mean that life has to be any less aspirational ... I know plenty of Atheists and Agnostics who view life as the greatest miracle ever percieved by man...

And Furthermore, I'm not saying that I'm better for being Christian, I'm saying that no one ought to be in a gutter their whole life, as you put it. Man Nietche was less depressing than that...

I am talking about the gutter in a strictly spiritual sense.

I am talking about the gutter in a strictly spiritual sense.
so am I