NationStates Jolt Archive

Why does it matter if homossexuality is natural? Since when does something occuring in nature give the green light for people to do it? Since when does the fact that something doesn't occur in nature mean that it is inherently wrong?

A quick list of things that are "natural" (meaning they occur in nature):

Mothers consuming their young
Marburg Virus
Cancer
Rape
Murder
Hurling Feces


And here are some things that are unnatural (meaning they don't occur in nature):

Penicillin (the practical uses of it, not its existence)
Cars
The Phantom of the Opera
Vodka
Surgery
X-Ray machines


A Quick Note: It may appear that I am "Gay-Bashing" here, but I am most certainly not. This is just a request to firgure out why the hell there is a debate over why homosexuality occurs in nature.

Oh, it doesn't actually matter one bit.

Except, people feel the need to justify their points of view, and whether something is "natural" tends to make a common latching point for that. Homosexuals will feel more justified in being homosexual if they believe it is natural to do so. Anti-homosexuals will feel more justified in hating homosexuals if they believe homosexuality is unnatural. So mainly these arguments are venting grounds where both sides can hate each other, because hate is natural.

Why does it matter if homossexuality is natural? Since when does something occuring in nature give the green light for people to do it? Since when does the fact that something doesn't occur in nature mean that it is inherently wrong?

A quick list of things that are "natural" (meaning they occur in nature):

Mothers consuming their young
Marburg Virus
Cancer
Rape
Murder
Hurling Feces


And here are some things that are unnatural (meaning they don't occur in nature):

Penicillin (the practical uses of it, not its existence)
Cars
The Phantom of the Opera
Vodka
Surgery
X-Ray machines


A Quick Note: It may appear that I am "Gay-Bashing" here, but I am most certainly not. This is just a request to firgure out why the hell there is a debate over why homosexuality occurs in nature.

I'm sure vodka must be more natural than murder.

Why do people seem to believe that man-made things are somehow unnatural? Are humans and the things they produce not a part of nature? If that is the case, maybe birds' nests and honey should be considered unnatural as well.

since its a perfectly legitimate CHOICE, no it doesnt matter if its natural or not

by which i mean

im not a lesbian but if one day i decide to have sex with a woman (who knows why, maybe im horny and shes hot and willing?) thats OK. nothing wrong with it. (outside of the part where im married of course)

it IS somehow innate in gay people to BE gay, it IS natural, but no it doesnt really matter that it is.

It doesn't matter, I just like to debate.

Why does it matter if homossexuality is natural? Since when does something occuring in nature give the green light for people to do it? Since when does the fact that something doesn't occur in nature mean that it is inherently wrong?

A quick list of things that are "natural" (meaning they occur in nature):

Mothers consuming their young
Marburg Virus
Cancer
Rape
Murder
Hurling Feces


And here are some things that are unnatural (meaning they don't occur in nature):

Penicillin (the practical uses of it, not its existence)
Cars
The Phantom of the Opera
Vodka
Surgery
X-Ray machines


A Quick Note: It may appear that I am "Gay-Bashing" here, but I am most certainly not. This is just a request to firgure out why the hell there is a debate over why homosexuality occurs in nature.
Exactly. The only reason I talk about whether homosexuality is "natural" is in response to the twits who say it's not. But they are also usually the same twits who claim the Earth itself does not exist because of natural forces alone, but rather than supernatural intervention MUST have occured to bring us into existence...for some reason, they try to use the "naturalness" of homosexuality in their arguments, even though they themselves reject nature.

Well, anti-homos tend to think along the lines of "Homosexuality is unnatural. That means people cause it. Which must mean it's the other gay people turning normal people gay. Therefore, gay people are evil and should not marry."

This, of course, is an exaggeration, but that's the general idea. By shooting down the "unnatural" bit, gay rights supporters have knocked down another half-assed argument.

Hurling Feces

You say that like it's a bad thing
I'm kidding

Things occurring naturally does not automatically mean that they are right or acceptable. It is in our innate psychology to be selfish, but extreme cases of selfishness is despised upon.

You say that like it's a bad thing
I'm kidding

Its ok if it your own that you're hurling. But if its that of another, thats wrong.

Exactly. The only reason I talk about whether homosexuality is "natural" is in response to the twits who say it's not. But they are also usually the same twits who claim the Earth itself does not exist because of natural forces alone, but rather than supernatural intervention MUST have occured to bring us into existence...for some reason, they try to use the "naturalness" of homosexuality in their arguments, even though they themselves reject nature.
Exactly ... usualy the arguements starts with the claim "its un natural" and goes from there

Why does it matter if homossexuality is natural? Since when does something occuring in nature give the green light for people to do it? Since when does the fact that something doesn't occur in nature mean that it is inherently wrong?

A quick list of things that are "natural" (meaning they occur in nature):

Mothers consuming their young
Marburg Virus
Cancer
Rape
Murder
Hurling Feces


And here are some things that are unnatural (meaning they don't occur in nature):

Penicillin (the practical uses of it, not its existence)
Cars
The Phantom of the Opera
Vodka
Surgery
X-Ray machines


A Quick Note: It may appear that I am "Gay-Bashing" here, but I am most certainly not. This is just a request to firgure out why the hell there is a debate over why homosexuality occurs in nature.

It is because the primary religious argument Thomas Aquinas gave for why homosexuality is immoral is because it is a violation of natural law.

Aquinas borrows heavily from Aristotle. Aristotle argued that in order to determine if a thing is virtuous or not, you first have to know what it is, and to know that, you must understand (at least in part), the purpose it tends toward. Aquinas took this rule, looked at sex, and said "Okay, the natural purpose towards which sex progresses is procreation. Absent the fall of man from the state of grace, we would have sex because we desire to create more people. Therefore, any sexual behavior that furthers this end is what we naturally would do, and is part of the natural law. Anything that does not is unnatural."

Naturally, homosexual sex does not and cannot lead to procreation. Thus, Aquinas deemed it unnatural, and that has been the stance of the Catholic (and by extension most Protestant) denominations since. It is also the reason why Aquinas disallowed any kind of sex other than strict vaginal sex, disallowed any other position than the missionary position, and disallowed masturbation, because it was the opinion of leading medical experts of the day, who were heavily influenced by Galen, that the missionary position was best for procreative purposes.

Now of course, you can disagree with Aquinas about his knowledge of anatomy, or what the purpose of sex is/if it has a purpose, etc., but this is the root of the debate over whether or not homosexuality is "natural."

Fucking is fucking, that's my philosophy.

I like humans.

From my viewpoint, homosexuality is humanly unnatural in that it was not present in the pre-lapsarian world. Of course, one may say that there was no possibility of that because there was no "Steve." I think that this makes my point perfectly though, because it shows that God intended intimacy for a monogamous, mixed-gender relationship. I believe that the homosexual orientation is a cross one must bear. If I have perverted thoughts or urges, I don't waste time debating if they're natural or not - if they come from my head, to me they're natural. I can't stop them from popping up. What I can do is resist them and die to them. Contrary to popular belief, this is actually what the Church preaches. Homosexuality is sinful, but here "sinful" only signifies that it is the product of a fallen world (a human/societal sinfulness). The homosexual act, however, is personally sinful, because the persons involved have accepted their passions and acted upon them, knowing that their act defies God's mandate for mankind.

Fucking is fucking, that's my philosophy.

Mine too!

I actually think it's unatural, but I still do it from time to time.

I don't mind if someone thinks it's a bad thing to do, but it's when they think the person doing it is bad and evil etc. that I get angry.

*put's on helmet with visor (think riot police)*
Let's start cracking prejudice heads.

From my viewpoint, homosexuality is humanly unnatural in that it was not present in the pre-lapsarian world. Of course, one may say that there was no possibility of that because there was no "Steve." I think that this makes my point perfectly though, because it shows that God intended intimacy for a monogamous, mixed-gender relationship. I believe that the homosexual orientation is a cross one must bear. If I have perverted thoughts or urges, I don't waste time debating if they're natural or not - if they come from my head, to me they're natural. I can't stop them from popping up. What I can do is resist them and die to them. Contrary to popular belief, this is actually what the Church preaches. Homosexuality is sinful, but here "sinful" only signifies that it is the product of a fallen world (a human/societal sinfulness). The homosexual act, however, is personally sinful, because the persons involved have accepted their passions and acted upon them, knowing that their act defies God's mandate for mankind.

Another issue I have with the traditional Christian god ... he seems all fine and well to base condemnation on acts but manages to not base salvation on the same

Another issue I have with the traditional Christian god ... he seems all fine and well to base condemnation on acts but manages to not base salvation on the same

(by the way still does not make it “un natural” it exists in nature ... by definition it is natural

You're right, it doesn't matter.

The trouble is the debate gets muddied because different people use terms like 'natural' to mean different things.

Things occurring naturally does not automatically mean that they are right or acceptable. It is in our innate psychology to be selfish, but extreme cases of selfishness is despised upon.

True. Thus the original poster is correct.

From my viewpoint, homosexuality is humanly unnatural in that it was not present in the pre-lapsarian world. Of course, one may say that there was no possibility of that because there was no "Steve." I think that this makes my point perfectly though, because it shows that God intended intimacy for a monogamous, mixed-gender relationship. I believe that the homosexual orientation is a cross one must bear. If I have perverted thoughts or urges, I don't waste time debating if they're natural or not - if they come from my head, to me they're natural. I can't stop them from popping up. What I can do is resist them and die to them. Contrary to popular belief, this is actually what the Church preaches. Homosexuality is sinful, but here "sinful" only signifies that it is the product of a fallen world (a human/societal sinfulness). The homosexual act, however, is personally sinful, because the persons involved have accepted their passions and acted upon them, knowing that their act defies God's mandate for mankind.

For that to be in any way fair on the part of the Christian God everyone would have to have the same urges to tempt them. As that does not appear to be the case (not everyone is gay or bi) homosexuals are given extra temptation, which is unfair unless extra allowences are made for them if they stuff up.

I have to admit I met God once and asked him about this. His reply, "Ahw, hell we all did it a little back in the ol' days."

Perhaps people just want to debate science? Honestly, not everyone who discusses whther it is "natural" or not has an agenda...

Exactly. The only reason I talk about whether homosexuality is "natural" is in response to the twits who say it's not. But they are also usually the same twits who claim the Earth itself does not exist because of natural forces alone, but rather than supernatural intervention MUST have occured to bring us into existence...for some reason, they try to use the "naturalness" of homosexuality in their arguments, even though they themselves reject nature.
But how did everything start if there was no divine intervention, explain if you will how nature created everything out of nothing?
If your counter arguement involves nature creating everything from atoms, then who created the atoms?
What created the natural forces too.

Alright, it may be natural. Pedophiles and Necrophiliacs are also "naturaly inclined " towards their behavior. So are alchoholics and Serial killers. Moral are those things that keep people from acting out some of their "natural inclinations"

But how did everything start if there was no divine intervention, explain if you will how nature created everything out of nothing?
If your counter arguement involves nature creating everything from atoms, then who created the atoms?
What created the natural forces too.
God does not really answer that question either
Who created god?

Alright, it may be natural. Pedophiles and Necrophiliacs are also "naturaly inclined " towards their behavior. So are alchoholics and Serial killers. Moral are those things that keep people from acting out some of their "natural inclinations"
The things you name cause harm to one or more people ...
Phisicaly expressing love between two concenting adults hardly causes harm

The things you name cause harm to one or more people ...
Phisicaly expressing love between two concenting adults hardly causes harm
That is up for debate. Drug use by an adult on the surface only effects the adult. Alchoholism by an adult only effects the adult. Unless there are children involved in the family. When gays adopt kids, those kids are being raised in a morally screwed invironment, and in my opinioned, being harmed

That is up for debate. Drug use by an adult on the surface only effects the adult. Alchoholism by an adult only effects the adult. Unless there are children involved in the family. When gays adopt kids, those kids are being raised in a morally screwed invironment, and in my opinioned, being harmed
Who's morals sure not mine
By my morals the love and attention and care that gay couple can give is an absolutly great thing

Unless you can prove harm I dont see any reason to disalow it

Why does it matter if homossexuality is natural? Since when does something occuring in nature give the green light for people to do it? Since when does the fact that something doesn't occur in nature mean that it is inherently wrong?

have you ever seen someone actually make the argument at homosexuality happens in nature, therefore homosexuality is good? i sure haven't.

have you ever seen someone make the argument that homosexuality is unnatural, therefore homosexuality is wrong? i see it all the time.

the reason it matters is because the second argument, which is quite common, uses the unnaturalness of homosexuality as a premise. but given that homosexuality is natural, their argument can be tossed out. it means we win this round, basically.

and whats all this crap about homosexuality being unnatural??? It is completely natural, meaning as was originally posted that it DOES occur in nature. Both in places where the only available mate is one of the same sex and ones where mates of all sexes are available. Now most certainly it occurs more frequently in mammals, but can be seen throughout the world. Hell, take my best friend for example. She owned several gerbils. It just so happened that a pair of males decided they liked one another, started a homosexual relationship and murdered the female, and every other female ever introduced while continuing to have sex with one another. I could even site instances occurring in the wild if you would prefer. Just because it isn't conducive to reproduction, that doesn't mean it doesn't occur or isn't natural. And for that matter, if people want to make such a big deal over what's "natural" then monogamous marriages should be done away with and polyamorous marriages should be the norm as humans fairly well invented monogamy and are almost the only mammalian species to practice it. Hell, pretty much the only critter on this spinning ball to do so.

Why does it matter if homossexuality is natural? Since when does something occuring in nature give the green light for people to do it? Since when does the fact that something doesn't occur in nature mean that it is inherently wrong?


A Quick Note: It may appear that I am "Gay-Bashing" here, but I am most certainly not. This is just a request to firgure out why the hell there is a debate over why homosexuality occurs in nature.

Because people trot out two big arguments when gay bashing.

One that it's forbidden by the Bible.

This is easily countered by pointing out that
a) We are not a nation based on the bible, but on enlightenment philosophy.
b) The Bible is subject to interpretation, the parts that explicitly condemn the Bible are not even adhered to by the most devout of Christians (no shellfish, no multi-colored clothing, or blended fabrics etc.)

When this argument fails gay bashers fall back to the argument "it's unnatural."

This argument is easily countered by pointing out that it isn't unnatural.

Because people have a short memory, if the debate centers on either of these arguments for long enough then they gay bashers will fall back to the other when proven wrong, pretending that they are coming up with new arguments when they are in fact rehashing old ones.

In time lapse typing the argument goes like this.

"Homosexuality is condemned by God."
"No it isn't."
"Well it's unnatural."
"No it isn't."
"Well it's condemned by God."
"No it isn't."
"Well it's unnatural."
"No it isn't."
"Well it's condemned by God."
"No it isn't."
"Well it's unnatural."
"No it isn't."
"Well it's condemned by God."
"No it isn't."
"Well it's unnatural."
"No it isn't."
"Well it's condemned by God."
"No it isn't."
"Well it's unnatural."
"No it isn't."
"Well it's condemned by God."
"No it isn't."
"Well it's unnatural."
"No it isn't."
"Well it's condemned by God."
"No it isn't."
"Didn't we have this argument already?"
"You're only saying that to distract from your sin and shame because your lifestyle is condemned by God."
"No it isn't..."
And so on.

From my viewpoint, homosexuality is humanly unnatural in that it was not present in the pre-lapsarian world. Of course, one may say that there was no possibility of that because there was no "Steve." I think that this makes my point perfectly though, because it shows that God intended intimacy for a monogamous, mixed-gender relationship. I believe that the homosexual orientation is a cross one must bear. If I have perverted thoughts or urges, I don't waste time debating if they're natural or not - if they come from my head, to me they're natural. I can't stop them from popping up. What I can do is resist them and die to them. Contrary to popular belief, this is actually what the Church preaches. Homosexuality is sinful, but here "sinful" only signifies that it is the product of a fallen world (a human/societal sinfulness). The homosexual act, however, is personally sinful, because the persons involved have accepted their passions and acted upon them, knowing that their act defies God's mandate for mankind.



Perfectly stated.

This is easily countered by pointing out that
a) We are not a nation based on the bible, but on enlightenment philosophy.
b) The Bible is subject to interpretation, the parts that explicitly condemn the Bible are not even adhered to by the most devout of Christians (no shellfish, no multi-colored clothing, or blended fabrics etc.


While certain parts of the Bible are open to interpretation (Revelation anyone?), God is quiet precise in his attitudes towards homosexuality. There are many condemnations within the Bible of it, and, really, the only way to deny that is to deny the authenticity of the Bible. Which cannot be honestly done. The Bible is historically accurate in many senses, and most of the events that are subject to it are well-documented. Of course, anyone who has actually READ the Bible will know this. Those who don't care for it and make judgements based upon that ignorance most likely will not know it.

since its a perfectly legitimate CHOICE, no it doesnt matter if its natural or not

by which i mean

im not a lesbian but if one day i decide to have sex with a woman (who knows why, maybe im horny and shes hot and willing?) thats OK. nothing wrong with it. (outside of the part where im married of course)

it IS somehow innate in gay people to BE gay, it IS natural, but no it doesnt really matter that it is.

You've only convinced us a bisexual trist may be a matter of choice. *grumbles to self about bi-curious females*

the only way to deny that is to deny the authenticity of the Bible. Which cannot be honestly done.

haha. kid, you're pretty funny.

Homosexuality is natural. Any one that has lived on a farm or studied animals over time can tell you that.

Christianity is against it because there are no children from it, so no my God is bigger than your God. There's more of us than you. A lot of other religions look on it as natural.

The reason it's done is because they enjoy how good the climax is.

haha. kid, you're pretty funny.


Oh? Most biblical scholars wouldn't think so.

While certain parts of the Bible are open to interpretation (Revelation anyone?), God is quiet precise in his attitudes towards homosexuality. There are many condemnations within the Bible of it, and, really, the only way to deny that is to deny the authenticity of the Bible. Which cannot be honestly done. The Bible is historically accurate in many senses, and most of the events that are subject to it are well-documented. Of course, anyone who has actually READ the Bible will know this. Those who don't care for it and make judgements based upon that ignorance most likely will not know it.

Riiight. A book that's existed for about 1500 years and has been translated and retranslated countless times from an original text that was difficult to interpret to begin with still has its original message perfectly clear. That must be why all Christians in the world agree that there is only one way to practice the faith. /sarcasm

I would launch into a large argument here saying that there is in fact no part of the Christian faith that explicitely states that homosexuality, in itself, is sinful, but Domici's post earlier has already highlighted the inherent futility of such practice.

Instead, I will simply say that READING the Bible and UNDERSTANDING it are obiously two entirely different things.

Oh? Most biblical scholars wouldn't think so.

just so we are clear, which biblical scholars are we talking about - those that think moses personally wrote the first five books of the bible, or those that think moses is largely mythical?

I would launch into a large argument here saying that there is in fact no part of the Christian faith that explicitely states that homosexuality, in itself, is sinful, but Domici's post earlier has already highlighted the inherent futility of such practice.

Instead, I will simply say that READING the Bible and UNDERSTANDING it are obiously two entirely different things.



I Corinthians 6:9 – “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders”


Romans 1:18-40 - 18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

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

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.




Also, http://www.reformed.com/pub/homosex.htm deals with the issue of homosexuality as well. Intellectual honesty demands that one not turn a blind eye to the Truth to justify acceptance of sin.

The Bible is historically accurate in many senses, and most of the events that are subject to it are well-documented. Of course, anyone who has actually READ the Bible will know this. Those who don't care for it and make judgements based upon that ignorance most likely will not know it.
While i am agnostic, i read the bible. I dont think any biblical scholar worth his salt could prove any of the things mentioned that require a wonder oder otherwise divine intervention as historical. Unless they already start at the point of believing the bible to be more than just a book and indeed the testament of a higher being. Which would make them blind to the scientific work required to prove their points.
Please show me any believable source that documents, say, the water-to-wine transformation Jesus did at the wedding in Canaan.

On topic, another reason why a prove its natural would be important is to stop those self-acclaimed gay-therapists from messing around with the minds of people who are completely healthy but homosexual. It would put an end to parents blaming themselves over "What have we done wrong". It would give the fundamentalists some heavy headache, because no longer its the person being tempted to sin, but God who made him this way.
Just some reasons on top of my head.

*Snippage of mistranslated and misunderstood quotes*

http://www.truluck.com/html/six_bible_passages.html

Ooh lookie! I can procure websites with a different interpretation. So much for the argument of "precise attitudes toward homosexuals".

Now that your original claim is soundly debunked I will cease this threadjack and go back to the original thread topic.

Basically, there are two ways of looking at the whole "natural" thing:

a)
Homosexuality is not natural.
On the other hand, most things humans do are not natural, i.e. Internet, cars, etc.
Therefore, it doesn't matter.

b)
Man is part of nature.
The things humans do are therefore all natural.
Therefore, it doesn't matter.

Whether or not it exists among animals is actually a moot point, since the definition and purpose of sex is so vastly different for humans.

have you ever seen someone actually make the argument at homosexuality happens in nature, therefore homosexuality is good? i sure haven't.

have you ever seen someone make the argument that homosexuality is unnatural, therefore homosexuality is wrong? i see it all the time.

the reason it matters is because the second argument, which is quite common, uses the unnaturalness of homosexuality as a premise. but given that homosexuality is natural, their argument can be tossed out. it means we win this round, basically.
have you ever seen someone actually make the argument at homosexuality happens in nature, therefore homosexuality is good? i sure haven't.
Err, actually I see it all the time on these boards...

Alright, it may be natural. Pedophiles and Necrophiliacs are also "naturaly inclined " towards their behavior. So are alchoholics and Serial killers. Moral are those things that keep people from acting out some of their "natural inclinations"

Problem:

Homosexual acts are between two concenting adults.

Pedophiles, Necrophiliacs, and Serial Killers are not.

An alchy doesn't involve two people(usually).

It would give the fundamentalists some heavy headache, because no longer its the person being tempted to sin, but God who made him this way.
Just some reasons on top of my head.


I don't doubt that homosexuality is natural, much like I don't doubt that the desire to murder is either. However, if sins were unnatural then would there be any sinners? The whole crux of Christianity is the denial of the Self and submission to the will of God. As Christ stated:


Matthew 18:7-14 - 7"Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come! 8If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. 9And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.

I don't doubt that homosexuality is natural, much like I don't doubt that the desire to murder is either. However, if sins were unnatural then would there be any sinners? The whole crux of Christianity is the denial of the Self and submission to the will of God. As Christ stated:


Matthew 18:7-14 - 7"Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come! 8If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. 9And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.

I wish you luck in resisting your overpowering homosexual urges. God Bless.

I wish you luck in resisting your overpowering homosexual urges. God Bless.


Umm....good luck to you too?

I don't doubt that homosexuality is natural, much like I don't doubt that the desire to murder is either. However, if sins were unnatural then would there be any sinners? The whole crux of Christianity is the denial of the Self and submission to the will of God. As Christ stated:


Matthew 18:7-14 - 7"Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come! 8If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. 9And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.
I hope you never had sinfull thoughts or you should blow your brains out. If not you are in direct contrast to the word of your saviour and thus cannot be saved.

Why would a just God give some people more troubles to stay in good standing with him than others? Either God is unjust, for making life harder for homosexuals and thus isnt worthy of being the basis for morals and a being to be revered, or he is just and not the cause of homosexuality, which would lead to the question if he is the cause to anything at all, if he should firsthand.

We all have temptations, just because one person is tempted with homosexual urges does not mean that everyone else gets off the hook. We all have our weaknesses.



Why would a just God give some people more troubles to stay in good standing with him than others? Either God is unjust, for making life harder for homosexuals and thus isnt worthy of being the basis for morals and a being to be revered, or he is just and not the cause of homosexuality, which would lead to the question if he is the cause to anything at all, if he should firsthand.


Whether WE regard God as unjust or not is irrelevant. As I stated before, He is the Creator, he transcends this realm of physicality, he is omniscient and therefore HE determines Right and Wrong. Not us. To state otherwise would be egocentric to say the least...

... As I stated before, He is the Creator, he transcends this realm of physicality, he is omniscient and therefore HE determines Right and Wrong. Not us. To state otherwise would be egocentric to say the least...

And rational, to say the most.

I hope you never had sinfull thoughts or you should blow your brains out. If not you are in direct contrast to the word of your saviour and thus cannot be saved.


Hah, as comical as that was, you completely blew it out of proportion. It meant that if a member causes you to SIN (not be subject to temptation, but actually sin) then it would be better for you to cut it off/out than to retain it and be cast into hellfire. Suicide is self-murder and damnable, so it wouldn't be advisable to remove your brain ;)

And rational, to say the most.


Rational? Assuming your knowledge and opinion is greater than that of the omnipotent Creator of the universe is rational? To assume that YOU can determine morality as opposed to a Being perfect and just is rational? If stupidity and arrogance equate to rational, then I would assume it is.

Rational? Assuming your knowledge and opinion is greater than that of the omnipotent Creator of the universe is rational? To assume that YOU can determine morality as opposed to a Being perfect and just is rational? If stupidity and arrogance equate to rational, then I would assume it is.

I wonder if this also applies to the MEN that wrote the Bible...

(Sorry, I just had to say something since my previous post was conveniantly ignored.)

Rational? Assuming your knowledge and opinion is greater than that of the omnipotent Creator of the universe is rational? To assume that YOU can determine morality as opposed to a Being perfect and just is rational? If stupidity and arrogance equate to rational, then I would assume it is.

Your reasoning is circular and insipid.

http://www.truluck.com/html/six_bible_passages.html

Ooh lookie! I can procure websites with a different interpretation. So much for the argument of "precise attitudes toward homosexuals".



In response to that, I pose this: http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/homosexualuc.htm#Anchor1

In response to that, I pose this: http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/homosexualuc.htm#Anchor1

Thanks for proving my point! The Bible is an unclear document prone to multiple interpretations! Wonderful! And such a fitting site for the purpose, too. Let's take an excerpt as an example:

While listing those who would not inherit the kingdom of God, Paul noted that homosexuals will not be saved: "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God

Did you know that the word "homosexual" didn't even APPEAR in the Bible until some genius put it in during a re-translation in the 1950's? Neither did the author of that website, apparently!

Thanks for proving my point! The Bible is an unclear document prone to multiple interpretations! Wonderful! And such a fitting site for the purpose, too. Let's take an excerpt as an example:

While listing those who would not inherit the kingdom of God, Paul noted that homosexuals will not be saved: "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God


Did you know that the word "homosexual" didn't even APPEAR in the Bible until some genius put it in during a re-translation in the 1950's? Neither did the author of that website, apparently!

Since the verbally abusive aren't going to heaven, I guess Roggy is doomed to hell with all the queers!

Did you know that the word "homosexual" didn't even APPEAR in the Bible until some genius put it in during a re-translation in the 1950's? Neither did the author of that website, apparently!


1950's? HARDLY! I've heard absurd claims that the medieval church placed it in there waaaay back in the day, but this takes the cake. I need a credible source please....oh wait, I've got one which contrasts with your statement. Two of them actually. They're called the KJV and NKJV. Both of which, I can assure you, were written before the 1950's ;)

Since the verbally abusive aren't going to heaven, I guess Roggy is doomed to hell with all the queers!


Luke 17:3 - 3So watch yourselves.
"If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him.


2 Timothy 4:2 - 2Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction.

Titus 1:13 - 13This testimony is true. Therefore, rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith


Revelation 3:19 - 19Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent.



Of course, I'm sure you'll devise a method to disprove the validity of all of those too. Best get started hon, you have a lot of work to do ;)

Luke 17:3 - 3So watch yourselves.
"If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him.


2 Timothy 4:2 - 2Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction.

Titus 1:13 - 13This testimony is true. Therefore, rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith


Revelation 3:19 - 19Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent.



Of course, I'm sure you'll devise a method to disprove the validity of all of those too. Best get started hon, you have a lot of work to do ;)

So... how do you resolve the hundreds, if not thousands, of direct contradictions in the bible. Do you flip a coin? Does NT trump OT? Or do you just pick the verses that fit your prejudice?

Oh... and please rebuke me without being verbally abusive, your soul is already in great peril.

Whether WE regard God as unjust or not is irrelevant. As I stated before, He is the Creator, he transcends this realm of physicality, he is omniscient and therefore HE determines Right and Wrong. Not us. To state otherwise would be egocentric to say the least...

Who determines right or wrong on issues God did not adress in the Bible?
And, honestly, dont you think that people who do not accept God as their lord have a say in what ethics are, too? Are all non-christians immoral? Or all that are not of your denomination?
I have strict morals, but they come from my own gut-feeling about what is right and wrong, my humanistic education and wordly ethics. I dont care if they are not the same as prescribed in an ancient tome that might or ight not have a divine origin. They are nonetheless viable.

Who determines right or wrong on issues God did not adress in the Bible?
And, honestly, dont you think that people who do not accept God as their lord have a say in what ethics are, too? Are all non-christians immoral? Or all that are not of your denomination?
I have strict morals, but they come from my own gut-feeling about what is right and wrong, my humanistic education and wordly ethics. I dont care if they are not the same as prescribed in an ancient tome that might or ight not have a divine origin. They are nonetheless viable.



Yes, in our society, the ethical perspective of non-Christians is necessary, or else you would all be up in arms, killing, raping, and looting. Ethics, however, are what I believe (this is my definition of ethics so bear with me) are necessary laws of conduct to keep society running. Morality, on the other hand, is the absolute standard of Good and Evil determined by God.

1950's? HARDLY! I've heard absurd claims that the medieval church placed it in there waaaay back in the day, but this takes the cake. I need a credible source please....oh wait, I've got one. Two of them actually. They're called the KJV and NKJV. Both of which, I can assure you, were written before the 1950's ;)

Really?

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

(http://www.christiangay.com/he_loves/corinth.htm

Odd, I don't see the word "homosexual" anywhere. Fancy that. The same thing holds true in other languages; in my Swedish pre-1960 Bible, the word is not to be seen. In a newer version, it is.

But now I'm off on a threadjack again. If you can't see by now that my point of the Bible existing in a zillion different versions means that it can be interpreted in different ways, then there is no help for you.

So... how do you resolve the hundreds, if not thousands, of direct contradictions in the bible. Do you flip a coin? Does NT trump OT? Or do you just pick the verses that fit your prejudice?

Oh... and please rebuke me without being verbally abusive, your soul is already in great peril.


Many have presumed their to be contradictions in the Bible, yet its defenders always manage to clarify those seeming contradictions to where one understands them to NOT be contradictions. I'm not a scholar myself, however pose a few to me and we'll see how well I do in handling them ;) Also, you are right about my tone. It is rather acerbic if I must say. I apologize for letting myself be dragged down to the level you're on. It's 4:30 here so I'm naturally going to be slightly grumpy from fatigue :(

Many have presumed their to be contradictions in the Bible, yet its defenders always manage to clarify those seeming contradictions to where one understands them to NOT be contradictions. I'm not a scholar myself, however pose a few to me and we'll see how well I do in handling them ;) Also, you are right about my tone. It is rather acerbic if I must say. I apologize for letting myself be dragged down to the level you're on. It's 4:30 here so I'm naturally going to be slightly grumpy from fatigue :(

Let's just cut through the crap and see what we're dealing with here. Answer some basic Bible questions:

How old do you think the planet Earth is?

Do you think it is correct and moral to execute disobedient children?

Should a person be stoned to death for wearing a cotton/wool blended sweater?

Odd, I don't see the word "homosexual" anywhere. Fancy that. The same thing holds true in other languages; in my Swedish pre-1960 Bible, the word is not to be seen. In a newer version, it is.



1 Corinthians 6:9-10 9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.


It would be covered under fornicators.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

It would be covered under fornicators.

Can't admit you were wrong, can ya? Like I said, the word "homosexuals" does not appear in the earlier versions. "Fornicators" includes heterosexuals as well. In fact, the whole bloody verse is subject to interpretation, especially if you go back to the original greek words.

Conclusion: The Bible is not in any way clear or certain as to the sinful nature of homosexuality.

Do you think it is correct and moral to execute disobedient children?

Should a person be stoned to death for wearing a cotton/wool blended sweater?


1. That was under the old testament and for exceedingly disobedient children (older teenagers mainly) who were given over to drunkenness and gluttony and would not be corrected, despite the demands of parents and elders.

2. Old law as well, and the punishment would not be for the rather trivial matter of wearing mixing fabrics but for the rejection of God who commanded them to NOT use products of certain animals. Much like when Uzzah touched the Ark of the Covenant, he was not stricken for merely touching it but for violating God's will when he commanded them to not touch it.



As for the age of the earth, I personally do not know enough to determine whether those who take Genesis literally or those who think of the 7 days in a figurative sense are correct. The age of the earth seems to point in the direction of the figurative interpretation, however it could easily be said that God created the universe with the APPEARANCE of age.


Either way, I'm going to call it a night...well....a morning....because it's nearly 5 and my chair broke from rocking back and forth in it so now I'm in a nearly horizontal position.

1. That was under the old testament and for exceedingly disobedient children (older teenagers mainly) who were given over to drunkenness and gluttony and would not be corrected, despite the demands of parents and elders.

2. Old law as well, and the punishment would not be for the rather trivial matter of wearing mixing fabrics but for the rejection of God who commanded them to NOT use products of certain animals. Much like when Uzzah touched the Ark of the Covenant, he was not stricken for merely touching it but for violating God's will when he commanded them to not touch it.



As for the age of the earth, I personally do not know enough to determine whether those who take Genesis literally or those who think of the 7 days in a figurative sense are correct. The age of the earth seems to point in the direction of the figurative interpretation, however it could easily be said that God created the universe with the APPEARANCE of age.


Either way, I'm going to call it a night...well....a morning....because it's nearly 5 and my chair broke from rocking back and forth in it so now I'm in a nearly horizontal position.

So... you don't believe in the literal truth of the Bible. You cherry pick just the the things that suit you. You are a fraud.

So... you don't believe in the literal truth of the Bible. You cherry pick just the the things that suit you. You are a fraud.

And as we all know, false prophets are subject to Death by Stoning!

Can't admit you were wrong, can ya? Like I said, the word "homosexuals" does not appear in the earlier versions. "Fornicators" includes heterosexuals as well. In fact, the whole bloody verse is subject to interpretation, especially if you go back to the original greek words.

Conclusion: The Bible is not in any way clear or certain as to the sinful nature of homosexuality.


You are correct, fornicators includes heterosexuals, homosexuals, pedophiles, necrophiliacs, and the lot of them. Basically, if you aren't married to the person (or thing) then it would wrong to copulate with he/she/it. However, as homosexuals could not marry, they are automatically fornicators if they choose to act out on their carnal desires. It's strict, but then again Christianity is not a religion for the morally weak. It requires zeal, conviction, and selflessness.

You are correct, fornicators includes heterosexuals, homosexuals, pedophiles, necrophiliacs, and the lot of them. Basically, if you aren't married to the person (or thing) then it would wrong to copulate with he/she/it. However, as homosexuals could not marry, they are automatically fornicators if they choose to act out on their carnal desires. It's strict, but then again Christianity is not a religion for the morally weak. It requires zeal, conviction, and selflessness.

Not to mention complete immunity to logic, reason, and facts!

So... you don't believe in the literal truth of the Bible. You cherry pick just the the things that suit you. You are a fraud.


I believe you should take certain things in context. Such as Revelation, which is a metaphorical depiction of a immaterial place in terms humans could understand. Also, I never said I disbelieved in Genisis, I said I DON'T KNOW whether it is literal or figurative. That would be like calling an agnostic person an atheist.

Not to mention complete immunity to logic, reason, and facts!



Logic, reason, and facts reaffirm the validity of the Bible. Anyways, good night..I really am going to bed this time :D

Morality, on the other hand, is the absolute standard of Good and Evil determined by God.
Morality is the absolute standard of Good and Evil determined by Allah.
Morality is the absolute standard of Good and Evil determined by Amaterasu.
Morality is the absolute standard of Good and Evil determined by Hanukah.
Morality is the absolute standard of Good and Evil determined by Kali.
Morality is the absolute standard of Good and Evil determined by Zeus.
Morality is the absolute standard of Good and Evil determined by Odin.
Morality is the absolute standard of Good and Evil determined by Skan.
Morality is the absolute standard of Good and Evil determined by Belenus.
Morality is the absolute standard of Good and Evil determined by Dazhdebog.
Morality is the absolute standard of Good and Evil determined by ...

Every other god and his guidelines might be just as valid.

Logic, reason, and facts reaffirm the validity of the Bible.
You are a regular Fox Mulder. "I want to believe!"

As for the cutting of of offending members that was mentioned earlier on, I just found this interesting bit :

Deuteronomy 23.1

"If a man's testicles are crushed or his penis is cut off, he may not be included in the assembly of the LORD"

As for the cutting of of offending members that was mentioned earlier on, I just found this interesting bit :

Deuteronomy 23.1

"If a man's testicles are crushed or his penis is cut off, he may not be included in the assembly of the LORD"

Ouch! Talk about adding insult to injury!

More Deuteronomy fun is at http://www.jilldevine.com/Religious_study.html

Ouch! Talk about adding insult to injury!

More Deuteronomy fun is at http://www.jilldevine.com/Religious_study.html


Don't jump to conclusions. "Assembly of the Lord" may have been referring to a Jerusalem Rugby team.

Don't jump to conclusions. "Assembly of the Lord" may have been referring to a Jerusalem Rugby team.


Naaa.. *flipping through the bible... I'm sure rugby is an abomination as well, just need to find that verse here....

1. That was under the old testament... [snip]
2. Old law as well[snip]

How come an omniscient, omnipotent, infallible being corrects itself?

Naaa.. *flipping through the bible... I'm sure rugby is an abomination as well, just need to find that verse here....

Aren't rugby balls made from pig skin? Pigs are unclean animals, ya know.

Aren't rugby balls made from pig skin? Pigs are unclean animals, ya know.

Not to mention wearing cotton rugby tops with polyester shorts. Abomination!

Does it matter if pigs are natural? I am so confused.

I'd like to know what Jews and Muslims find so offensive about eating pig?

Hygenic survival laws laid down in their respective religious texts. At the time these books were written the appropriate conservation of flesh wasnt possible and pig is particular nasty with developing sickening by-effects in little time.

also, these people were nomadic, and pigs require grain, and nomads can't grow grain

Not to mention wearing cotton rugby tops with polyester shorts. Abomination!

And no tassles at them either! Stone 'em all, I say!

But how did everything start if there was no divine intervention, explain if you will how nature created everything out of nothing?
If your counter arguement involves nature creating everything from atoms, then who created the atoms?
What created the natural forces too.
We don't yet know how "everything" came to be, nor are we even sure that "everything" came from "nothing." There are several working scientific theories of how our current universe came to be, but none of them is complete. We just don't know yet, and I have no problem with that...I don't see any reason to make up fables about magic beings that POOFed the universe into existence. Such myths don't answer anything, any more than saying the universe rides on the back of a giant Koala who gestated the universe in its giant pouch until the universe was ready to be born.

For your enjoyment, THE PARABLE OF THE M&Ms:

Here’s a simple way for you, and hopefully them, to think about things you yourself can’t presently explain.

Think about all the candy bars you’ve eaten in your lifetime. Snickers, Mars bars, Almond Joy, Mounds, Hershey bars, Payday, Zero (do they even make Zero anymore?), York Peppermint Patties, all those other things.

If you’re like me, you’ve never been to a candy factory, and you really have no solid proof about how these things are put together.

But … you could probably figure out the basic scheme of each bar with little trouble.

You start with a thick caramel-like ooze, mix it with lots of peanuts, form it into little bars, dip those bars into molten milk chocolate, and then lay them out on a cool surface to harden. Voila! Snickers.

Or you start with a chewy-gooey candy turdlet, roll it in peanuts so as to coat the entire outside, and then lay it out on a cool surface to harden. Voila! Payday.

You stamp out discs of peppermint dough, send them for a swim through dark chocolate, then lay them out on a cool surface to harden. Kazaam! York Peppermint Patty.

You take a short strip of candied coconut, drop a couple of almonds on top of it, dunk it in milk chocolate, and then lay it out on a slick marble countertop to cool and harden. Poof! Almond Joy.

See? Nothing to it. No magic, no gods, no super-scientific alien civilizations required.

Ah, but …

Think about M&Ms.

There’s this little button of chocolate in the middle, coated with a hard candy shell, and then painted with some kind of candied color. Or a peanut covered with chocolate, then the hard candy, then the color.

And it has no flat side.

There is never a time in an M&M’s life when it lies on a cool surface to harden.

How the heck do they DO that??

If you’ve been through the M&Ms factory, you probably know the answer. But I don’t know the answer, and in a way I don’t want to know it. In this case, I’m content with the fun mystery – content to let it serve as a little koan for godders convinced that anything you can’t explain must be due to the influence of this god or that.

Because in this case, though I don’t know the answer, I know I could find it out in about five minutes.

I could find out just exactly how M&Ms are made.

They make them in the space shuttle, I’ll bet, and they spray on the candy coating and the color while they’re floating in zero gravity. It hardens in mid-air, and never has any flat spot because it never touches anything until it’s hardened.

Or they drop them from a tower a thousand feet high, and they get sprayed with the chocolate and candy and color as they float down. When they reach the bottom, they’re cool and solid and they go right into the bags.

Or they form them like every other type of candy bar, but they then put them in a jeweler’s lapidary tumbler with a fine grit that, over a period of weeks, polishes off the flat side to a perfect roundness.

They grow them in the Andes Mountains on genetically-engineered mutant chocolate plants, where they’re picked by child labor. Hundreds of old guys who look exactly like Juan Valdez carry them down the mountain with long strings of pack donkeys, and they take them to a factory where thousands of tiny Filipino women making 11 cents a day snip off the stems and paint over the scar with matching colored paint.

Okay, it’s none of those things. You and I both know it. And those are all fairly mundane answers, with no magic or god-power required.

I don’t know how the cheap speakers in my stereo were made, but I know it wasn’t magic. They were put together by low-paid technicians in a big industrial facility somewhere, and they work by simple principles of physics.

I don’t know how my computer was made, but I know there’s no magical elf in the box, no telepathic alien. It’s basically a light switch on steroids, programmed by nerdy young guys hopped up on Jolt Cola and strawberry Pop Tarts until they’re driven so insane they start to think in computer code.

I don’t know exactly how the supermarket door knows to open when I walk up to it, but I’m pretty sure – no, I’m absolutely certain – that it isn’t an invisible genie enslaved by sorcery. It’s hidden switches and motors and this infrared electric eye thingie that -- because I'm so short -- misses seeing me about half the time.

Physics. Electricity. Ordinary everyday stuff, with a lot of technical skill thrown in to make it jump through complex and useful hoops.

Just because I don’t know how these things work is not reason enough to leap at the Almighty Master of the Universe as the answer.

In this case, the answers to these mysteries, though they’re not known to me, are known to SOMEBODY. I just haven’t gotten around to looking into them myself.

It’s friggin’ amazing to me that a lump of metal, a magnet, can repel another magnet with a totally invisible force. And that when you turn one of them around, it works just opposite – they cling together like Vulcan lovers in the throes of their every-seven-years mating frenzy.

And it’s fascinating to me that a wound on your arm can heal back to be level with the rest of your skin, instead of healing into a ragged little canyon, or bubbling up with new flesh until it forms a large irregular lump.

Does anybody know the explanation to these mysteries? Maybe. I hope so. But even if they don’t, is there reason to believe they’re magic? Reason to call on the Big Magic Juju Guy as the One. True. Answer?

No.

Just because you don’t know the answer does NOT mean that it’s evidence of God, or gods – or witches or demons or mind-reading aliens from Planet Z.

Our here in the real world, things just don’t work like that.

God didn’t make M&Ms. They only taste that way.

While certain parts of the Bible are open to interpretation (Revelation anyone?), God is quiet precise in his attitudes towards homosexuality. There are many condemnations within the Bible of it, and, really, the only way to deny that is to deny the authenticity of the Bible. Which cannot be honestly done. The Bible is historically accurate in many senses, and most of the events that are subject to it are well-documented. Of course, anyone who has actually READ the Bible will know this. Those who don't care for it and make judgements based upon that ignorance most likely will not know it.

SO, you've read the bible in the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.... have you?

If you haven't read it in the native languages, I think you have nothing to say on the matter - since you are ENTIRELY willing to base your prejudice on the interpretations that other people have put on the book.

Why does it matter if homossexuality is natural? Since when does something occuring in nature give the green light for people to do it? Since when does the fact that something doesn't occur in nature mean that it is inherently wrong?


The whole reason that it's had to be pointed out that homosexuality DOES occur in nature is because homphobes have for decades argued that it doesn't.

"It just ain't natural!" is what they say, well, it occurs in nature, so "natural" is exactly what it is. That is evident in nature is proof that is not a voluntary "perversion", it is not a willful act against god, it is simply in the nature of some people to be attracted to the same sex.

From my viewpoint, homosexuality is humanly unnatural in that it was not present in the pre-lapsarian world. Of course, one may say that there was no possibility of that because there was no "Steve." I think that this makes my point perfectly though, because it shows that God intended intimacy for a monogamous, mixed-gender relationship. I believe that the homosexual orientation is a cross one must bear. If I have perverted thoughts or urges, I don't waste time debating if they're natural or not - if they come from my head, to me they're natural. I can't stop them from popping up. What I can do is resist them and die to them. Contrary to popular belief, this is actually what the Church preaches. Homosexuality is sinful, but here "sinful" only signifies that it is the product of a fallen world (a human/societal sinfulness). The homosexual act, however, is personally sinful, because the persons involved have accepted their passions and acted upon them, knowing that their act defies God's mandate for mankind.

Sorry - but this is rubbish.

By your definition, mother's experiencing pain in child birth is 'unnatural'... people working the land for food is 'unnatural'... snakes are 'unnatural'... dying is 'unnatural'.

Your argument about natural/unnatural hinges on the assumption that the Bible is relevent, and that it is ALSO correct, and that it is ALSO literal... none of which can ever be 'proved'.

Regarding your 'Adam and Steve' argument - two things.

First: By your loggc, sex is bad. Why? Because God created Adam, alone. He only created 'Eve' for the purpose of company, as it says in the book of Genesis. Thus - sex is 'unnatural', and against the will of God - no matter WHO the partners are. Your argument that God intended "a monogamous, mixed-gender relationship" has no basis.

Second: Closer inspection of the Hebrew reveals that the whole 'marriage of Adam and Eve' is allegorical - and is a reiteration of the act of creation of mankind - 'adam and Chavvah (the clay and the breath of life, effectively) being united.


But, of course, all of this is irrelevent... because a book can only describe what is - it cannot make anything more or less 'natural'.

I don't doubt that homosexuality is natural, much like I don't doubt that the desire to murder is either. However, if sins were unnatural then would there be any sinners? The whole crux of Christianity is the denial of the Self and submission to the will of God. As Christ stated:


Matthew 18:7-14 - 7"Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come! 8If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. 9And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.

If you 'don't care' whether homsexuality is 'natural' or not - what are you arguing in this thread for?

The title quite clearly asks if it matters if homosexuality is natural - not what YOUR personal prejudices say about homosexuality.

We all have temptations, just because one person is tempted with homosexual urges does not mean that everyone else gets off the hook. We all have our weaknesses.

Whether WE regard God as unjust or not is irrelevant. As I stated before, He is the Creator, he transcends this realm of physicality, he is omniscient and therefore HE determines Right and Wrong. Not us. To state otherwise would be egocentric to say the least...

Two flaws with all this:

One: It is irrelevent.

Two: The fairytales you believe have no rights to affect the lives of others. Jesus preached separation, and tolerance. Live by your creed.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.


It would be covered under fornicators.

So, you were wrong, then?

Are you too proud to admit it? That's a sin, you realise....

You are correct, fornicators includes heterosexuals, homosexuals, pedophiles, necrophiliacs, and the lot of them. Basically, if you aren't married to the person (or thing) then it would wrong to copulate with he/she/it. However, as homosexuals could not marry, they are automatically fornicators if they choose to act out on their carnal desires. It's strict, but then again Christianity is not a religion for the morally weak. It requires zeal, conviction, and selflessness.

You are ignoring the fact that Hebrew laws basically said that the 'consumamtion' of the marriage, was the marriage itself.

This is why Joseph and Mary are not referred to as 'married', only 'betrothed' - they couldn't be 'married' without intercourse.

So, if 'marriage' = intercourse... then homosexuals have exactly the same 'right' to copulate as heterosexuals... so long as they are 'faithful'.

We don't yet know how "everything" came to be, nor are we even sure that "everything" came from "nothing." There are several working scientific theories of how our current universe came to be, but none of them is complete. We just don't know yet, and I have no problem with that...I don't see any reason to make up fables about magic beings that POOFed the universe into existence. Such myths don't answer anything, any more than saying the universe rides on the back of a giant Koala who gestated the universe in its giant pouch until the universe was ready to be born.

For your enjoyment, THE PARABLE OF THE M&Ms:

Here’s a simple way for you, and hopefully them, to think about things you yourself can’t presently explain.

Think about all the candy bars you’ve eaten in your lifetime. Snickers, Mars bars, Almond Joy, Mounds, Hershey bars, Payday, Zero (do they even make Zero anymore?), York Peppermint Patties, all those other things.

If you’re like me, you’ve never been to a candy factory, and you really have no solid proof about how these things are put together.

But … you could probably figure out the basic scheme of each bar with little trouble.

You start with a thick caramel-like ooze, mix it with lots of peanuts, form it into little bars, dip those bars into molten milk chocolate, and then lay them out on a cool surface to harden. Voila! Snickers.

Or you start with a chewy-gooey candy turdlet, roll it in peanuts so as to coat the entire outside, and then lay it out on a cool surface to harden. Voila! Payday.

You stamp out discs of peppermint dough, send them for a swim through dark chocolate, then lay them out on a cool surface to harden. Kazaam! York Peppermint Patty.

You take a short strip of candied coconut, drop a couple of almonds on top of it, dunk it in milk chocolate, and then lay it out on a slick marble countertop to cool and harden. Poof! Almond Joy.

See? Nothing to it. No magic, no gods, no super-scientific alien civilizations required.

Ah, but …

Think about M&Ms.

There’s this little button of chocolate in the middle, coated with a hard candy shell, and then painted with some kind of candied color. Or a peanut covered with chocolate, then the hard candy, then the color.

And it has no flat side.

There is never a time in an M&M’s life when it lies on a cool surface to harden.

How the heck do they DO that??

If you’ve been through the M&Ms factory, you probably know the answer. But I don’t know the answer, and in a way I don’t want to know it. In this case, I’m content with the fun mystery – content to let it serve as a little koan for godders convinced that anything you can’t explain must be due to the influence of this god or that.

Because in this case, though I don’t know the answer, I know I could find it out in about five minutes.

I could find out just exactly how M&Ms are made.

They make them in the space shuttle, I’ll bet, and they spray on the candy coating and the color while they’re floating in zero gravity. It hardens in mid-air, and never has any flat spot because it never touches anything until it’s hardened.

Or they drop them from a tower a thousand feet high, and they get sprayed with the chocolate and candy and color as they float down. When they reach the bottom, they’re cool and solid and they go right into the bags.

Or they form them like every other type of candy bar, but they then put them in a jeweler’s lapidary tumbler with a fine grit that, over a period of weeks, polishes off the flat side to a perfect roundness.

They grow them in the Andes Mountains on genetically-engineered mutant chocolate plants, where they’re picked by child labor. Hundreds of old guys who look exactly like Juan Valdez carry them down the mountain with long strings of pack donkeys, and they take them to a factory where thousands of tiny Filipino women making 11 cents a day snip off the stems and paint over the scar with matching colored paint.

Okay, it’s none of those things. You and I both know it. And those are all fairly mundane answers, with no magic or god-power required.

I don’t know how the cheap speakers in my stereo were made, but I know it wasn’t magic. They were put together by low-paid technicians in a big industrial facility somewhere, and they work by simple principles of physics.

I don’t know how my computer was made, but I know there’s no magical elf in the box, no telepathic alien. It’s basically a light switch on steroids, programmed by nerdy young guys hopped up on Jolt Cola and strawberry Pop Tarts until they’re driven so insane they start to think in computer code.

I don’t know exactly how the supermarket door knows to open when I walk up to it, but I’m pretty sure – no, I’m absolutely certain – that it isn’t an invisible genie enslaved by sorcery. It’s hidden switches and motors and this infrared electric eye thingie that -- because I'm so short -- misses seeing me about half the time.

Physics. Electricity. Ordinary everyday stuff, with a lot of technical skill thrown in to make it jump through complex and useful hoops.

Just because I don’t know how these things work is not reason enough to leap at the Almighty Master of the Universe as the answer.

In this case, the answers to these mysteries, though they’re not known to me, are known to SOMEBODY. I just haven’t gotten around to looking into them myself.

It’s friggin’ amazing to me that a lump of metal, a magnet, can repel another magnet with a totally invisible force. And that when you turn one of them around, it works just opposite – they cling together like Vulcan lovers in the throes of their every-seven-years mating frenzy.

And it’s fascinating to me that a wound on your arm can heal back to be level with the rest of your skin, instead of healing into a ragged little canyon, or bubbling up with new flesh until it forms a large irregular lump.

Does anybody know the explanation to these mysteries? Maybe. I hope so. But even if they don’t, is there reason to believe they’re magic? Reason to call on the Big Magic Juju Guy as the One. True. Answer?

No.

Just because you don’t know the answer does NOT mean that it’s evidence of God, or gods – or witches or demons or mind-reading aliens from Planet Z.

Our here in the real world, things just don’t work like that.

God didn’t make M&Ms. They only taste that way.

1) Yes, they still make Zero.

2) You really need to try some English chocolate.

3) They make M&M's in space, and transport them on the Shuttle... that's why there were no M&M's before 1969... :D

4) Vulcan mating frenzy? Your geek is showing, dear... :)

5) Excellent post. :D

Morality is the absolute standard of Good and Evil determined by Allah.
Morality is the absolute standard of Good and Evil determined by Amaterasu.
Morality is the absolute standard of Good and Evil determined by Hanukah.
Morality is the absolute standard of Good and Evil determined by Kali.
Morality is the absolute standard of Good and Evil determined by Zeus.
Morality is the absolute standard of Good and Evil determined by Odin.
Morality is the absolute standard of Good and Evil determined by Skan.
Morality is the absolute standard of Good and Evil determined by Belenus.
Morality is the absolute standard of Good and Evil determined by Dazhdebog.
Morality is the absolute standard of Good and Evil determined by ...

Every other god and his guidelines might be just as valid.

:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: But everyone seems to think their morality is the correct one

I find it interesting to note that the majority of the time, the arguments provided against daft rules seems to be, well it's in the OT, old rules, they don't apply.
So:

Acts 15:29 (King James Version)
'29that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.[a] If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. '

Acts 21:25 (as above)
'25But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing,[a] except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality."

According to this, blood transfusions are a no-no. Yet (AKAIK) only the Jehovah's Witnesses adhere to this.
Why?

Blessings
Cyber

I find it interesting to note that the majority of the time, the arguments provided against daft rules seems to be, well it's in the OT, old rules, they don't apply.
So:

Acts 15:29 (King James Version)
'29that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.[a] If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. '

Acts 21:25 (as above)
'25But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing,[a] except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality."

According to this, blood transfusions are a no-no. Yet (AKAIK) only the Jehovah's Witnesses adhere to this.
Why?

Blessings
Cyber

Because the overriding commandment is that it is fine to inflict harm on others with your rules, but not so hot when it comes to yourself...

Of course, one may say that there was no possibility of that because there was no "Steve." I think that this makes my point perfectly though, because it shows that God intended intimacy for a monogamous, mixed-gender relationship.

If God had intended there to be more people other than Adam and Eve, He would have put them there. Stop reproducing!

If God had intended there to be more people other than Adam and Eve, He would have put them there. Stop reproducing!
LOL :)

If God had intended there to be more people other than Adam and Eve, He would have put them there. Stop reproducing!

In fact- thinking about it... he left Adam alone with the animals for quite a while before that whole 'taking Adam's rib' scenario...

For that to be in any way fair on the part of the Christian God everyone would have to have the same urges to tempt them. As that does not appear to be the case (not everyone is gay or bi) homosexuals are given extra temptation, which is unfair unless extra allowences are made for them if they stuff up.

That's only if you consider homosexual urges to be the worst/strongest urges period. That's demonstratably not true. For one person, the homosexual urge may be the worst. For another, the urge to jump off a bridge may be the worst. It's all a matter of personal trials.

I hope you never had sinfull thoughts or you should blow your brains out. If not you are in direct contrast to the word of your saviour and thus cannot be saved.

Why would a just God give some people more troubles to stay in good standing with him than others? Either God is unjust, for making life harder for homosexuals and thus isnt worthy of being the basis for morals and a being to be revered, or he is just and not the cause of homosexuality, which would lead to the question if he is the cause to anything at all, if he should firsthand.

Umm... you forgot the third option, which is that societal woes are the result of human sinfulness and blaming it all on God is just childish "passing the buck." God does not create evil, nor does He inflict it on people. He allows evil to occur because otherwise He would have to circumvent human free will. In other words he would have to remove His own Divine Image from humanity. Also, as I've already stated, homosexuality is just one of any number of desires which must be fought. You can't stop a thought from entering your head - but you can stop yourself from entertaining it, accepting it, and acting on it.

Umm... you forgot the third option, which is that societal woes are the result of human sinfulness and blaming it all on God is just childish "passing the buck." God does not create evil, nor does He inflict it on people. He allows evil to occur because otherwise He would have to circumvent human free will. In other words he would have to remove His own Divine Image from humanity. Also, as I've already stated, homosexuality is just one of any number of desires which must be fought. You can't stop a thought from entering your head - but you can stop yourself from entertaining it, accepting it, and acting on it.
Well then who did create evil … I thought god created everything

Again providing an internal motivation for something that does not harm another (assuming consenting adults) and then making it a basis for sending you to eternal damnation is hardly a sign of an all loving being and in my opinion such a being would not be worth worshiping
We can still have freedom of choice and have freedom of consequences

I find it interesting to note that the majority of the time, the arguments provided against daft rules seems to be, well it's in the OT, old rules, they don't apply.
So:

Acts 15:29 (King James Version)
'29that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.[a] If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. '

Acts 21:25 (as above)
'25But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing,[a] except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality."

According to this, blood transfusions are a no-no. Yet (AKAIK) only the Jehovah's Witnesses adhere to this.
Why?

Blessings
Cyber

Umm, I think that they meant *drinking* blood...

Well then who did create evil … I thought god created everything

Again providing an internal motivation for something that does not harm another (assuming consenting adults) and then making it a basis for sending you to eternal damnation is hardly a sign of an all loving being and in my opinion such a being would not be worth worshiping
We can still have freedom of choice and have freedom of consequences

Humans created evil. Duh. They created it when they decided they could be happy without the fundamental God-human interface.

God did not provide the "internal motivation." Human perversion created that.

And the motivation is not the basis for damnation. Accepting and acting on the motivation is the basis. Because it's not what you are afflicted by, it's what you choose to act on and define yourself by. Internal strength and willpower. Dying to self.

Humans created evil. Duh. They created it when they decided they could be happy without the fundamental God-human interface.

God did not provide the "internal motivation." Human perversion created that.

And the motivation is not the basis for damnation. Accepting and acting on the motivation is the basis. Because it's not what you are afflicted by, it's what you choose to act on and define yourself by.
And god created us … so in essence god was the original creator of evil
Again love how ‘god’ condemns by acts but will not save by them as well

Humans created evil. Duh. They created it when they decided they could be happy without the fundamental God-human interface.

God did not provide the "internal motivation." Human perversion created that.

And the motivation is not the basis for damnation. Accepting and acting on the motivation is the basis. Because it's not what you are afflicted by, it's what you choose to act on and define yourself by. Internal strength and willpower. Dying to self.

Evil comes from god, not man.

You were unaware of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? It existed before the Fall... thus 'evil' cannot come form man.

Also:

Joshua 23:15 "Therefore it shall come to pass, that as all good things are come upon you, which the LORD your God promised you; so shall the LORD bring upon you all evil things..."

Judges 9:23 "Then God sent an evil spirit...."

First Samuel 16:15 "And Saul's servants said unto him, Behold now, an evil spirit from God troubleth thee..."

First Samuel 16:16 "Let our lord now command thy servants, which are before thee, to seek out a man, who is a cunning player on an harp: and it shall come to pass, when the evil spirit from God is upon thee...."

First Kings 9:9 "....therefore hath the LORD brought upon them all this evil...".

Second Kings 21:12 "Therefore thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Behold, I am bringing such evil upon Jerusalem and Judah, that whosoever heareth of it, both his ears shall tingle".

Jeremiah 19:3 "Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, the which whosoever heareth, his ears shall tingle".

Jeremiah 19:15 "Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring upon this city and upon all her towns all the evil that I have pronounced against it..."

Jeremiah 39:16 "Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring my words upon this city for evil, and not for good...."

Jeremiah 40:2 "And the captain of the guard took Jeremiah, and said unto him, The LORD thy God hath pronounced this evil upon this place..."

Evil comes from god, not man.

You were unaware of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? It existed before the Fall... thus 'evil' cannot come form man.

Also:

Joshua 23:15 "Therefore it shall come to pass, that as all good things are come upon you, which the LORD your God promised you; so shall the LORD bring upon you all evil things..."

Judges 9:23 "Then God sent an evil spirit...."

First Samuel 16:15 "And Saul's servants said unto him, Behold now, an evil spirit from God troubleth thee..."

First Samuel 16:16 "Let our lord now command thy servants, which are before thee, to seek out a man, who is a cunning player on an harp: and it shall come to pass, when the evil spirit from God is upon thee...."

First Kings 9:9 "....therefore hath the LORD brought upon them all this evil...".

Second Kings 21:12 "Therefore thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Behold, I am bringing such evil upon Jerusalem and Judah, that whosoever heareth of it, both his ears shall tingle".

Jeremiah 19:3 "Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, the which whosoever heareth, his ears shall tingle".

Jeremiah 19:15 "Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring upon this city and upon all her towns all the evil that I have pronounced against it..."

Jeremiah 39:16 "Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring my words upon this city for evil, and not for good...."

Jeremiah 40:2 "And the captain of the guard took Jeremiah, and said unto him, The LORD thy God hath pronounced this evil upon this place..."

Interesting :) I should keep these for later lol

And god created us … so in essence god was the original creator of evil
Again love how ‘god’ condemns by acts but will not save by them as well

God created man with the ability to sin. Otherwise we wouldn't have free will and we would just be robots. He didn't make us sin, and He still doesn't. Humanity chose to reject God, and God would be far more unjust if He didn't allow humans to sin. Because that would mean he was taking back His gift of free will, which is the core of human identity.

Secondly, as a Catholic, I believe that good works are essential to salvation. Salvation is impossible without good works, although they are insufficient by themselves. Your argument about the inconsistent significance of acts may have worked if I was espousing a Protestan/enavgelical viewpoint, but it's irrelevant to a Catholic viewpoint. Whereas giving in to temptation and accepting a sinful desire is a sin and is damning to one degree or another, the opposite - rejecting the sinful desire - is virtuous and leads to salvation. It really is very clear-cut.

Interesting :) I should keep these for later lol

One of us should... I can't keep looking all these references up, every time. :)

God created man with the ability to sin. Otherwise we wouldn't have free will and we would just be robots. He didn't make us sin, and He still doesn't. Humanity chose to reject God, and God would be far more unjust if He didn't allow humans to sin. Because that would mean he was taking back His gift of free will, which is the core of human identity.

Secondly, as a Catholic, I believe that good works are essential to salvation. Salvation is impossible without good works, although they are insufficient by themselves. Your argument about the inconsistent significance of acts may have worked if I was espousing a Protestan/enavgelical viewpoint, but it's irrelevant to a Catholic viewpoint. Whereas giving in to temptation and accepting a sinful desire is a sin and is damning to one degree or another, the opposite - rejecting the sinful desire - is virtuous and leads to salvation. It really is very clear-cut.


We made the choice … but he had to MAKE the choice .
He had to create evil in order for us to choose it

Irregardless if works are considered a “good” thing you can still not be saved by them but you can be condemned by them
The act of rejection does not lead to salvation it is just a “good” thing to do
Your salvation is still dependent on faith not acts

God created man with the ability to sin. Otherwise we wouldn't have free will and we would just be robots. He didn't make us sin, and He still doesn't. Humanity chose to reject God, and God would be far more unjust if He didn't allow humans to sin. Because that would mean he was taking back His gift of free will, which is the core of human identity.

Secondly, as a Catholic, I believe that good works are essential to salvation. Salvation is impossible without good works, although they are insufficient by themselves. Your argument about the inconsistent significance of acts may have worked if I was espousing a Protestan/enavgelical viewpoint, but it's irrelevant to a Catholic viewpoint. Whereas giving in to temptation and accepting a sinful desire is a sin and is damning to one degree or another, the opposite - rejecting the sinful desire - is virtuous and leads to salvation. It really is very clear-cut.

Explaining Catholic dogma to UpwardThrust?

You, my friend, are preaching to the perverted.

Oh - and don't make me get medieval on you - and show you just how and why God specifically DID make men sin...

Evil comes from god, not man.

You were unaware of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? It existed before the Fall... thus 'evil' cannot come form man.

Also:

Joshua 23:15 "Therefore it shall come to pass, that as all good things are come upon you, which the LORD your God promised you; so shall the LORD bring upon you all evil things..."

Judges 9:23 "Then God sent an evil spirit...."

First Samuel 16:15 "And Saul's servants said unto him, Behold now, an evil spirit from God troubleth thee..."

First Samuel 16:16 "Let our lord now command thy servants, which are before thee, to seek out a man, who is a cunning player on an harp: and it shall come to pass, when the evil spirit from God is upon thee...."

First Kings 9:9 "....therefore hath the LORD brought upon them all this evil...".

Second Kings 21:12 "Therefore thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Behold, I am bringing such evil upon Jerusalem and Judah, that whosoever heareth of it, both his ears shall tingle".

Jeremiah 19:3 "Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, the which whosoever heareth, his ears shall tingle".

Jeremiah 19:15 "Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring upon this city and upon all her towns all the evil that I have pronounced against it..."

Jeremiah 39:16 "Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring my words upon this city for evil, and not for good...."

Jeremiah 40:2 "And the captain of the guard took Jeremiah, and said unto him, The LORD thy God hath pronounced this evil upon this place..."

That's the Tree of the KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil, not of Good and Evil itself. The problem is, you can only know what is good by doing and experiencing evil, which is what Adam and Eve did by disobeying God and aspiring to be gods themselves. Humanity brought evil into the world through their act, not God. And how can evil be embodied in a tree, anyways? Is it like the trees in the Wizard of Oz?

Secondly, you'll note that all your quotes come from the OT. While Catholicism doesn't invalidate the OT, it does recognize that the expressions and general viewpoint are Jewish. Judaism's G_d has different attributes than the Christian God of infinite mercy. And, being Catholic, I don't merely subscribe to the literal interpretation either. Tradition and the interpretation of theologians over the years also hold authority. And that Tradition shows evil to be a product of human disobedience and arrogance, not of a cruel God.

That's the Tree of the KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil, not of Good and Evil itself. The problem is, you can only know what is good by doing and experiencing evil, which is what Adam and Eve did by disobeying God and aspiring to be gods themselves. Humanity brought evil into the world through their act, not God. And how can evil be embodied in a tree, anyways? Is it like the trees in the Wizard of Oz?

Secondly, you'll note that all your quotes come from the OT. While Catholicism doesn't invalidate the OT, it does recognize that the expressions and general viewpoint are Jewish. Judaism's G_d has different attributes than the Christian God of infinite mercy. And, being Catholic, I don't merely subscribe to the literal interpretation either. Tradition and the interpretation of theologians over the years also hold authority. And that Tradition shows evil to be a product of human disobedience and arrogance, not of a cruel God.
Oh and why did “god” make this magical switch from a badass to all loving? Did he realize he was wrong acting the way he did in the first place?

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]Explaining Catholic dogma to UpwardThrust?

You, my friend, ar epreaching to the perverted.

QUOTE]

I'm just having some fun...

Explaining Catholic dogma to UpwardThrust?

You, my friend, ar epreaching to the perverted.

Oh - and don't make me get medieval on you - and show you just how and why

Yeah I will try not to let my past with the catholic faith taint my argument (it is hard though)

And “epreaching to the perverted” genius

Oh and why did “god” make this magical switch from a badass to all loving? Did he realize he was wrong acting the way he did in the first place?

Why don't you ask Him yourself?

I personally don't believe so. Any event involving God making Himself human and dying with the world's sins upon Him has to be evidence of a fundamental shift, though. If you can't have faith that Somebody has a Plan and that eventually it'll work out all right, you're in trouble. Some people think that's themselves. Others think it's God. I think the second one's right.

We made the choice … but he had to MAKE the choice .
He had to create evil in order for us to choose it

We made the choice … but he had to MAKE the choice .
He had to create evil in order for us to choose it

Irregardless if works are considered a “good” thing you can still not be saved by them but you can be condemned by them
The act of rejection does not lead to salvation it is just a “good” thing to do
Your salvation is still dependent on faith not acts

Poetry in motion, my friend.

Poetry in motion. :)

Why don't you ask Him yourself?

I personally don't believe so. Any event involving God making Himself human and dying with the world's sins upon Him has to be evidence of a fundamental shift, though. If you can't have faith that Somebody has a Plan and that eventually it'll work out all right, you're in trouble. Some people think that's themselves. Others think it's God. I think the second one's right.
Guess I am in trouble then :p



And yes it is evidence of a shift … my question is why would an all knowing god have to make a shift to a better means of salvation … why did he implement the worse means first? He would KNOW that it would not be an equitable way to salvation and logically implement the better solution first

Poetry in motion, my friend.

Poetry in motion. :)
Except I managed a copy and paste error that I did not catch :p (I type up in word to try and remove spelling issues)

We made the choice … but he had to MAKE the choice .
He had to create evil in order for us to choose it

Irregardless if works are considered a “good” thing you can still not be saved by them but you can be condemned by them
The act of rejection does not lead to salvation it is just a “good” thing to do
Your salvation is still dependent on faith not acts

If sin is a choice of the absence of God, rather than the Presence... then God didn't create evil. Because evil is absence, not presence. (I love semantics.)

Secondly, as I've pointed out before, Catholic theology defines good works as the outward exression of a God-focused soul. Sin is the outward sign of a God-absent soul. You aren't damned by the works, but by the inner Godlessness that they find their source in. Likewise, good works can't save you, but the inner Godliness that produces them does.

Guess I am in trouble then :p



And yes it is evidence of a shift … my question is why would an all knowing god have to make a shift to a better means of salvation … why did he implement the worse means first? He would KNOW that it would not be an equitable way to salvation and logically implement the better solution first

I can't answer that for you. Presuming to be God's apologist is a pride I don't want to get too close to.

If sin is a choice of the absence of God, rather than the Presence... then God didn't create evil. Because evil is absence, not presence. (I love semantics.)

Secondly, as I've pointed out before, Catholic theology defines good works as the outward exression of a God-focused soul. Sin is the outward sign of a God-absent soul. You aren't damned by the works, but by the inner Godlessness that they find their source in. Likewise, good works can't save you, but the inner Godliness that produces them does.
So you are stating the motivation behind the works is what saves and condemns you. Good deeds are motivated by godliness and bad ones by godlessness

If so … I do good things just to be good to people … I am then displaying godliness, why must there be a belief in god in order for me to be saved?

I can't answer that for you. Presuming to be God's apologist is a pride I don't want to get too close to.

That’s fine but a lot of my questions cant be answered on this earth, and I need them answered before I believe
I hope if there is a god he understands that

Again any just and loving gods that I find worthy of worship would be understanding of that and take that into consideration

So you are stating the motivation behind the works is what saves and condemns you. Good deeds are motivated by godliness and bad ones by godlessness

If so … I do good things just to be good to people … I am then displaying godliness, why must there be a belief in god in order for me to be saved?


IF you are actually doing good things for purely altruistic reasons... IF you have no thought in your mind of the satisfaction you would get from such an act (which is ultimately selfish)... IF you really are helping people just because there's no way for you to do anything else... then you have God in your heart whether or not you call it that. As the saying goes, "it doesn't matter that you don't believe in God. What matters is that He believes in you." Sappy I know, but it has theological Truth to it.

That's the Tree of the KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil, not of Good and Evil itself. The problem is, you can only know what is good by doing and experiencing evil, which is what Adam and Eve did by disobeying God and aspiring to be gods themselves. Humanity brought evil into the world through their act, not God. And how can evil be embodied in a tree, anyways? Is it like the trees in the Wizard of Oz?

Secondly, you'll note that all your quotes come from the OT. While Catholicism doesn't invalidate the OT, it does recognize that the expressions and general viewpoint are Jewish. Judaism's G_d has different attributes than the Christian God of infinite mercy. And, being Catholic, I don't merely subscribe to the literal interpretation either. Tradition and the interpretation of theologians over the years also hold authority. And that Tradition shows evil to be a product of human disobedience and arrogance, not of a cruel God.

Let me cite, straight away, that I think the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is a metaphor... I'm not trying to argue about the ACTUAL existence of such a tree.

But, if you accept the Genesis account, whether tree or no, the choice to do good, or evil, was presented to the earliest humans... which means 'evil' must have been in 'existence'. The tree only gave the KNOWLEDGE of the two faces of the good/evil coin... eating it's fruit didn't make you good, or make you evil... not even make you likely to DO good or evil. It only made it possible for you to RECOGNISE good and evil.

You can argue that humans brought evil 'into the world'... but that doesn't explain the presence of the (potentially allegorical) serpent, or the fact that God, in making an artifact that COULD differentiate good and evil, was introducing the CONCEPT of evil. Further, by allowing the 'serpent' to lie (which is already allowing evil in the world), God dupes our two naked dimwits (who have, until that point, no EXPERIENCE of lying, or any other evil, so wouldn't even recognise the possibility) into allowing the introduction of evil.

Tradition shows that SOME evil is the result of human disobedience and arrogance, perhaps. I don't think it can justify a blanket claim about ALL evil.

I am curious, however, to hear that Catholics don't believe in the Jewish God... how do you justify the prophecies of Messiah, if you doubt the veracity of the Old God's intermediary?

IF you are actually doing good things for purely altruistic reasons... IF you have no thought in your mind of the satisfaction you would get from such an act (which is ultimately selfish)... IF you really are helping people just because there's no way for you to do anything else... then you have God in your heart whether or not you call it that. As the saying goes, "it doesn't matter that you don't believe in God. What matters is that He believes in you." Sappy I know, but it has theological Truth to it.
This brings the argument if there is any true altruism out there … just about any good act can be classified as either making you feel good, or trying to fulfill a requirement that you do good deeds by your religion.

Either you are doing it because it feels right for you (and you get the satisfaction of living up to your morals which really makes the act non selfless)

Or you are doing it because god commanded it ... neither reason is “selfless” nor truly altruistic (though this is a completely different argument and don’t want to hijack too much)

Yeah I will try not to let my past with the catholic faith taint my argument (it is hard though)

And “epreaching to the perverted” genius

;)

Thought you'd like that...

:fluffle:

;)

Thought you'd like that...

:fluffle:
Yup :) specially cause its true *giggles at the perverted part again*

Let me cite, straight away, that I think the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is a metaphor... I'm not trying to argue about the ACTUAL existence of such a tree.

But, if you accept the Genesis account, whether tree or no, the choice to do good, or evil, was presented to the earliest humans... which means 'evil' must have been in 'existence'. The tree only gave the KNOWLEDGE of the two faces of the good/evil coin... eating it's fruit didn't make you good, or make you evil... not even make you likely to DO good or evil. It only made it possible for you to RECOGNISE good and evil.

You can argue that humans brought evil 'into the world'... but that doesn't explain the presence of the (potentially allegorical) serpent, or the fact that God, in making an artifact that COULD differentiate good and evil, was introducing the CONCEPT of evil. Further, by allowing the 'serpent' to lie (which is already allowing evil in the world), God dupes our two naked dimwits (who have, until that point, no EXPERIENCE of lying, or any other evil, so wouldn't even recognise the possibility) into allowing the introduction of evil.

Tradition shows that SOME evil is the result of human disobedience and arrogance, perhaps. I don't think it can justify a blanket claim about ALL evil.

I am curious, however, to hear that Catholics don't believe in the Jewish God... how do you justify the prophecies of Messiah, if you doubt the veracity of the Old God's intermediary?

Yes, the tree gives knowledge of good and evil; it is not intrinsically evil to eat of it. It is, however, evil to eat of it when God has specifically forbidden it. So the name of the tree is almost a definitional play on words. Again, as evil is technically an absence and not a presence, it was not really created at all except by default.

Catholicism doesn't deny the Jewish G_d; it is the same God after all. It's just that we believe that God has redeemed mankind and therefore His relationship with them must necessarily be different.

If sin is a choice of the absence of God, rather than the Presence... then God didn't create evil. Because evil is absence, not presence. (I love semantics.)

Secondly, as I've pointed out before, Catholic theology defines good works as the outward exression of a God-focused soul. Sin is the outward sign of a God-absent soul. You aren't damned by the works, but by the inner Godlessness that they find their source in. Likewise, good works can't save you, but the inner Godliness that produces them does.

So... by the theology that you claim the Catholic church recognises.. an Atheist can ONLY do sin... and never good deeds?

This brings the argument if there is any true altruism out there … just about any good act can be classified as either making you feel good, or trying to fulfill a requirement that you do good deeds by your religion.

Either you are doing it because it feels right for you (and you get the satisfaction of living up to your morals which really makes the act non selfless)

Or you are doing it because god commanded it ... neither reason is “selfless” nor truly altruistic (though this is a completely different argument and don’t want to hijack too much)

No, there is a difference. A good act can make you feel good, or it can fulfill a sense of obligation, or both, but neither should be the reason you do it. You should do it because it's the right thing to do. Case in point: Jesus states that the greatest possible love is to lay down one's life for another person. That rarely feels good, or at least common sense would say so. (I don't have any personal experience there. :rolleyes: ) And no religion requires it. But still it is virtuous because it is the right thing to do (loving selflessness being the prime Christian virtue).

So... by the theology that you claim the Catholic church recognises.. an Atheist can ONLY do sin... and never good deeds?

Reference my earlier post.

"IF you are actually doing good things for purely altruistic reasons... IF you have no thought in your mind of the satisfaction you would get from such an act (which is ultimately selfish)... IF you really are helping people just because there's no way for you to do anything else... then you have God in your heart whether or not you call it that. As the saying goes, "it doesn't matter that you don't believe in God."

And yes, I do realize that I am arguing as much on my own thought processes as on official Church dogma. But so far I don't think I'm being TOO heretical.

Yup :) specially cause its true *giggles at the perverted part again*

And it was all worth it, to score a giggle. :D

Reference my earlier post.

"IF you are actually doing good things for purely altruistic reasons... IF you have no thought in your mind of the satisfaction you would get from such an act (which is ultimately selfish)... IF you really are helping people just because there's no way for you to do anything else... then you have God in your heart whether or not you call it that. As the saying goes, "it doesn't matter that you don't believe in God."

By the same token, it could, of course, be argued that: every good deed you do, that you THINK is because of your saved soul or whatever, is ACTUALLY Satan working tricks on you... making you do 'good things' for bad reasons.

I do not believe in your little god... which means that when I do voluntary work, I am doing it because I intend to help people during the short stay we have on this planet. I COULD easily do other things... but I have chosen to spend some of my time helping others.

I am not willing to accept the protestation that someone else is making me do it, any more than you would accept the protestations that some of the Gnostics made... that our Christian 'god' is actually Satan, and our Bible is the greatest deception ever written.

No, there is a difference. A good act can make you feel good, or it can fulfill a sense of obligation, or both, but neither should be the reason you do it. You should do it because it's the right thing to do. Case in point: Jesus states that the greatest possible love is to lay down one's life for another person. That rarely feels good, or at least common sense would say so. (I don't have any personal experience there. :rolleyes: ) And no religion requires it. But still it is virtuous because it is the right thing to do (loving selflessness being the prime Christian virtue).
So you are arguing there is altruism (sometime we will have to start this discussion up in its own thread ) I happen to agree

Though usually when explaining things to religious people like this it always ends up a big battle (not saying you will but people always jump in) seemingly every act I engage in is somehow motivated (to them) by wanting to please myself … but their actions are motivated by selflessness


Anyways that is for another thread

By the same token, it could, of course, be argued that: every good deed you do, that you THINK is because of your saved soul or whatever, is ACTUALLY Satan working tricks on you... making you do 'good things' for bad reasons.

I do not believe in your little god... which means that when I do voluntary work, I am doing it because I intend to help people during the short stay we have on this planet. I COULD easily do other things... but I have chosen to spend some of my time helping others.

I am not willing to accept the protestation that someone else is making me do it, any more than you would accept the protestations that some of the Gnostics made... that our Christian 'god' is actually Satan, and our Bible is the greatest deception ever written.

Your provocatatory little asides don't deserve a response, but I'll acknowlege them just so you can pat yourself on the back.

When have I said that God makes you do anything? And when did I say that you have to think you're doing these things for a reason? You won't be damned, after all, just because you do a good thing for the wrong reason. It's still a good thing, after all. But the ideal is doing good works because you can't help it, because it's the right thing to do. Pure and simple.

Yes, the tree gives knowledge of good and evil; it is not intrinsically evil to eat of it. It is, however, evil to eat of it when God has specifically forbidden it. So the name of the tree is almost a definitional play on words. Again, as evil is technically an absence and not a presence, it was not really created at all except by default.

Catholicism doesn't deny the Jewish G_d; it is the same God after all. It's just that we believe that God has redeemed mankind and therefore His relationship with them must necessarily be different.

So, how do you reconcile your two gods, then?

If the Catholic 'god' is an eternal loving God... and the Jewish God was a bloodthirsty fiend, that sent evil... and yet they are STILL the same god... how can YOUR God, and THIER God, BOTH be eternal, and yet one is eternally loving, and the other does acts that belie that?


Regarding the tree... Adam and Eve were absolute innocents. In order to eat from the tree, they had to be deceived.. because God had told them not to, and they had obeyed.

Now - deception (which is, I'm sure you'll agree, not a GOOD thing) was outside of the scope of knowledge of the naked dimwits BEFORE they ate the fruit...

They didn't KNOW that lying was possible... all they knew at that point, was what they were told.

So - when a source arrives telling them it's okay to eat the fruit, they MUST believe that to be true... they have no way to KNOW it isn't.

(And, of course, the only other 'talking' entity they knew was God... although they might have wondered why he was dressed as a serpent).

So - the Serpent lies, because God didn't warn them... and God then punishes our naked dimwits to an eternity of being clothed dimwits... that die.

Once again, it looks like God 'sends' evil to men.

About the whole doing evil thing...if God is omnipotent, couldn't it have just made humans with free will, yet without evil? There's a couple scenarios here...either it couldn't meaning it isn't omnipotent, or it didn't wish to, meaning evil is its doing. Then again, that's probably wrong somehow...just thought I'd contribute. And about the act of martyrdom or fatal self-sacrifice, those people usually become hailed as heroes, and if it truly is one of the "greatest goods" then wouldn't it put them in excellent standing with God?

So you are arguing there is altruism (sometime we will have to start this discussion up in its own thread ) I happen to agree

Though usually when explaining things to religious people like this it always ends up a big battle (not saying you will but people always jump in) seemingly every act I engage in is somehow motivated (to them) by wanting to please myself … but their actions are motivated by selflessness


Anyways that is for another thread

I'm glad there's something to agree on :) . I believe that my Code is right, but that doesn't make me right as well. I am still sinful and so pride/superiority is the last thing I should feel.

I'm signing off now, but this has really been a lot of fun. If I had any idea how to create a separate thread, I'd do it. But later. Best of luck, UT and GNI, and hopefully I'll run into you sometime again.

So, how do you reconcile your two gods, then?

If the Catholic 'god' is an eternal loving God... and the Jewish God was a bloodthirsty fiend, that sent evil... and yet they are STILL the same god... how can YOUR God, and THIER God, BOTH be eternal, and yet one is eternally loving, and the other does acts that belie that?


Regarding the tree... Adam and Eve were absolute innocents. In order to eat from the tree, they had to be deceived.. because God had told them not to, and they had obeyed.

Now - deception (which is, I'm sure you'll agree, not a GOOD thing) was outside of the scope of knowledge of the naked dimwits BEFORE they ate the fruit...

They didn't KNOW that lying was possible... all they knew at that point, was what they were told.

So - when a source arrives telling them it's okay to eat the fruit, they MUST believe that to be true... they have no way to KNOW it isn't.

(And, of course, the only other 'talking' entity they knew was God... although they might have wondered why he was dressed as a serpent).

So - the Serpent lies, because God didn't warn them... and God then punishes our naked dimwits to an eternity of being clothed dimwits... that die.

Once again, it looks like God 'sends' evil to men.
Exactly us humans work by comparing things to previous experiences … these people would have nothing to compare lying to nor of “evil” they HAVE no experience in this area they were just that innocents that did NOT know that it was bad to disobey god

To know that it was bad to disobey god they would have to know what evil was to KNOW what evil was they would have had to already eat from that tree.

To claim that they new it was wrong to disobey their creator is to claim that they had knowledge of good and bad BEFORE they ate from that tree!

I'm glad there's something to agree on :) . I believe that my Code is right, but that doesn't make me right as well. I am still sinful and so pride/superiority is the last thing I should feel.

I'm signing off now, but this has really been a lot of fun. If I had any idea how to create a separate thread, I'd do it. But later. Best of luck, UT and GNI, and hopefully I'll run into you sometime again.
Sure we will :) we argue this stuff all the time

Your provocatatory little asides don't deserve a response, but I'll acknowlege them just so you can pat yourself on the back.

When have I said that God makes you do anything? And when did I say that you have to think you're doing these things for a reason? You won't be damned, after all, just because you do a good thing for the wrong reason. It's still a good thing, after all. But the ideal is doing good works because you can't help it, because it's the right thing to do. Pure and simple.

MY provocatory little asides?

Did you not, just a few posts ago, say that your 'god' makes me do all the good things I do?

DId you not also say that the 'godless' soul is the cause of sin?

It is okay for you to superimpose your religion over the aspects of my life, but not okay for me to question the same about your own life?

You said that my god works were (paraphrasing badly, I'm afraid) because of god, whether I acknowledge him or not. Which means that, the non-believer cannot do 'good' without some outside influence, does it not?

I don't understand your concept of 'doing good works because you can't help it'.... surely that would mean you had no free-will?

About the whole doing evil thing...if God is omnipotent, couldn't it have just made humans with free will, yet without evil? There's a couple scenarios here...either it couldn't meaning it isn't omnipotent, or it didn't wish to, meaning evil is its doing. Then again, that's probably wrong somehow...just thought I'd contribute. And about the act of martyrdom or fatal self-sacrifice, those people usually become hailed as heroes, and if it truly is one of the "greatest goods" then wouldn't it put them in excellent standing with God?
Yeah you got the basics of some of the problems with an omni ___ being (fill in blank with potent or knowing or anything else)

About the whole doing evil thing...if God is omnipotent, couldn't it have just made humans with free will, yet without evil? There's a couple scenarios here...either it couldn't meaning it isn't omnipotent, or it didn't wish to, meaning evil is its doing. Then again, that's probably wrong somehow...just thought I'd contribute. And about the act of martyrdom or fatal self-sacrifice, those people usually become hailed as heroes, and if it truly is one of the "greatest goods" then wouldn't it put them in excellent standing with God?

Good points.

There are several Old Testament references to 'evil' that originates with God, and we are also told that EVERYTHING comes form God originally... so it is illogical to seriously conceptualise a view of the world where evil does not, in some way, have it's origins in God.

I like your point about martyrdom. If the true mark of Christianity is the selfless giving of your own life... what about Moslems that die for their cause? Are they, therefore, 'better Christians' than the Christians who DON'T die for a cause?

I'm glad there's something to agree on :) . I believe that my Code is right, but that doesn't make me right as well. I am still sinful and so pride/superiority is the last thing I should feel.

I'm signing off now, but this has really been a lot of fun. If I had any idea how to create a separate thread, I'd do it. But later. Best of luck, UT and GNI, and hopefully I'll run into you sometime again.

Maybe we can persuade the Mods to separate this diversion of from the rest of the thread... it'd be a shame to waste a promising sub-thread purely because it is something of a hijack... :)

You'll probably catch UT or I sooner or later... we are something of a regular fixture... ;)

Exactly us humans work by comparing things to previous experiences … these people would have nothing to compare lying to nor of “evil” they HAVE no experience in this area they were just that innocents that did NOT know that it was bad to disobey god

To know that it was bad to disobey god they would have to know what evil was to KNOW what evil was they would have had to already eat from that tree.

To claim that they new it was wrong to disobey their creator is to claim that they had knowledge of good and bad BEFORE they ate from that tree!

Exactly... that's my point.

You can't avoid sin, if the only way to avoid it, is to know it... and the only way to know it, is to do it...

Nice sig. ;)

Maybe we can persuade the Mods to separate this diversion of from the rest of the thread... it'd be a shame to waste a promising sub-thread purely because it is something of a hijack... :)

You'll probably catch UT or I sooner or later... we are something of a regular fixture... ;)
Yup going wherever we are needed!
*does my best superhero pose*

Yup going wherever we are needed!
*does my best superhero pose*

<mental image that will scar me for days...>

:D

Great, I had managed to keep (thus far) my NS lifestyle free from spandex...

lol.

<mental image that will scar me for days...>

:D

Great, I had managed to keep (thus far) my NS lifestyle free from spandex...

lol.

I hate men in bike pants.

<mental image that will scar me for days...>

:D

Great, I had managed to keep (thus far) my NS lifestyle free from spandex...

lol.
Well I don’t NEED the spandex … I could be …. NAKED MAN!!!

I hate men in bike pants.
Jesus didn't hate men in bike pants.:(

Well I don’t NEED the spandex … I could be …. NAKED MAN!!!

No, if you have any boils, we don't want to see them.

I hate men in bike pants.

Are you trying to get me naked?

Are you trying to get me naked?

No, it's just that if you're showing off and aren't being naked, the classic Speedo works best.

Bike shorts, and the long legged versions of the Speedo make the legs look funny.

And don't start with fat women in bike shorts - now why isn't that mentioned as an "abomination"?

Jesus didn't hate men in bike pants.:(

So I've heard... then there was that time he got arrested kissing Judas...

No, it's just that if you're showing off and aren't being naked, the classic Speedo works best.

Bike shorts, and the long legged versions of the Speedo make the legs look funny.

And don't start with fat women in bike shorts - now why isn't that mentioned as an "abomination"?

I agree - bike shorts turn a person into body and legs, seperated by a strange corseted-effect, in (often) bizarre colours.

They have a magical ability to make your thighs look like balloons....

(Not YOUR legs, you understand... I wasn't attacking YOUR legs).

(Not 'attacking'... that carries connotations...)

(Not actually 'attacking' ANYONE'S legs... erm... you've all got lovely legs...)

(..erm... I think I might shut up for a while...)

I agree - bike shorts turn a person into body and legs, seperated by a strange corseted-effect, in (often) bizarre colours.

They have a magical ability to make your thighs look like balloons....

(Not YOUR legs, you understand... I wasn't attacking YOUR legs).

(Not 'attacking'... that carries connotations...)

(Not actually 'attacking' ANYONE'S legs... erm... you've all got lovely legs...)

(..erm... I think I might shut up for a while...)
Lol you went off on your own tangent there :fluffle: :fluffle:

Lol you went off on your own tangent there :fluffle: :fluffle:

Yeah... don't know what happened...

One minute you were naked, and Whispering Legs was talking about Speedoes... and all in the 'is homosexuality natural' thread...

Okay. I think I feel better now. ;)

Yeah... don't know what happened...

One minute you were naked, and Whispering Legs was talking about Speedoes... and all in the 'is homosexuality natural' thread...

Okay. I think I feel better now. ;)
LOL :) I supposed it is a lot to get worked up over lol

In fact- thinking about it... he left Adam alone with the animals for quite a while before that whole 'taking Adam's rib' scenario...

That could be your ancestory then... :p

Umm, I think that they meant *drinking* blood...
Now here is the problem. You are here choosing to interpret something from a biblical rule, whilst leaving out other options. It doesn't specify how to abstain from blood. It just says abstain from blood. If you are choosing to reinterpret (or rationalise if you will) according to modern ideas, and *your* personal view of what was meant (and of course, so it doesn't hurt you), then why only that? What about the rest of it?
It says abstain from blood. There are no specifics. Logically, a 'good christian' should therefore never accept blood transfusions, and can't eat black pudding. As I said before, I am only aware of JWs who refuse blood transfusions.
But, ok, let's leave aside blood transfusions. What about black pudding? Do you know of any christians who won't eat it because the bible says not to? How about any christians who won't eat rare meat (personally, I like my steak good and bloody), because of what the bible said? I don't know of any.

This is the difficulty with waving biblical passages around in an effort to prove that your god doesn't like something and it is therefore wrong. And it is also the problem when claiming that the bible is the word of god. If the bible is truely the word of your god, then he is a confused god, isn't he?

Blessings
Cyber

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]Exactly... that's my point.
You can't avoid sin, if the only way to avoid it, is to know it... and the only way to know it, is to do it...

Well Ive never murderer or raped anyone, so...does that mean I dont know if its wrong or not?

That could be your ancestory then... :p

Mine? Just mine?

We have all these stories to tell us about Adam and Eve and their blissful time together, and all these other stories about how men are sinful creatures...

Perhaps Eve was edited in later, and Adam's descendents came by our 'animal natures' honestly...?

[QUOTE]

Well Ive never murderer or raped anyone, so...does that mean I dont know if its wrong or not?

Re-read what I typed...

[QUOTE]

Well Ive never murderer or raped anyone, so...does that mean I dont know if its wrong or not?
That’s different … rather then not knowing if an act is wrong they DID NOT KNOW WHAT WRONG WAS

Remember at that point they did not have any knowledge of evil (or wrong)

They cling to the natural line because they don't want the mentality to swing back to the way it was.
Homosexuality was viewed as a disease for many many years. Kids were put into mental hospitals for admitting they were attracted to people of the same sex. They were then brainwashed with Christian dogma & made to believe that their feelings were unnatural works of Satan & that they must be cleansed.

How horrible is that. Why do you thinks so many choose to remain in the closet for fear the witch hunts will begin again.

[QUOTE=Chewbaccula]
That’s different … rather then not knowing if an act is wrong they DID NOT KNOW WHAT WRONG WAS

Remember at that point they did not have any knowledge of evil (or wrong)

Why, thank you, kind sir... for explaining my ministry to the masses. :)

[QUOTE=UpwardThrust]

Why, thank you, kind sir... for explaining my ministry to the masses. :)
Any time

:fluffle:

It matters because, by and large, Nature knows best. Organized religion is inconsistent in attacking Nature and then basing arguments on it. The Gods and the Natural Cosmos favor all forms of sexual activity among consenting adults and that is simple reality. It being natural, as it is, also refutes and discredits Paul of Tarsus, who was the only NT writer to condemn homosexuality. If Paul was wrong, then his teachings were man-made religion like all other monotheistic faiths and therefore a fraudulent power grab. Frankly, that's what most religion is: a power grab. It may sound cynical, but when we bow to unnatural social mores and conventions, we become slaves to the herd, to society itself. I prefer to be more natural and free, revelling in the liberty given to us by the Gods. Aquinas was an arrogant defender of a corrupt and power-hungry institution, plain and simple.

[QUOTE=Chewbaccula]

Re-read what I typed...
dodge.

Mine? Just mine?

We have all these stories to tell us about Adam and Eve and their blissful time together, and all these other stories about how men are sinful creatures...

Perhaps Eve was edited in later, and Adam's descendents came by our 'animal natures' honestly...?

Who knows, but its a nice story anyway.

It matters because, by and large, Nature knows best. Organized religion is inconsistent in attacking Nature and then basing arguments on it. The Gods and the Natural Cosmos favor all forms of sexual activity among consenting adults and that is simple reality. It being natural, as it is, also refutes and discredits Paul of Tarsus, who was the only NT writer to condemn homosexuality. If Paul was wrong, then his teachings were man-made religion like all other monotheistic faiths and therefore a fraudulent power grab. Frankly, that's what most religion is: a power grab. It may sound cynical, but when we bow to unnatural social mores and conventions, we become slaves to the herd, to society itself. I prefer to be more natural and free, revelling in the liberty given to us by the Gods. Aquinas was an arrogant defender of a corrupt and power-hungry institution, plain and simple.


Murder is natural, hatred is natural, covetousness is natural, and so on. The fact that it is natural does nothing to discredit the argument...in fact, I believe it supports it. Sin is an enticing thing, the essence of Christianity is to deny one's carnal nature and don the garb of purity and holiness.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]
dodge.

Hardly a dodge, my friend... what I wrote was...

"You can't avoid sin, if the only way to avoid it, is to know it... and the only way to know it, is to do it... "

We were talking about the FIRST sin, allegedly... and I am saying that they did not KNOW they were sinning, because they COULDN'T know they were sinning... because their FIRST sin was eating the fruit that would THEN tell them what sin was...

It's all in the context.

So - unless you are in the Garden of Eden, it doesn't apply to you.

And, I assume you are NOT in the Garden of Eden, because I don't think it has an internet connection...

[QUOTE=Chewbaccula]
Hardly a dodge, my friend... what I wrote was...
"You can't avoid sin, if the only way to avoid it, is to know it... and the only way to know it, is to do it... "
We were talking about the FIRST sin, allegedly... and I am saying that they did not KNOW they were sinning, because they COULDN'T know they were sinning... because their FIRST sin was eating the fruit that would THEN tell them what sin was...
It's all in the context.
So - unless you are in the Garden of Eden, it doesn't apply to you.
And, I assume you are NOT in the Garden of Eden, because I don't think it has an internet connection...


My mistake then, I didnt realise you were talking about Eden.
I'm not sure but on your theory of the fruit telling them what sin was, as it came from the tree of knowledge.
I always thought it was more just a key that started the thirst for knowlege, more than an instant granter of understanding.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]


My mistake then, I didnt realise you were talking about Eden.
I'm not sure but on your theory of the fruit telling them what sin was, as it came from the tree of knowledge.
I always thought it was more just a key that started the thirst for knowlege, more than an instant granter of understanding.

Well, the way I see it - it is called the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, right?

So - whether gained slowly, or immediately... the one thing we can be sure, is that they didn't have 'knowledge' of Good and Evil BEFORE they ate it.

After all, once they have eaten it, we have God saying "....Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil..."... so they must NOT have known before, and must have pretty much acquired the knowledge immediately.

But, the important thing is: they cannot have sinned by eating the fruit... they were told to eat it (by the serpent) and they obeyed. At that point they cannot have KNOWN they could do 'bad', and they cannot have had anyway to understand that the serpent could lie.

[QUOTE=Chewbaccula]
Well, the way I see it - it is called the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, right?
So - whether gained slowly, or immediately... the one thing we can be sure, is that they didn't have 'knowledge' of Good and Evil BEFORE they ate it.
After all, once they have eaten it, we have God saying "....Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil..."... so they must NOT have known before, and must have pretty much acquired the knowledge immediately.
But, the important thing is: they cannot have sinned by eating the fruit... they were told to eat it (by the serpent) and they obeyed. At that point they cannot have KNOWN they could do 'bad', and they cannot have had anyway to understand that the serpent could lie.

Yes, but by going against Gods will they did commit sin whether they knew it or not. Original sin, that the consequences of can only be learned from after the event.
And if this is true, can you imagine how much happier humanity would be without knowlege, and still live in Eden under Gods love and protection?
Looking at knowlege from an evolutionists point of view, knowlege was good to begin with, ie; fire to hunt with, keep warm, better flavoured food, protection from wild animals, ideally this would have been a good point for our knowlege to stop, I mean look where its taken us too, we now have an over populated world that has 90% of the worlds wealth in 5% of the worlds population, has mass famine, life threatening pollution, epidemics, crime etc and that sadly most of all, has the ability to destroy itself with nuclear and biological weapons many times over. Go back to the start, and give me the caves or garden any day.
We have made the mistake of assuming that knowlege is all important and therefore ultimately good, regardless of its downside.

I find it interesting to note that the majority of the time, the arguments provided against daft rules seems to be, well it's in the OT, old rules, they don't apply.
So:

Acts 15:29 (King James Version)
'29that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.[a] If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. '

Acts 21:25 (as above)
'25But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing,[a] except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality."

According to this, blood transfusions are a no-no. Yet (AKAIK) only the Jehovah's Witnesses adhere to this.
Why?

Blessings
Cyber

Doesn't sound like anything to do with blood transfusions to me.

Sacrificial offerings perhaps.. or something to the like.

For your enjoyment, THE PARABLE OF THE M&Ms:



Wow. Bottle, you should try and get that published. Seriously. It's brilliant!

You are correct, fornicators includes heterosexuals, homosexuals, pedophiles, necrophiliacs, and the lot of them. Basically, if you aren't married to the person (or thing) then it would wrong to copulate with he/she/it. However, as homosexuals could not marry, they are automatically fornicators if they choose to act out on their carnal desires. It's strict, but then again Christianity is not a religion for the morally weak. It requires zeal, conviction, and selflessness.
http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/gaymarriagerite.html

Same two arguements.
"It's unnatural."
"No it's not." *gives examples of animal homosexuality.*

"The Bible is against it."
"Maybe not." *argues scripture*

I could give a rats ass about what the Bible says about it. I don't let Santa and the Easter Bunny tell me how to live either.

Same two arguements.
"It's unnatural."
"No it's not." *gives examples of animal homosexuality.*

"The Bible is against it."
"Maybe not." *argues scripture*

I could give a rats ass about what the Bible says about it. I don't let Santa and the Easter Bunny tell me how to live either.

Then you're going to hell-uh...yeahus! :D

Then you're going to hell-uh...yeahus! :DMy idea of hell would be hanging out with the fundie nuts for eternity.

Oh, it doesn't actually matter one bit.

Except, people feel the need to justify their points of view, and whether something is "natural" tends to make a common latching point for that. Homosexuals will feel more justified in being homosexual if they believe it is natural to do so. Anti-homosexuals will feel more justified in hating homosexuals if they believe homosexuality is unnatural. So mainly these arguments are venting grounds where both sides can hate each other, because hate is natural.
Very true. It has nothing to do with nature. Just like the insruance company will laugh at you and tell you something was an act of god. God had nothing to do with it, but if you want to be ignorant than thats your right.

I'm sure vodka must be more natural than murder.

Why do people seem to believe that man-made things are somehow unnatural? Are humans and the things they produce not a part of nature? If that is the case, maybe birds' nests and honey should be considered unnatural as well.
Because man-made things stem from the metaphysical, the intellect of the mind, not the physical.

"Murder" is unnatural in that it is a concept invented by humans. Looked at at its most basic, it is simply the act of killing. It is humans who attach meaning to the act, and so this, the concept, is an unnatural extension of the natural act.

It is because the primary religious argument Thomas Aquinas gave for why homosexuality is immoral is because it is a violation of natural law.

Aquinas borrows heavily from Aristotle. Aristotle argued that in order to determine if a thing is virtuous or not, you first have to know what it is, and to know that, you must understand (at least in part), the purpose it tends toward. Aquinas took this rule, looked at sex, and said "Okay, the natural purpose towards which sex progresses is procreation. Absent the fall of man from the state of grace, we would have sex because we desire to create more people. Therefore, any sexual behavior that furthers this end is what we naturally would do, and is part of the natural law. Anything that does not is unnatural."

Naturally, homosexual sex does not and cannot lead to procreation. Thus, Aquinas deemed it unnatural, and that has been the stance of the Catholic (and by extension most Protestant) denominations since. It is also the reason why Aquinas disallowed any kind of sex other than strict vaginal sex, disallowed any other position than the missionary position, and disallowed masturbation, because it was the opinion of leading medical experts of the day, who were heavily influenced by Galen, that the missionary position was best for procreative purposes.

Now of course, you can disagree with Aquinas about his knowledge of anatomy, or what the purpose of sex is/if it has a purpose, etc., but this is the root of the debate over whether or not homosexuality is "natural."
Seems to me to be a blatent transposition of "natural" (of a certain nature) and "natural" (stemming from, and a part of, Nature) that has led to this debate. The "nature" of homosexual people, to be attracted to the same gender, has nothing to do with their actions in the physical world. Aquinas seems to understand this; his explanation of "proper" physical technique and purpose is not about homosxuality, but about procreation. The confusion is introduced by those reading such things, ignorant that "Natural Law" does not mean "Laws of Nature", and mistakenly hold it up as the same thing.

The argument of natural or not bares no pertinence for either camp. There are plenty of people who think homosexuality is a sinful choice, as well as people who see it as a sinful disease. Either way, for those who don't like homosexuality, they'll hate it.

Actually, funny enough, for a while in the seventies there were people who said it was a choice (an evil one, at that) and that if science could prove otherwise they'd come around. Once evidence of homosexuality in animals as well as chromosonal evidence in, to be specific, sheep, came out, these same people that said they would turn around on the subject came out to say "see, they're just like animals!"

Oh, the irony.

Homosexuality is, at best, a minor point in The Bible. Having once been clergy, I think I can say so with some authority, especially when chewbacca has noted that she hasn't all the facts about said book and defers to the expertise of others.

The famous instance of Sodam and Ghommorah has nothing to do with homosexuality, and it doesn't take much of a reading of it to understand this. The story pertains to inhospitality towards strangers and licivious living, nothing more.

The oft cited example in Leviticus provides a bit more of a foothold, but not by much. First there is the fact that the famous "man shall not lay with man" passage is sandwiched between a wide range of arbitrary commands that no self-respecting Christian would ever be caught obeying today. Second is to the source of the verse, which seems rather suspect. And third is the translation of the line itself. The hebrew phrase from which it is translated has gone the way of the dodo, and it is impossible to understand what it originally meant. Did it pertain to sexual relations between men? Possibly. But even if so, it has nothing to say about woman lying with woman. And of course, there is the controversy of the Deuteronomic laws, which are ones of sanitation, not sin. These include the Kosher laws and also encompass the ostensibly anti-homosexual commands in the Old Testament.

In other words, the small handful of statements about homosexuality in The Bible mostly have nothing to do, in truth, with homosexuality. Even if they do, they are written by obscure scribes and hand-picked from amongst the likes of such immortal codes as "don't wear clothes of more than one fabric" and "burn oxen as sacrifice in the open air"; rules that have been cast asunder by thousands of generations of Jews, Christians and Muslims.

[QUOTE=Chewbaccula]

Well, the way I see it - it is called the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, right?

So - whether gained slowly, or immediately... the one thing we can be sure, is that they didn't have 'knowledge' of Good and Evil BEFORE they ate it.

After all, once they have eaten it, we have God saying "....Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil..."... so they must NOT have known before, and must have pretty much acquired the knowledge immediately.

But, the important thing is: they cannot have sinned by eating the fruit... they were told to eat it (by the serpent) and they obeyed. At that point they cannot have KNOWN they could do 'bad', and they cannot have had anyway to understand that the serpent could lie.

Exactly otherwise they would have already HAD that knoledge ... and the "tree" would be pointless (as well as pointless to punish them)

Doesn't sound like anything to do with blood transfusions to me.

Sacrificial offerings perhaps.. or something to the like.

Ah, and that is the key. It only says abstain from blood. It doesn't say how. JWs have taken it to the fullest extent possible. It may not soundsl ike blood transfusions, but I doubt there would have been many blood transfusions taking place when this was (meant to have been) written. JWs choose not to interpret, but to treat it as a 'catch-all'. Other christian group choose to interpret it by saying what you did. It doesn't *sound like* blood transfusions. So it is not treated as meaning blood transfusions. But surely, by interpreting it in this way, you are 'diluting' what is meant to be the 'word of god'?

Blessings
Cyber

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]

Yes, but by going against Gods will they did commit sin whether they knew it or not. Original sin, that the consequences of can only be learned from after the event.
And if this is true, can you imagine how much happier humanity would be without knowlege, and still live in Eden under Gods love and protection?
Looking at knowlege from an evolutionists point of view, knowlege was good to begin with, ie; fire to hunt with, keep warm, better flavoured food, protection from wild animals, ideally this would have been a good point for our knowlege to stop, I mean look where its taken us too, we now have an over populated world that has 90% of the worlds wealth in 5% of the worlds population, has mass famine, life threatening pollution, epidemics, crime etc and that sadly most of all, has the ability to destroy itself with nuclear and biological weapons many times over. Go back to the start, and give me the caves or garden any day.
We have made the mistake of assuming that knowlege is all important and therefore ultimately good, regardless of its downside.

So, you are saying God punished Adam for a test he COULD NOT have passed? Rather an evil action, no? A God who sets arbitrary tests that cannot be passed, and then uses said failure as a reason to punish the participants for all eternity?

[QUOTE=Chewbaccula]So, you are saying God punished Adam for a test he COULD NOT have passed? Rather an evil action, no? A God who sets arbitrary tests that cannot be passed, and then uses said failure as a reason to punish the participants for all eternity?

Original sin does not make logical sense. It effectively means that all children who die unbaptised go to some kind of hell, regardless of their ability to actually comprehend the nature of good and evil, whcih seems contrary to a loving God.

[QUOTE=Chewbaccula]

So, you are saying God punished Adam for a test he COULD NOT have passed? Rather an evil action, no? A God who sets arbitrary tests that cannot be passed, and then uses said failure as a reason to punish the participants for all eternity?
Exactly … then there is always the “like a parent sometimes you have to punish your kid” analogy that gets used

… yeah because I know a lot of parents who out of love want to potentially send a large portion of their offspring to be punished forever (for like you said that decision they could not have passed)

What a loving god

(of course we are going to hear the “but freedom of choice” spiel now … but that’s BS , an all powerful deity would not have had to have a punishment for the choice, and personally I would think he would be more forgiving)

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]

Original sin does not make logical sense. It effectively means that all children who die unbaptised go to some kind of hell, regardless of their ability to actually comprehend the nature of good and evil, whcih seems contrary to a loving God.

I would never dare to justify Original Sin... the concept is fatally flawed, in as much as the story clearly shows that 'God' punishes mankind for a choice they could not avoid.

However, in the context of an Old Testament 'god', it isn't all THAT inconsistent.

Exactly … then there is always the “like a parent sometimes you have to punish your kid” analogy that gets used

… yeah because I know a lot of parents who out of love want to potentially send a large portion of their offspring to be punished forever (for like you said that decision they could not have passed)

What a loving god

(of course we are going to hear the “but freedom of choice” spiel now … but that’s BS , an all powerful deity would not have had to have a punishment for the choice, and personally I would think he would be more forgiving)

You are right about 'free will' being a flawed concept.

'Free will' implies choice - and the story of the naked dimwits clearly shows that there was NO choice.

Any information that could have helped them to choose was withheld; any warning about the possibility of sin was withheld; and they were exposed to direct misinformation... coercion even.

They had no choice but to 'obey' the serpent, just as they 'obeyed' God... and 'God' allowed the test to happen, and allowed the serpent to intervene.

Thus - while the serpent MAY have had free-will, the naked dimwits clearly did not.

Free-will is a red herring.

You are right about 'free will' being a flawed concept.

'Free will' implies choice - and the story of the naked dimwits clearly shows that there was NO choice.

Any information that could have helped them to choose was withheld; any warning about the possibility of sin was withheld; and they were exposed to direct misinformation... coercion even.

They had no choice but to 'obey' the serpent, just as they 'obeyed' God... and 'God' allowed the test to happen, and allowed the serpent to intervene.

Thus - while the serpent MAY have had free-will, the naked dimwits clearly did not.

Free-will is a red herring.
I agree, because all will is free (self-determination) or it simply is not will.

[QUOTE=Vetalia]

I would never dare to justify Original Sin... the concept is fatally flawed, in as much as the story clearly shows that 'God' punishes mankind for a choice they could not avoid.

However, in the context of an Old Testament 'god', it isn't all THAT inconsistent.

I've heard other versions of that story where instead of saying things like "I will increase the pains of your childbirth," etc. God says things like "the pains of your childbrith shall be increased."

See the difference? The first implies that God is punishing them for disobeying him. The second implies that what happens is the natural result of having human intelligence.

Note, a lot of Hebrew mythology is just shoplifted Babylonian mythology, and their mythology states outright that living as a beast makes it easier for you to be content, but human knowledge is far better, even if it gives you the tragic knowledge that you're going to die, a fact that animals are ignorant of (the Enkidu and Shamanastra story in the epic of Gilgamesh).

In the Bible story God tells Adam and Eve "the day you eat this apple, you will die." Well, when they ate the apple, they gained knowledge of death (though first they gained knowledge of nudity)." They didn't really have will at all until they ate the apple. They were like beasts, but unlike all the other beasts, they yearned for more.

Like all good things, Satan has counterfeited sexuality to make it more appealing and to help justify those who indulge in passions outside the bounds that God has set.

This is about proving ourselves, proving we are better than our baser natures, proving that sending us to earth was worth the sacrifice of His son for our sins.

Like all good things, Satan has counterfeited sexuality to make it more appealing and to help justify those who indulge in passions outside the bounds that God has set.

This is about proving ourselves, proving we are better than our baser natures, proving that sending us to earth was worth the sacrifice of His son for our sins.
So Satan has enough control to implant things into our very nature that god had not intended

Thank you Christian god for not being strong enough to make sure your design was not messed with in production

So Satan has enough control to implant things into our very nature that god had not intended

Thank you Christian god for not being strong enough to make sure your design was not messed with in production

How would we be expected to grow and prove ourselves if we were not presented with options in how to use the gifts given us? That does not make God weak, it makes Him a wise discerner of our true character.

How would we be expected to grow and prove ourselves if we were not presented with options in how to use the gifts given us? That does not make God weak, it makes Him a wise discerner of our true character.

Unless you have made mistakes and have had regret; you can't declare yourself as having character.

How would we be expected to grow and prove ourselves if we were not presented with options in how to use the gifts given us? That does not make God weak, it makes Him a wise discerner of our true character.
Be all good and fine if it was a neutral decision to go one way or another

But when he starts setting me up so that I am pre disposed to one decision then making the opposite the “right” choice I start to find such a deity cruel

Be all good and fine if it was a neutral decision to go one way or another

But when he starts setting me up so that I am pre disposed to one decision then making the opposite the “right” choice I start to find such a deity cruel

If you were predisposed by His design, it would be cruel. I do not believe that is the case. You are trying to pass the buck of responsibility...

If you were predisposed by His design, it would be cruel. I do not believe that is the case. You are trying to pass the buck of responsibility...
Again then he allowed the devil to predispose me rather then just influencing … and a god that can not understand THAT I find not all loving

No one can MAKE you do anything. That is not how it works, Upward Thrust. The devil does not predispose you, he can only whisper to you.

Take some personal responsibility for who you are.

No one can MAKE you do anything. That is not how it works, Upward Thrust. The devil does not predispose you, he can only whisper to you.

Take some personal responsibility for who you are.

If you have chosen to react in this fashion based on the actions of others, they will be dealt with for having undue influence on you. However, in the end, you choose your own adventure.

"He has to choose his own path. Noone can do it for him."
Leia to Luke regarding Han

No one can MAKE you do anything. That is not how it works, Upward Thrust. The devil does not predispose you, he can only whisper to you.

Take some personal responsibility for who you are.

If you have chosen to react in this fashion based on the actions of others, they will be dealt with for having undue influence on you. However, in the end, you choose your own adventure.

"He has to choose his own path. Noone can do it for him."
Leia to Luke regarding Han
But he does pre-dispose people … biologically people are sometimes just attracted to the same sex. It was not a choice for their attraction

What they DO is a choice they can make

But either god built in a predisposition for some or he allowed the devil to do it … they can choose not to act on it yes but I find it cruel to punish them for going with their nature

In this way the Christian god to me is not moral

A quick list of things that are "natural" (meaning they occur in nature):

Mothers consuming their young
Marburg Virus
Cancer
Rape
Murder
Hurling Feces



Rape and Murder are natural? Yes the occur frequently but you can hardly compare the mating habits of animals to rapists, who actually get pleasure from their disgusting crimes.

While I know that your not taking a stab a gay people, of whom I have no problem with, you seem to be comparing them to well, animals??

I see your point of things being natural, you just have an odd way to highlighting it.

No one can MAKE you do anything. That is not how it works, Upward Thrust. The devil does not predispose you, he can only whisper to you.

Take some personal responsibility for who you are.It seems to me the whole idea behind religion is to avoid taking personal responsibility.

The idea behind religion is to get people NOT to burn in hell.

But he does pre-dispose people … biologically people are sometimes just attracted to the same sex. It was not a choice for their attraction

What they DO is a choice they can make

But either god built in a predisposition for some or he allowed the devil to do it … they can choose not to act on it yes but I find it cruel to punish them for going with their nature

In this way the Christian god to me is not moral

I have a good friend who is a Ph.D. in Biochemistry who disagrees with the biological basis for homosexuality. Besides, the studies that claim this gene exists have not shown any cause-effect link. Science does not tell us what is true- it eliminates all other possibilities until only the truth remains.

It seems to me the whole idea behind religion is to avoid taking personal responsibility.

Then you have misunderstood it. I take responsibility for my actions. I know that God loves us, nevertheless I do not know the meaning of all things.

For that reason, these truths I hold self evident depend upon my openness to inspiration and my reception of what knowledge beyond myself is imparted to me by the divine.

Any of you whom I have wronged in my first day on NS, I wish you to know it was not my intent, only to speak the truth as I understand and to be understood.

I have a good friend who is a Ph.D. in Biochemistry who disagrees with the biological basis for homosexuality. Besides, the studies that claim this gene exists have not shown any cause-effect link. Science does not tell us what is true- it eliminates all other possibilities until only the truth remains.
Even so ( and the biological arguement is above me so I will leave it to people in the field like depub) the fact is even if it was envyromental causes an all loving god would be fine with me being who I am

The idea behind religion is to get people NOT to burn in hell.

Too bad Calvin didnt hear about this. :rolleyes:

Even so ( and the biological arguement is above me so I will leave it to people in the field like depub) the fact is even if it was envyromental causes an all loving god would be fine with me being who I am

He loves you, but he wants you to rise above yourself and the baser instincts with which all men are born and be better than you are. This is of course entirely up to you...

He loves you, but he wants you to rise above yourself and the baser instincts with which all men are born and be better than you are. This is of course entirely up to you...
Even so with the christian faith even if I did as you call it "rise" above my basic instincts (which are just cruel to bias someone with in the first place) it does not matter ... because salvation is based on faith not weather I am a good person

Is it now? Then are the devils saved by faith?

This is a logical fallacy you hold true- do what you want, be saved anyway.

What interest is there in law and order? Is not then any system of laws a mockery of God's love if faith is all that's required? I can just imagine going to the judge and saying, "Yes I killed those people, but I believe in you judge and your mercy". Things here are a reflection, albeit corrupted, of this as they were, as they are, and as they really will be.

People, face it.

The Bible lists a lot of things that are sinful. Lying. Adulerating. Homosexuality. Molesting children. Stealing. Cursing God.

It doesn't freaking rank them. If you have lied and you're not sorry about it, and you continue to do it, then you are JUST AS BAD as a homosexual.

People don't like hearing that. Pseudo-Christians, in particular, love to think that because they go to church that they are saved, so they can feel superior to other people.

Real Christians almost never bother with debates like these. You have your own problems to work through without preaching like a sanctamonious hypocrite at someone else.

Is homosexuality 'natural'? Sure. There are dozens of known birth defects in the world. I happen to believe homosexuality is one of them.

No, what you should be asking is "Should regular people be forced to accept homosexuals as normal?"

The answer is and always be 'no'. Sorry, but that's it. Homosexuals have a very clear choice. They can live 'how they want' and deal with the way society treats them and (most likely) their eventual fate, or they can change (however unpleasant) and get on with life.

But please don't bother dragging biblical quotes into it, especially OT ones. If you're gonna go with something, use New Testament stuff.

People, face it.

The Bible lists a lot of things that are sinful. Lying. Adulerating. Homosexuality. Molesting children. Stealing. Cursing God.

It doesn't freaking rank them. If you have lied and you're not sorry about it, and you continue to do it, then you are JUST AS BAD as a homosexual.

People don't like hearing that. Pseudo-Christians, in particular, love to think that because they go to church that they are saved, so they can feel superior to other people.

Real Christians almost never bother with debates like these. You have your own problems to work through without preaching like a sanctamonious hypocrite at someone else.

Is homosexuality 'natural'? Sure. There are dozens of known birth defects in the world. I happen to believe homosexuality is one of them.

No, what you should be asking is "Should regular people be forced to accept homosexuals as normal?"

The answer is and always be 'no'. Sorry, but that's it. Homosexuals have a very clear choice. They can live 'how they want' and deal with the way society treats them and (most likely) their eventual fate, or they can change (however unpleasant) and get on with life.

But please don't bother dragging biblical quotes into it, especially OT ones. If you're gonna go with something, use New Testament stuff.
Oh, yay, we don't have enough
http://eqlive.station.sony.com/images/concept_art/troll.jpg
TROLLS in this forum.

Is it now? Then are the devils saved by faith?

This is a logical fallacy you hold true- do what you want, be saved anyway.

What interest is there in law and order? Is not then any system of laws a mockery of God's love if faith is all that's required? I can just imagine going to the judge and saying, "Yes I killed those people, but I believe in you judge and your mercy". Things here are a reflection, albeit corrupted, of this as they were, as they are, and as they really will be.
According to christian doctorine there is no salvation by works ... by faith alone
I have so far not found any refferences out side of revalations that has lead me to contradict the traditional catholic doctorine of salvation by faith alone

Instead of only bothering to post in this thread to accuse one of trolling, why don't you respond to what I said?

It's not a troll. I'm sick of sanctamonius people dragging obscure crap into a thread about the 'nature' aspect.

Oh, yay, we don't have enough
http://eqlive.station.sony.com/images/concept_art/troll.jpg
TROLLS in this forum.
Are you pouncing on Serene Chaos and calling him/her a troll simply because s/he holds Christian ideals?
I don't believe his/her post would fit under any definition of trolling that I know of.

In fact, I don't see what is so objectionable about that post at all.

According to christian doctorine there is no salvation by works ... by faith alone
I have so far not found any refferences out side of revalations that has lead me to contradict the traditional catholic doctorine of salvation by faith alone

Have you studied all Christian religions? I can tell you that my religion teaches that men are saved by grace "after all [they] can do".

People, face it.

The Bible lists a lot of things that are sinful. Lying. Adulerating. Homosexuality. Molesting children. Stealing. Cursing God.

It doesn't freaking rank them. If you have lied and you're not sorry about it, and you continue to do it, then you are JUST AS BAD as a homosexual.

People don't like hearing that. Pseudo-Christians, in particular, love to think that because they go to church that they are saved, so they can feel superior to other people.

Real Christians almost never bother with debates like these. You have your own problems to work through without preaching like a sanctamonious hypocrite at someone else.

Is homosexuality 'natural'? Sure. There are dozens of known birth defects in the world. I happen to believe homosexuality is one of them.

No, what you should be asking is "Should regular people be forced to accept homosexuals as normal?"

The answer is and always be 'no'. Sorry, but that's it. Homosexuals have a very clear choice. They can live 'how they want' and deal with the way society treats them and (most likely) their eventual fate, or they can change (however unpleasant) and get on with life.

But please don't bother dragging biblical quotes into it, especially OT ones. If you're gonna go with something, use New Testament stuff.


Yay if the OT is invalidated then we dont have to worry about thoes silly 10 comandments

People, face it.

The Bible lists a lot of things that are sinful. Lying. Adulerating. Homosexuality. Molesting children. Stealing. Cursing God.

It doesn't freaking rank them. If you have lied and you're not sorry about it, and you continue to do it, then you are JUST AS BAD as a homosexual.
Funny how the bible was also put together by a group of people who decided that they would make it a mortal sin to eat meat on fridays during lent just to give the fish industry a better chance.

People don't like hearing that. Pseudo-Christians, in particular, love to think that because they go to church that they are saved, so they can feel superior to other people.

Real Christians almost never bother with debates like these. You have your own problems to work through without preaching like a sanctamonious hypocrite at someone else.
And who gets to define real christians? You or the imaginary bearded man in the sky?

Is homosexuality 'natural'? Sure. There are dozens of known birth defects in the world. I happen to believe homosexuality is one of them.
Birth defect is a widely-used term for a structural malformation of a body part, recognizable at birth, which is significant enough to be perceived as a problem-wikipedia. Funny how that doesnt match with homosexuality.

No, what you should be asking is "Should regular people be forced to accept homosexuals as normal?"

The answer is and always be 'no'. Sorry, but that's it. Homosexuals have a very clear choice. They can live 'how they want' and deal with the way society treats them and (most likely) their eventual fate, or they can change (however unpleasant) and get on with life.
Why shouldnt people accept them as normal? You have just made a broad statement without backing it up with any facts. Hell in Rome and Greece homosexuality was the norm so why is it so different now?

Yay if the OT is invalidated then we dont have to worry about thoes silly 10 comandments

Right, they have been supplanted by the higher law which states: Love God and love your neighbor, which encompass everything the 10 commandments espouse.

Right, they have been supplanted by the higher law which states: Love God and love your neighbor, which encompass everything the 10 commandments espouse.
Which is strikingly different from the OT with god smiting and killing all thoes people

Which is strikingly different from the OT with god smiting and killing all thoes people

Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth

Except the Lord doth chasten his people to stir them up in remembrance, they will not remember him

Funny how the bible was also put together by a group of people who decided that they would make it a mortal sin to eat meat on fridays during lent just to give the fish industry a better chance.

If that is what you choose to believe, then my post wasn't aimed at you in the first place. And that has to be the most idiotic thing I've heard this year. Congradulations, you win a dollar.



And who gets to define real christians? You or the imaginary bearded man in the sky?

I define 'real' Christians as the people who go to Church to learn about God and the Bible and to help others rather than put on a style show. I define them as people who help people and act in a Christ-like manner rather than judging people and telling them how much better they are. I define them as people who do good works because that's what is right, rather than to impress church members. Most of all, I define them as people who try to get their own soul in order before bashing other people over the head, as opposed to those who lie, steal, adulerate, and sin constnatly and yet have the unmitigated gall to claim that others are 'evil'.

My definitions are for my usage only. Your milage may vary.


Birth defect is a widely-used term for a structural malformation of a body part, recognizable at birth, which is significant enough to be perceived as a problem-wikipedia. Funny how that doesnt match with homosexuality.

A genetic error, perhaps? Genetics affects lots of things, including cholesterol levels, enzyme production, etc. Perhaps birth defect was an inaccurate (or overly inclusive) focus.


Why shouldnt people accept them as normal? You have just made a broad statement without backing it up with any facts. Hell in Rome and Greece homosexuality was the norm so why is it so different now?

I back it up based on the facts of reality. They are NOT accepted. Look around you. But I will go further than this. There have been social situations in the past (child prostitution, slavery, racism, gender abuse) that has been the 'norm' that is no longer tolerated today.

The reality is , pertaining to the thread topic, that it really doesn't matter if it's natural or not. If it's natural, then obviously it's a cross to be borne. If it's a choice, then obviously it's the wrong choice -- at least in Abrahamic cultures. If homosexuals live in those cultures, this is one of the things they'll have to learn to accept.

Are you pouncing on Serene Chaos and calling him/her a troll simply because s/he holds Christian ideals?
I don't believe his/her post would fit under any definition of trolling that I know of.

In fact, I don't see what is so objectionable about that post at all.
I guess I was just pissed it was so absolutist, dogmatic, etc., but hey, that's Christianity, right?

I guess I was just pissed it was so absolutist, dogmatic, etc., but hey, that's Christianity, right?


And you accuse she/he of trolling? Hypocrisy is a wonderful thing, isn't it ;)

And you accuse she/he of trolling? Hypocrisy is a wonderful thing, isn't it ;)
Yes, it is. I think I should log off. My bullshit shield is wearing down, and I need some time to regroup.

*coughs* I'm a Southern Baptist youth minister. If I'm 'dogmatic' to you, skip reading my posts, sir/ma'am. It's funny.....if someone says something totally anti-Christian and it's totally rigid and 'absolutist', then it's okay. If people choose to look at something in terms of faith while TRYING not to be a hypocrite, it's 'dogmatic'.

*chuckle*

I have plenty of my own failings and problems. Lord knows I don't have the right to judge anyone. But this 'hate the sin and love the sinner' line won't work if the sinner requires us to accept the sin to love the sinner. Yes, that's dogmatic. A funny thing about religon is that they actually require you to believe them over what's popular.

Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth

Except the Lord doth chasten his people to stir them up in remembrance, they will not remember him
And an all powerfull god cant chastise or cause rememberance without killin a few people?

*coughs* I'm a Southern Baptist youth minister. If I'm 'dogmatic' to you, skip reading my posts, sir/ma'am. It's funny.....if someone says something totally anti-Christian and it's totally rigid and 'absolutist', then it's okay. If people choose to look at something in terms of faith while TRYING not to be a hypocrite, it's 'dogmatic'.

*chuckle*

I have plenty of my own failings and problems. Lord knows I don't have the right to judge anyone. But this 'hate the sin and love the sinner' line won't work if the sinner requires us to accept the sin to love the sinner. Yes, that's dogmatic. A funny thing about religon is that they actually require you to believe them over what's popular.
Another funny thing is they require them to believe weather it matches up with reality or not (not saying it always does but sometimes)

*coughs* I'm a Southern Baptist youth minister. If I'm 'dogmatic' to you, skip reading my posts, sir/ma'am. It's funny.....if someone says something totally anti-Christian and it's totally rigid and 'absolutist', then it's okay. If people choose to look at something in terms of faith while TRYING not to be a hypocrite, it's 'dogmatic'.

*chuckle*

I have plenty of my own failings and problems. Lord knows I don't have the right to judge anyone. But this 'hate the sin and love the sinner' line won't work if the sinner requires us to accept the sin to love the sinner. Yes, that's dogmatic. A funny thing about religon is that they actually require you to believe them over what's popular.
Yeah, I've probably met you in RL. Would you happen to live in Alabama?

EDIT: Ugh. I hate puppets. I'm through here for today. I intend to find another forum, one with a stricter anti-flame/spam policy, for my debates this summer.

Upward Thrust: Reality is, at times, subjective. I'm not going to sit here and claim that the Church has not made mistakes in the past, or that we can understand everything. For all we know, the Bible was man's best attempt to translate a series of highly confusing images from God as best they could, along with a historical account and songs and everything else, poorly translated over the years.

But even with all that, it can give people a sense of hope, and a framework to live a decent life by. Compared to some of the garbage in our society today, with it's focus on rampant violence, sexual filth in every possible combination, and brutality, I'd rather ignore reality.

Zotona: No, I live in Texas. I'm also black, you wouldn't get me in Alabama if you held a shotgun to my head, my father was lucky to get out of that state with his life in the 50's.

Zotona: No, I live in Texas. I'm also black, you wouldn't get me in Alabama if you held a shotgun to my head, my father was lucky to get out of that state with his life in the 50's.


Meh, a lot has changed. It's a wonderful place to live now :D

The whole "unnatural" argument is just a weak, pathetic excuse for a hatred of homosexuality.

If that is what you choose to believe, then my post wasn't aimed at you in the first place. And that has to be the most idiotic thing I've heard this year. Congradulations, you win a dollar.
To bad you dont get to choose who responds to what on a message board. You post it, its fair game. And give me one legitimate reason why eating meat was considered a mortal sin other than a market driven reason.

I define 'real' Christians as the people who go to Church to learn about God and the Bible and to help others rather than put on a style show. I define them as people who help people and act in a Christ-like manner rather than judging people and telling them how much better they are. I define them as people who do good works because that's what is right, rather than to impress church members. Most of all, I define them as people who try to get their own soul in order before bashing other people over the head, as opposed to those who lie, steal, adulerate, and sin constnatly and yet have the unmitigated gall to claim that others are 'evil'.
So where do we get to find out what a christ like manner is?

My definitions are for my usage only. Your milage may vary.
Your point being?


A genetic error, perhaps? Genetics affects lots of things, including cholesterol levels, enzyme production, etc. Perhaps birth defect was an inaccurate (or overly inclusive) focus.
Hmm on the wikipedia list of genetic diseases I dont see Homosexuality there. As a matter of fact I cant seem to find it anywhere when I use the key word genetic disease. I wonder why this is?


I back it up based on the facts of reality. They are NOT accepted. Look around you. But I will go further than this. There have been social situations in the past (child prostitution, slavery, racism, gender abuse) that has been the 'norm' that is no longer tolerated today.
Funny everyone around me seems to accept homosexuals as normal. You assume that morals are infact absolute. Your examples of things considered once good and now bad seem to point towards moral relativity rather then some abstract concept in the sky that says this is good and this is bad.

The reality is , pertaining to the thread topic, that it really doesn't matter if it's natural or not. If it's natural, then obviously it's a cross to be borne. If it's a choice, then obviously it's the wrong choice -- at least in Abrahamic cultures. If homosexuals live in those cultures, this is one of the things they'll have to learn to accept.
Your assuming homosexuality is a bad thing. And yet for some reason it has been accepted in the past by different civilizations and is in fact accepted by many people today. Why cant the Abrahamic cultures change and accept homosexuals instead of forcing them to change or be stigmatized?

This post is on various things, but I think they are related to this topic. This is all my opinion, so, you can attack me for it if you want to later.

I am a Christian(not really important, but just thought I'd say it)

First, to all fellow Christians:

1.I'd like to point out the fact that saying "You're going to hell because God and the Bible say so" is pointless; especially when speaking to people who don't believe in God. You're basically accomplishing what I would accomplish by running around throwing copies of the Book of the Dead at people screaming, "Ra says you're going to hell".

2.I'm also confused...Is the Old Testament important or not? You can't have it both ways. Someone said earlier in this thread that Christians(or just Catholics, not sure, been awhile since I read it now) view the Old Testament as more Jewish and fire and brimstone, while the New testament is more Christian and about forgiveness and repentance. In my opinion, the stories/truths told in the Old Testament are important because the chronicle God's involvement with man, but many things are rendered unimportant by today's society(case in point, the mixed-fabric thing; or selling children into slavery)

3.Don't look down on people who don't share your views in religion. God gave everyone free will, it isn't right for you to be mad at them for exercising that right.

4.Don't try to force you religious views on a) non-religious people b) non-Christians and c) other denominational Christians. God doesn't want brow-beaten people becoming Christians, he wants people who become Christians of their free will, not out of fear.

5.The Bible, should not, I repeat NOT be taken at face value. I mean, writers back then probably did not submit copies of the Bible to God for editing, so, I'm sure something is a little different from what God intended. Besides, the prejudices of the writer are usually captured in the writing.
Example: Moses is sitting there writing away, and then he has writers block, so he thinks "What's important enough to put in here? Hmmm, I'm pretty sure God said something about how gay people are bad, and if He didn't, what's it matter? They're gross."

Another point on that, the original thoughts behind the words written in the Bible were lost when those writers died. You can interprete the Bible however you wish, no one will ever know it's true meaning. And a final note on this:the original meaning of Bible verses was probably greatly distorted from what was originally written because of multiple trranslations an differing interpretations (a great example is to go to http://www.freetranslations.com and type in any phrase. Then translate that phrase into any language then translate it back into english, and see if it means the EXACT SAME thing as what you put in to begin with)

Now on to homosexuality:

6.Is it natural? well the two definitions fo natural so far are:
a is it how God intended?
b does it occur in nature?

a Well, who's to say? It's in the Bible, I will admit, but see point 5. And, I'm pretty sure it's in the Old Testament, so, see point 2.

b homosexuality is documented in nature. I don't want to wade through the garbage google will produce, so I can't bring you a source for this, but I think someone else did.

7Is it a choice?
No scientific proof has been found either way, but studies are beginning to show that it isn't-no source here either, but it was covered on another thread like last week, I think.

How is it right for any person to condemn another? There is not a living person on the Earth who knows the mind of God, and anyone who claims to needs to be locked up in a padded room.
Why do people go around ignoring the most important, or GOLDEN RULE: Love thy neighbor as thyself(Leviticus:19.18)? Now I ask, do you want to be told you're going to hell for being born a certain way?
Didn't Jesus, whose teachings Christianity are centered upon, basically tell everyone the same thing as the Golden Rule?

"Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?" Jesus said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets."
-Matthew 22.36-40

This post is on various things, but I think they are related to this topic. This is all my opinion, so, you can attack me for it if you want to later.

I am a Christian(not really important, but just thought I'd say it)

First, to all fellow Christians:

1.I'd like to point out the fact that saying "You're going to hell because God and the Bible say so" is pointless; especially when speaking to people who don't believe in God. You're basically accomplishing what I would accomplish by running around throwing copies of the Book of the Dead at people screaming, "Ra says you're going to hell".

2.I'm also confused...Is the Old Testament important or not? You can't have it both ways. Someone said earlier in this thread that Christians(or just Catholics, not sure, been awhile since I read it now) view the Old Testament as more Jewish and fire and brimstone, while the New testament is more Christian and about forgiveness and repentance. In my opinion, the stories/truths told in the Old Testament are important because the chronicle God's involvement with man, but many things are rendered unimportant by today's society(case in point, the mixed-fabric thing; or selling children into slavery)

3.Don't look down on people who don't share your views in religion. God gave everyone free will, it isn't right for you to be mad at them for exercising that right.

4.Don't try to force you religious views on a) non-religious people b) non-Christians and c) other denominational Christians. God doesn't want brow-beaten people becoming Christians, he wants people who become Christians of their free will, not out of fear.

5.The Bible, should not, I repeat NOT be taken at face value. I mean, writers back then probably did not submit copies of the Bible to God for editing, so, I'm sure something is a little different from what God intended. Besides, the prejudices of the writer are usually captured in the writing.
Example: Moses is sitting there writing away, and then he has writers block, so he thinks "What's important enough to put in here? Hmmm, I'm pretty sure God said something about how gay people are bad, and if He didn't, what's it matter? They're gross."

Another point on that, the original thoughts behind the words written in the Bible were lost when those writers died. You can interprete the Bible however you wish, no one will ever know it's true meaning. And a final note on this:the original meaning of Bible verses was probably greatly distorted from what was originally written because of multiple trranslations an differing interpretations (a great example is to go to http://www.freetranslations.com and type in any phrase. Then translate that phrase into any language then translate it back into english, and see if it means the EXACT SAME thing as what you put in to begin with)

Now on to homosexuality:

6.Is it natural? well the two definitions fo natural so far are:
a is it how God intended?
b does it occur in nature?

a Well, who's to say? It's in the Bible, I will admit, but see point 5. And, I'm pretty sure it's in the Old Testament, so, see point 2.

b homosexuality is documented in nature. I don't want to wade through the garbage google will produce, so I can't bring you a source for this, but I think someone else did.

7Is it a choice?
No scientific proof has been found either way, but studies are beginning to show that it isn't-no source here either, but it was covered on another thread like last week, I think.

How is it right for any person to condemn another? There is not a living person on the Earth who knows the mind of God, and anyone who claims to needs to be locked up in a padded room.
Why do people go around ignoring the most important, or GOLDEN RULE: Love thy neighbor as thyself(Leviticus:19.18)? Now I ask, do you want to be told you're going to hell for being born a certain way?
Didn't Jesus, whose teachings Christianity are centered upon, basically tell everyone the same thing as the Golden Rule?

"Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?" Jesus said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets."
-Matthew 22.36-40

Claps ... I deffinatly have a tendancy to like people who take their faith like you appear to ... and relize browbeating us into subservance does not make us have faith ... the best it can do is make us go through the motions

Claps ... I deffinatly have a tendancy to like people who take their faith like you appear to ... and relize browbeating us into subservance does not make us have faith ... the best it can do is make us go through the motions

I second the motion.
-I actually do have Christian friends. But all of them are content to let me find, or not find, my own spiritual path. If I ask a question, they answer it the best they can. If I don't ask, they don't preach.
People who go around telling me that I'm going to hell aren't friends. Partly because I tell them to keep their imaginary friend to themselves. I play nice with other people who play nice.

I second the motion.
-I actually do have Christian friends. But all of them are content to let me find, or not find, my own spiritual path. If I ask a question, they answer it the best they can. If I don't ask, they don't preach.
People who go around telling me that I'm going to hell aren't friends. Partly because I tell them to keep their imaginary friend to themselves. I play nice with other people who play nice.
Yup you have every right to say what you think just as they have to preach it

But if they want to win people over they got to be smart and use discretion when to use that right.

Claps ... I deffinatly have a tendancy to like people who take their faith like you appear to ... and relize browbeating us into subservance does not make us have faith ... the best it can do is make us go through the motions Agreed. It really annoys me when people try and convert in the stupidest ways possible that simply are not going to work. It annoys me precisely because I am a Christian, and they're giving the rest of us a bad name while accomplishing nothing.

That said, if people want to have a religious argument with me, they won't find me willing to compromise.

Agreed. It really annoys me when people try and convert in the stupidest ways possible that simply are not going to work. It annoys me precisely because I am a Christian, and they're giving the rest of us a bad name while accomplishing nothing.

That said, if people want to have a religious argument with me, they won't find me willing to compromise.
And you will find that I am willing to admit I could be wrong as long as you can prove that I am. (like one big theory) continually refining what I think to fit reality

And an all powerfull god cant chastise or cause rememberance without killin a few people?

Sure he can, and he does. I will not presume to know why sometimes he kills and sometimes he doesn't although I have my theories.