Homosexuality and Religion #2

Now the tactical difficulty of having different threads open to quote each other will factor in. How do you think the competitors handle it Keith?

 

Should be stiff competition (no pun intended )...but isn't this technically Homos vs. Religion thread no. 3?

 

Wow - I didn't think that there was this much to say on the topic, seeing that it basically boils down to 'Some Christians believe that homosexuality is bad because the Bible says so. Others think differently.'

I mean - there really isn't that much left to debate when one side believes that they have the support of the infallible word of God...

 

Exactly. One side is saying "We know we're right" when the other is saying "We know you're wrong" and when the question is asked "How do you know?" both answer something along the lines of "We can't show you."

I'm not talking about theories. And scientific laws can be proven. The sum of two sqared sides of a right angled triangle is equal to the square root of the remaining side. Scientific law and there is no circumstance where this law is incorrect and if it is then you're not using a right angled triangle. A law doesn't mean it's supported, it means there is no room for disagreement and it has been proven beyond any doubt.

Name me one recognised religion that doesn't have either.

I never implied that at all. I am saying that science will never become a religion since what makes a religion a religion is faith, ceremony and dogma. Science has none. There are some similarities I guess in that all experiments follow a similar structure and that there must be a control group and I guess one could view that as dogma or ceremony but that would be strongly stretching the definition of either word.

 

That is a mathematical theory, not a scientific law. An example of a scientific law would be the Law of Gravitational Pull. And no, we cannot prove this. We know it's there, but we can never be sure that what we believe is absaloutely correct, so no, it is not proven.

Does Christianity work for you? I'll let the ceremonies fly, but I do believe God told Adam and Eve in Genesis to "Go forth and be fruitful." So unless being fruitful is an ancient term for humping a table rather than your "siginificant other" so to speak, I'm farirly certain that the Bible is a-ok with scrompin'. For the record, scrompin' is an English idiom which essentially means...NOT BEING ABSTINANT.

Yes, it's not like RELIGIONS stretch the definitions of words, do they? Oh, no, of course not. That would be blasphemous.

Science has ceremony, which you were kind enough to provide for me. Science has dogma in that it follows a very heavily-reinforced structure that all experimenters are encouraged to follow. And faith...my favorite! Unless I am QUITE mistaken, it's rather impossible to see individual atoms even with the aided eye. So how do we know that they're there? Faith, anyone?

 

So mathematics isn't science? It's called geometry. Science doesn't just mean test-tubes, white frocks and labs. Sound construction and building principles are a type of science. And it's "The Theory of Gravity" it's neven been claimed to be a law.

So the only part of the Bible one should pay attention to is Genesis? And the rest of it describing procedure and doctrine should be completely ignored? I was speaking of abstinance of priesthood, obviously not all members of the religion. The comparison was a scientist also, who I'm certain you would consider the 'priesthood' of science.

I'm having a hard time dealing with this, was this a sarcastic comment or what?

Ceremony are a series of unnessisary events/occurances and science has none. Everything done in the name of science has a reason that can be proven to have the desired effect. There's no bowing down and worshiping the Spirit of Invention after the first result recording.
The term dogma is often applied to statements put forward by someone who thinks, inappropriately, that they should be accepted without proof. There is no faith in science, the term is theory and it often has physical and proveable backing yet can't be proven to exist in every possible circumstance.

However, I feel this has little to do with homosexuality and religion since I honestly don't think science can be viewed as a religion since no country recognises it as one.

 

No, mathetmatics and science are not the same thing. If they were the same thing, they'd be called by the same name.

Wow, thanks for proving my point! You're saving me a lot of work over here.

When did I say this again? I'm really not finding your argument to be creditable when all you can seem to do is try and put words in my mouth, hoping no one notices the fact that you're incapable of actually make a point.

Perhaps if you can't express what you're trying to say properly, you should just stop talking. It would save me the trouble of having to sift through pages of illogically-implied reason.

NO, that COULDN'T be sarcasm!

I doubt that those of this board who believe in God will appreciate your calling their ceremonies unnecessary.

Last I checked, theories couldn't be proven. And just what is faith again? The belief in something that cannot be proven? Wow, it almost seems as though there is a connection between the two...

You're ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, Abomination; something cannot exist unless it's recognized by a major country! (SARCASM) Count me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that most "pagan" religions are not recognized by their appropriate countries as major religions. Does this mean that they don't exist? Nooo...but I've enough of this pointless argument. It's already deviated far from the original thread, and it's apparant that each of us will ignorantly pursue our own beliefs, even though we're both wrong in all likelihood. Back to homosexuality and religion!

 

Of course mathematics is a science. Just like physics is a science and chemistry is a science and geology is a science.

 

Sure, it's A science. A branch may be part of a tree, but does that mean that a branch is a tree?

 

First off, Some old business:

Equester:

Conservatism of religion or the corruption of an individual that failed to temper his power with responsibility? You have that all over the secular world. Democrats accuse George W. of the same thing, or the Conservative party of Canada was more than happy to point that out about the Liberals in the last election here in Canada.

AS for Human evolution, by being slower to accept the changes put forth, we can examine them, and see how they benefit humanity in general (as God's children, those who are to benefit from religion). This way, we can be assured that the growth of our faithful will be in a positive manner.

And third, Could you replace fear of knowledge with caution in the face of new ideas? Religion can't just take on every new thing they encounter and willy nilly change the rules every other day...

Clixby:

Remember that Creation was one chapter to discuss a 4 billion year process. This oversimplification was intentional to put the focus on the laws of God and the way we ought to live our lives as opposed to how the earth was created.

AS for persecuting homosexuals, If I'm wrong about God, then I will ceace to exist about the time the evidence is presented, so it won't matter. Further, I don't see it as persecution any more than incarceration is a persecution of criminals. You see Crime as wrong and you don't sustain or support it, I see homosexuality as wrong and do not sustain or support it.

Gallileo's "crime" was offending the pride of the Pope. Pride is one of the seven deadly sins, which the bible is against. Homosexuality is an outright violation of the commandments of God, and as such is not openly embraced by churches that claim to serve Him.

Rational thought is imperative to truly understand the teachings of religion. You have to read carefully to know what you are learning. Otherwise you get that "God Hates Fags" site.

AS for Religion being like training wheels, I view Society as the kid that think's he's too grown up for the training wheels, and falters, or even rides unsafely and pays the price. WE see all over the news where Pride, Wrath, Envy, Gluttony, Sloth, Lust, and Greed are destroying society. Maybe we need to put the training wheels back on and obey the guidance that our father in Heaven gives us...

Also, there were no innocents in Sodom and Gamorah. Those that were innocent were told to flee the city. Likewise, Noah and his sons (along with thier wives) were the only innocents at the time of the great flood, and thus were spared.

BlkDeth:

Interesting idea about Science replacing religion. I do see people more and more turning to Science for answers as opposed to God or His servants. The problem I see is that Science does not concern itself with ethics, adn this I believe will create a tailspin for society in general...

Abomination:

In the records of cities that were destroyed, Prophets were sent to cry repentance unto the people, but they not only refused to repent, but they mocked, tortured and killed brutally those chosen messengers in some cases. The only "crime" was to tell the people that they were wrong, and needed to repent.

BlkDeth (again):

Ceremony is only a small part of religion. It's not that it isn't important, but it's not the biggest thing. In my faith, these ceremonies or ordinances are simple, so that we can put more emphasis on the bigger things like obedience and choosing the best way to live. Some of these ceremonies are more to make certain coming of age events (like baptism, receiving the priesthood, marriage, or other blessings as required) more memorable for the members and to help them to feel the Spirit and know that this is right.

The first support of Heterosexuality, and further laws in regards to sex were the bounds within which such being fruitful were to takeplace (between a man and a woman, only in covenent of marriage).

No. Genesis takes the history up as far as Moses, with some of the early law, but it's like the early lessons. As the Bible progresses, the law is added to, up to the birth of Christ. From there, Christ simplifies what's there and begins the things that we ought to do, and Paul elaborates more on the higher law, or the way we ought to live (the Thou Shalt part, as opposed to just the Thou Shalt Not parts).

Actually, that's a false doctrine that's infected some religions. In the New testament, any forbidance of marriage is identified as a false doctrine.

Change "can be proven to" to "we have faith that it will" and you have Religion and it's laws and ordinances in a nutshell. We have faith that baptism by immersion will grant a remission od our sins, and that repentance will see our sins forgiven by God.

It boils down to a point where you have to say that "It just is, live with it." The difference between religion and Science is on where that point is...

 

Um - what point did he prove? Did he prove it to anyone but you, or were we all meant to have been enlightened by this 'proof'?

The fact remains...

That is not what I'd define faith as at all. I would say it is 'the irrational belief in the improbable'. The thing about science is that it seeks for rational beliefs and tries to make it less probable that they're incorrect. A well supported theory achieves this.
Now, if someone was believing a hypothesis that they pulled out of their arse (say, sounds familiar...), then it would be a matter of faith.

 

dosn't mather, they still cant prove does ceremonies to have any effect.

Science has no ceremonies, which makes it diferent then religion.

Secondly you seem to confuse Theory and law.

A scientific law, as the one abomination quotes, can be proven to allways apply and hold true.

a Scientific Theory, is an idea of what most likely happends based on the evidence, such as the theory of gravety, which is a theory of how much power the earth amplies to a body. its broadly based on experiements showing that mather weighing the same, is subduede to en equal force when falling.
While its not proven its the idea that makes most sence at the moment and let us explain a lot more.
Should proof rise for something completely different, the theory will be discarded. that is again something you dont find in religions, they dont work with theories at all. only divine law.

As regarding math, math is a tool of most nature based scince's and a science in it self. as a tool you use the laws provided from math, as a science you try to either prove mathematical theories or theorise yourself.
as it is with most science.

 

First support of heterosexuality? I'd dare say he's just saying to go have kids because they've got ALOT of catching up to do. As for supporting heterosexuality are you implying that the only thing humans should do is have children and if they're not having children then they shouldn't be doing whatever they're doing? Because that's the only way you can view the statement to go forth and be fruitful as anti-homosexual.

Oh, like the Catholic Church that just happens to be the largest Christian branch? Strange that we should listen to a religion that can't even agree with itself, let alone anyone else.

I was talking about how you referred to Genesis as the only basis of your argument. Because after Genesis there are countless times where people are told to abstain from sexual intercourse, especially people of the cloth. "Go forth a be fruitful" means to actually only have sex with somebody you're married to, big problem if you're too damn ugly to get married or something. And I've heard countless reports that having kiddies is God's big plan and if you don't do that then you're sinning or some such.

If we were talking about trees, then you'd be right. But mathmatics is the basis of science and there are many schools of scientific thought. Medicine isn't called science but it is a science that is derrived from biology and chemistry.

The bearing this has on homosexuality is apparent that "science" (studies/surveys/tests etc.) shows homosexuality to have no negative impacts on society. All claims made that it has a negative effect have no solid backing short of the 'other people will ridicule them' argument but that's the same as making cars illegal because 'people will steal them'.

 

But if God is omnipotent, He would have been able to create the Universe in seven days, wouldn't he? After all, you said:

So why couldn't he do all the stuff in Genesis the way it was written?

You still haven't told me why dinosaurs aren't in the Bible, or how two people could create a genetically diverse species that occupies nearly all corners of the Earth. Isn't incest a sin?

#1: I'm sorry, but it's persecution. You're supporting the ostracisation and condemnation of people who have only stood up and asked to be counted. I don't see how "Well, even if God doesn't exist it won't matter to me since I'll be dead" justifies this. It matters to the people who are forced to live in mosery thanks to people who think your way. Oh, but they deserve it, don't they? For not doing things the way YOU want.

#2: Crime involves harm being done to someone. It seems to bear repeating, but homosexuality doesn't harm anyone. It's between two consenting adults.But good job trying to create a comparison between homosexuality and crime, champ.

Yes, a fully Christian society would be absolutely perfect in every way! I mean, look at Victorian England! Everyone back then was Christian, and it was all just dandy! No crime, corruption, thievery, rape, murder, or deviancy then, no sir!

 

:sigh: You've siccessfully pulled me back in again. I've given up on this discussion more times than I can count, but you guys keep pulling me back in.

ok, here goes:

BlckDeth got it right on the 'multiplying' part, and abstinance is not preached in the Bible for life, only before marriage. On top of that, most protestant religions aren't very big on cerimony. The Baptists believe communion and baptism are the only 'cerimonies' set up by God, and neither is stricly required. Marriage is a union of a man and a woman under God, but no ceremony is strictly required to instate it. 'Church Services' aren't so much a ceremony as a standard pattern of events things have fallen into.

@Aldeth:

No, math isn't a science. They are two seperate disciplines. Math is closer to logical studies than to science. Sound construction is called engineering, not science. The principles are science, yes, but the application is engineering.

The Bible doesn't define abstinance for priests anywhere, that's Catholic tradition. The Bible's rituals and ceremonies are almost all Old Testament, meaning they were enacted because God wasn't with the people directly. Now that He is, they're all moot.

Maybe not, but a lot of scientific theories are taken as fact by the common populace simply because they don't know better. Examples: Gravity, Evolution, Einstein's Theories of Relativity, etc. This ammounts to a religion in many senses. While the scientists may not be considered members, and I wouldn't hold them to blame for it either, it is a recorded phenomenon nonetheless.

@Aikanaro:

Yes, the fact remains that it wasn't a fact, but a belief, that was cited.

Then you're using a different term than we are. Both the Bible and the English dictionary define faith as a belief in something that cannot be proven by rational or empyrical evidence. The belief in question does not even have to be improbable, and you're use of irrational leaves your exact meaning here in question, so I'd say you may need to revise your definition.

@Equester:

This is probably one of the most basic mistakes you can make in science. NO! THAT'S WRONG! In science NOTHING CAN EVER BE PROVEN ABSOLUTELY! You CANNOT TEST A LAW UNDER EVERY POSSIBLE CIRCUMSTANCE! A scientific law is one that has generally been proven true and is accepted by the modern scientific community.

@Abomination

Only for short periods of time, never for life.

No it isn't. Medicine, like engineering, is the application of science. There's a lot of biology and chemistry involved in medicine, yes, but there's a lot of physics and chemistry involved in engineering, it still isn't a science.

 

Math is a science...so sayeth the wise Webster.

 

Well unless you start screwing up the definition of religion (or the one I was taught) it can't be a religion. I was taught that religion was belief in some transcended being or principle. I don't see anything like that in science.

Scientific theories are built very differently from religious ones. Scientific theories have to be proven and there needs to be a method of proving them wrong. You can't prove something like religion to be wrong but there is not a single scientific theory which is completely infallable to falsification. There is allways an X factor that has not been solved and therefore it is possible that a rivalling theory scraps these and becomes the new defaultly adapted theory.

Laws are a different matter, they are complete meaning that they work under all scientific circumstances. They basically can't be challenged under the current structure of science. Of course they are not absolute truths since some kind of a scientific revolution which will change science as we know it, is allways a possibility but discussing absolute truths will get us nowhere so we'll have to settle with that which has the most solid base of proof.

 

Science is dynamic. As soon as a theory is generated and accepted as an accurate model of reality, science immediately goes about the business of trying to prove it wrong or refine it.

Religion is static. It's tenets are unyielding, not open to testing and in fact largely untestable.*** Unfortuantely, the Bible is very clear as to God's view of homosexuality; it is an abomination...and so christians deem it so, there is no chance of them refining this viewpoint.

Statements which equate science with religion in any way that matters are innacurate.

***I am aware of such "evidence" as an explanation of how the sea could part for Moses and his posse through a natural happenstance and how Jesus might have walked on water because the lake happened to be frozen or how there was enough water in the early atmosphere to cause the great flood etc. etc. Respectfully, I find these to be silly beyond belief. Why evoke natural phenomena to explain what the Bible describes as divine occurences?

 

Thank you NOG, for informing the others that nothing is proven in Science. And here I was starting to think that I was the only one here who had ever bothered to pick up a Science textbook, too...