Homosexuality and Religion #2

Remove all ads!

god and jesus love homosexuals regardless. Stop arguing guys

 

PS, there were a couple things said above that were so devoid of sentient life that I felt as though I simply must cease ignoring them and post a rebuttal, against my better judgement.

Yes, he proved my point in how he corrected Gravity, to in fact, be a theory, which has even less evidence than a law is shown to have.

I'm not quite sure that you fully grasp the concept of exactly what I mean when I say "branch." I'll try to put this in the simplest way possible: It. Is. A. Metaphor. I thought it should be obvious that I am not literally talking about trees, but I see that I am wrong in this case.

@Equester:
I will let everything you said slide on the basis that English is obviously not your first language. But in response, I should make it clear that, no I did not confuse the terms "theory and law," Science does have ceremonies, we can't prove that ceremonies don't have any effect either, and finally, no, contrary to popular belief, scientific law cannot be proven due to its generally unobservable and relatively abstract nature. Lastly, it should be noted that theories are rarely discarded. Typically, they are modified. Yet you claim this is very different from religious views. How? Religious beliefs are often modified, yet are rarely, if never thrown out. Don't believe me? Try looking at every different interpretation of the bible, and attempt to find two that are exactly alike in nature. So I guess what I am asking is, where's the difference?

 

blackdeath by your logic chemistry is not a science either

 

Sorry if you misunderstood me, Negro Stan. If you'll read my previous posts, you'll note that I emphasize that branches of Science such as Chemistry, Math, Biology, Physics, and many others, are in fact branches off the main body of Science, but not actually Science as a whole. Science as a whole is very far-reaching, while Chemistry, one of its extensions, is not. Science includes Biology, Physics, and Nuclear engineering, to name a few, but the same cannot be said of a single branch of Science such as Chemisty. Do you see what I'm saying?

 

okay, this is just getting silly. Time for a Sociology student to step in:

There are two ways you can define religion. Functionally, and substantially. Defining religion functionally means you define it by what it does, i.e giving people a higher being/reality to believe in. A substantial definition is what it is; so, substantially, a religion is a set of supernatural beliefs. Depending on how you define it, what counts as religion changes. substantially and functionally science falls short of being a religion.

Alternatively, you can use Ninian Smart's (don't laugh) 6 dimensions of religion: Ritual, Myth, Doctrine, Ethics, Social, and Experiential. Science lacks all of these. Rules do not count as doctrine or ritual.

Science fails to be classified for several reasons whichever way you look at it:

- It does not engender faith in the supernatural. Science is looking at the facts and making a logical conclusion.
- It doesn't have a single set of doctrine/dogma (for example, physicists do not follow the same rules as biologists relating to their area of work)
- There is no mythology (yes, there is spoeculation and prediction based on current evidence, but that is by no means mythology)

And I never said that science will replace religion. I just said that religion will lose all social significance in the wake of rationality and logic. Basically, secular humanism will become the norm.

Oh yeah, and I love how Gnarrflinger managed to prove one of my statements right in his rebuttal to that specific statement. I said:

And his reply contained this gem:

QED.

 

Nice - I was just about to bring that in (though it's actually the seven dimonsions - you left out Material).

Now onto my definition of faith. NOG, I think that you're right - my definition of faith needs to be revised. Not because what I have as it at the moment is especially wrong (that does seem to be the way in which it is used in a religious context, regardless of how you dress it up), but because I have a more succinct way of putting it.

'Faith is belief not based on evidence.'

Which is quite close to the dictionary definition (changing 'proof' to 'evidence' - seeing that using the dictionary definition as-is would indeed lead to the totally absurd idea of science being a form of faith).

 

any mathematic law, is proven, else its theory, get the difinition right. and math is a form a science, just like chemistry, physics, biology and so forth. there is no disciplin just called science, its a term broadly used to describe any disciplin that relise on logic and proof, to the determin its teachings.

the mathematical laws holds true in any circumstance, else it isn't a law. oh and NOG, you dont test a law, you prove it generally true math. learn how science work boys then we can discusse it. until then, stick to you bibles and your pi = 3.00

you still havent grasped the 3 aspects have you?.

A law, something that is proven to hold in all circumstances. the laws of geometry holds for all figures they describe.

A theory. is an idea of a law, based un well documented data, which continually will be questioned and tested, to either proof or discard. the theory of gravety seems to hold true in all cases, but it cant be proofed, hence its still called a theory and will be discarded should a better model to discribe what happends be found.

a hypothesis is an idea pulled out of nothing, it has no evidence or data to back it up and while it migth explain something it does it with no cridibility or proof. Gods falls under this, powerfull creatures that somehow controll human life.

so a theory, unlike the hypothesis, is backed up by evidence. you dont have to believe in gravity, you can feel its there, if not, try jumping

[ December 05, 2006, 12:29: Message edited by: Equester ]

 

Ok, just because it bugs me, let me say this again. Math is not a science. You don't experiment in math, you don't test theories (except as an exercise for the reader), and there are absolute proofs. Math is purely a conceptual construct, science is not. Technically, hard science is divided into Chemistry, Biology, Newtonian Physics, and Quantum Physics. These are all interconnected, though those connections are not well understood in all areas. There is a big push on for something called Unification Theory, which would indeed unite all these under one 'doctrine'.

As for the value of religion, well, really there's nothing to be said here. Not because it is self-evident, but rather because we don't empyrically know. Would society fall apart without religion? The U.S.S.R didn't fare very well, and that was with only the opression of religion, but maybe other things are to blame. You know, like tyrranical mad-men ruling the country, spending all its resources on a military competition with the US, etc. Will society fall apart if religion continues? I doubt it, we've had it for millenia and it hasn't happened yet. In the end, you can't prove religion is bad or has any negative effect on society as a whole.

 

Let me say this again: of course maths is a science. And there are far more sciences than just chemistry, biology, and physics! A paleantologist would beat you up with an apatosaurus bone for saying he's not a scientist. A geologist would throw a rock at you and an astronomer would burn you like an ant with his telescope.

 

Holy off topic, Batman.

 

HB, those are all sub-sections of these main topics. Astronomy is primarily concerend with newtonian physics (which can include relativistic physics). Geology is primarily chemistry, as is paleantology (which strickly speaking isn't a hard science).

 

mathematics: the group of *SCIENCES* (including arithmetic, geometry, algebra, calculus, etc.) dealing with quantities, magnitudes, and forms and their relationships, attributes, etc., by the use of numbers and symbols 2. the act or process of using any of these *SCIENCES*; computation

from: "Websters New World College Dictionary - Fourth Edition"

 

CASE CLOSED. BACK TO TOPIC. TOOT-SWEET.

 

@Clixby:
Way to close the topic in a hurried attempt to keep anyone else from making a rebuttal to your points. PS, being a scientology student doesn't necessarily make you right. It means that you're still studying, and that your opinion really has no more credibility than the rest of ours unless you actually back it up, rather than stating your creditentials. ON TOPIC!!!

 

Yeah, but I wasn't sure I wanted to go there. I'm not looking to go out and attack other faiths. The point is on homosexuality and religion...

Actually, a better call would be that we are here to procreate, but we have to do so within reason, for we are also responsible for the education and support of offspring that we sire. If a family is not confident that they can provide for another child, then don't get in their face if they use birth control or get a vasectomy to prevent this situation. We are also not accountable if the ability to reproduce is not given to us or is lost for some reason (like those that are naturally sterile)...

First, God still has to abide by natural laws that he set forth to form the bounds for which all things exist. Many of those laws, your science is finding, but amny are only called theories...

Secondly, This information was given to a prophet 3500 years ago. I don't think he could record all those details.

Third, you've ignored my point that creation is not the issue, but ethics and how we ought to live.

Fourth, I am not God, so I DON'T have all those answers.

Fifth, AS long as science ignores God, any extrapolations based on the assumption that God does not exist could be flawed. I will assume that they are for the time being...

To be counted and accepted for those offences which we consider unacceptable and intolerable.

I didn't write it, I just follow it. Your issue is with God. The promise is that we do things God's way, there is joy. There is misery in defying God's law. They want to avoid the misery but not abide by God's law. It doesn't work that way...

Sorry, I'm not buying that. Crime is a violation of the law of the land. Marijuana, when used responsibly, only harms the user. By your logic, marijuana use is not a crime. In most countries, that is not the case. Arguement fails. QED.

Marijuana smoke only harms the one who uses is (and even that has been questioned), but it is a crime, therefore Crime is a violation of the law, regardless of harm.

Since Crime is a violation of the law of the land, and Sin is a violation of the law of God, teh comparison holds. Harm is not the point. Impaired driving only hurts people if the driver gets in an accident, but even if there is no accident, it is illegal (as it should be). The consequence of Crime is incarceration (or other legal sanction). Sin carries it's own consequences, ranging from guilt and misery, religious sanctions like the withholding of fellowship (shunning) or outright exclusion (excommunication) and potentially eternal punishment (such as damnation).

You are assuming that people would obey the laws they claimed to believe in. Nobody's perfect. There are still going to be criminals and other sinners. I'd hold up the early Mormon settlements in Utah as a different example. Basically one religion was prominent, and there was little sin because everyone was too busy working to see to the welfare of others.

You talk like that's a bad thing? I don't think it's bad at all. Religion asks a degree of conformity among it's followers, just as the state, a school or an employer can request a degree of conformity from their people/students/employees. What's the difference?

That he does, but he still never said it was acceptable. It does however state that if we love God, we will keep his commandments, including the forbiddance of homosexuality.

Actually, I think that Society should not forsake God. It's not that we are behind the curve, but that we know that we shouldn't be popping wheelies or should look both ways before crossing the street like we were told when we were given the bikes. Riding them safely means that we obey these counsels rather than disregarding them and popping wheelies, jumping over things and blindly riding out into traffic...

Rather than just assuming that we know better, why not simply obey the laws that we've been given and see what happens to those that don't...

Good point, but I thought he was a sociology student...

 

If marijuana hurts the user, so it does hurt somebody, hurrah for logic huh.
Homosexuality dosn't hurt the homosexual or anybody else.

So marijuana, suicide amd other stuff that hurts the person who does it, even though its selfinflicted are banned because of that.

Marijuana is often debated, because the harm, dosn't seem much bigger the alcohol. (just to counter whatever silly arguments that could rise over marijuana being legal some places)

 

Marajuana doesn't neccessarily hurt the user. Actually, cocaine in its natural form is safe, non-addictive, and only produces a moderate increase in energy (usually expressed as stamina). It is the purrified form that is dangerous, but I promise you the DEA would not look kindly on your safe use of cocaine or marajuana.

 

NOG beat me to the part about Marijuana not being that harmful. I've even heard that Marijuana can be beneficial. It reduced the frequency and severity of the symptoms of my Tourette Syndrome when I used to smoke it.

My point was not about harm, but about a violation of law. There are probably many things that cause no harm, but are against the law. Those things are crimes.

 

So, you're saying God isn't omnipotent? That's a turn-up for the records.

But couldn't he have told us everything we needed to know about our world? Imagine how quickly we would have advanced with perfect knowledge of medicine and agriculture, and whatnot. Yet all He decides to do is throw down a bunch of anal rules and keep sitting on his throne up there.

Why would I want to follow the ethical rules put forth in a book full of contradiction and fallacy? That's the point I'm making. Actually, I'm not too worried about most of the ethics in the Bible, since it's mostly "love they neighbour", which is all good whatever way you look at it, but I refuse to accept "Gays should be persecuted 'cause they're miserable sinners".

So, if it doesn't make any sense whatsoever, then it's God's doing once again. You'd think He'd try to a bit more clear in the holy text He handed down to humanity, wouldn't he?

God is irrelevant to science. You can have a Christian scientist, you know. It's just that findings in sciencehave shown that both the Noah's Ark story and pretty much all of Genesis are a big heap of baloney, something which you were disagreeing with. So at least try to back up your argument before giving up and moving onto a new argumental topic.

For something which YOU consider unnacceptable. We're just fine with it.

The promise of every chruch, denomination, sect and cult is that if you do things their way, you'll be happy. Why is Christianity any different? And there you go again with the "gays are miserable" crap again. People are actually capable of living their lives without your morals and being happy.

I was being sarcastic.

Cultural stagnation leads to misery and a loss of values.

Thta's just taking the metaphor WAY too far. Society changes, and so do people. You can't expect everything to be the same forever, no matter how much people like you want it to.

Damn. Mega-post. Sorry about that.