Homosexuality and Religion #2

Remove all ads!

I still think that this means that you should use the 4000 year old ancient Hebrew word for marriage - if your so excited about using the word from God and the Bible, and then let everyone else get on with using the very non-offensive word marriage.

 

If your bride is a woman (I believe from your other posts that you are male), then the Lord recognizes your marriage, whether you care or not.

I know other religions use the term, but from what I hear, Jewish and Muslim faiths originated from the same set of doctrine, only deviating on where they split from that base. Those three faiths alone ought to lend enough credibility to fight for the sanctity of marriage.

But we're asking that a different term be used. That's all. We're asking them to respect our wishes and go in peace, with the emphasis on go...

But the only difference is in the eyes of religion which has no bearing on the state.

And I get called a bigot. You want to forcibly rewrite what I believe in to accommodate what I find morally reprehensible? What gives you that right? Are you actually trying to bait me into breaking several rules here? Get a life...

The difference is that homosexuality is an abomination, something to be considered vile and reprehensible. It is the same sex thing that we are objecting to, not the non-Christian part. We don't want to be linked with them. That's why we want seperate terms.

It works quite well for those that do believe.

From the point where they left the Garden of Eden, they were taught to make coats of skins from the hide of animals to hide their nakedness. They were not hippies either.

Genesis chapter 1 covers a period of about 4 billion years. We've been ofer this, and only the "Gnarf, you're an idiot" crowd is insisting on 24 hour days for creation...

Hmm, God, the almighty Father or some guy on a message board, who's word am I going to take?

You've been listening to Pat Roberts again, haven't you...

 

But did they do incest, right? Or their children did? Or something? Or were there more immaculate conceptions in those days? Something must have happened for them to end up with grandchildren.

 

Actually, I'd find that kind of funny.

They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery...

Why do the words "Manifest Destiny" pop into my head?

As I have explained before, calling it by a different term makes it inherently less. Separate but equal is NEVER equal. Nonetheless, given the hard line that the religious folk are taking on this I think it's a good compromise, when the alternative is them not getting any rights while we fight over it.

Because they're not even allowed to get that, unless they live in a specific state! Are we creating reservations again or what?

You just broke my hypocrisy meter, Gnarf. Christianity (as defined by the higher-ups who make decisions) has REFUSED to recognize that the Jewish and Muslim faiths come from the same God. You can't call them allies for this fight while you continue to oppose that very claim. (Well, Islam's claim, anyway. I'm not sure what Judaism says on the matter.) Not to mention Hindus and Buddhists and everyone else getting 'married'.

 

Actually in Finnish there's a quite popular name Yrjö which basically means vomit, I don't think it's all that popular anymore (mostly becuase it's an old name and among many that aren't used anymore really) but it's quite a classical "Finnish" name and could be called our equivalent to George. I don't think that they feel overly insulted over their name, atleast the one I used to know didn't.

EDIT: I should apparently think a bit what I write, the first sentence really does not make sense since I'm stating first that the name is popular and then afterwards that it ain't. In any case it's rare these days and mostly older generations have the name, but it used to be very popular. I don't know if the vomit part has anything to do with it but I suppose that it simply fell out of fashion like so many other old names.

[ December 12, 2006, 12:53: Message edited by: Morgoroth ]

 

haha the same happened in denmark, the name Ulrich was used to describe vomitting.

as to the word marriage, on danish we have one word, gift weather its church or state that performs the ceremony. (i tihnk i mentioned it before), so no, not all languages has a word for a civil union.

so there are two good solution to this silly argument and i find it quite silly that christians will deny the use of a word, not original christian. hell by that standard the norse church (ase tro) should deny the use of the word hell, since the word comes from the nordic Hel (a goddess and the place where the dead that didn't go to valhalla went).

anyhows the first surgestion was, that we extent marrige the include what kind (state, christian, muslim, etc).

the second would be. strip any special legal rights from being married. move does rights to require somekind of state only sanction. that way the christians and other religions can keep the term marrige without getting special treatment.

 

I have a couple of colleagues and friends who will burn in hell. Nice people.

The great thing about heavenly justice is that neither the condemning, judging nor punishment parts are my job, or yours.

 

Please, tell me, since you're obviously right, how did two humans populate the entire planet? And where did the dinosaurs fit into this? And evolution?

I thought the separation of state and religion meant that religious groups don't get a say in the running of government? And no, the gub'ment isn't soiling your holy words or whatever you're prattling about, they termed it a CIVIL UNION. That's what the state calls it. your argument is utterly defunct in this respect.

what the ACTUAL homosexual union debate in real life is about is the fact that the religious right doesn't even want homosexuals getting civil unions, despite what they call it.

possibly because you're not listening.

What? I'm talking about people who either hate gays because they're ignorant meatheads and can't accept that people are actually different from another. And then you've got religious folks who despise anyone who doesn't do exactly what the LORD JESUS CHRIST tells them to do, since it's the ONE TRUE FAITH and HERETICS WILL BURN IN THE PITS OF HELL HALLELUJAH.

Ha. I don't hate religion, by the way. Just people who think their faith gives them free reign to make other people miserable.

It's obvious from your replies that you're not actually reading people's arguments, and ignoring any arguments that actually have a solid point against you. Good job!

Hooray for retconning, I guess. "no, we didn't build our religion from the bits of other religions because we're utterly unoriginal, they took it from us! Look, we can prove it with this holy book we just wrote!"

 

So basically your saying the source is right, because the source says so.
Sorry but you really have to learn this, you cant prove a source correct by qouting the source.
i know the whole bible is full of doing that, which is one of the reason many of us dont believe in it. please try to undestand that.
its like saying "im right cause i say so"

 

The popular theory is that a sound effect for vomit in Mad Magazine was translated as "yrjö" because it sounded vaguely similar, phonetically. And it stuck. So the name didn't originally mean "vomit." Which means, this yrjö thing fits Gnarff's hypothetical example perfectly.

There are others, too. Just think of the various uses for "john." As in, the hooker didn't get her money 'cos the john just went to the john. Does this cause offence to all Johns out there?

 

You can really twist absolutely anything around in your head and convince yourself that it sounds plausible. You're saying that Pagans (Who are historically accepted as the very first religious group, dating back to ancient shamanistic traditions) were actually just practicing ancient Christianity (Badly) and Christians valliantly came along and corrected their beliefs? This is an absurd argument, Christians burned pagans and called them heathens while at the same time stealing their religious beliefs and spouting crap about ultimate tolerance. This is all indesputable historical fact, and yet you still cover your ears and shake your head saying "I'm not listening."

I truly wish I lived in a world as simple as yours.

 

Gnarff, you and anyone else who cite the supposed ambiguity of the word 'day' (yom) in the book of Genesis are shooting your own credibility all to hell. There are many Hebrew words which could have been used to indicate how long the creation period was. Yamim, for example, is the plural form of yom and could be used to indicate multiple days. Other Hebrew words that God could have used to indicate a long period of time: qedem, olam, tamid, ad, shana, netsach, eth, and moed.
If God did not mean 'day' He would not have said 'day', He would have used a more appropriate term.

Hell, why stop at questioning the translation of 'yom'? Why not question the translation of all the other words in the Bible? You could start by retranslating the passage which says that homosexuality is an abomination unto God....maybe that's not what God meant to say at all.

 

1) Actually, you are comparing the word of the person who last translated or amended the Bible versus the word of some guy on a message board.

2) That still doesn't explain how we all became descended from two people.

 

But both sides can take that view, those that don't like religion can look down on Marriage for it's connection to religion.

And if they won't accept that, then screw them--wait a minute, that didn't sound good. But the point is, that if they can't accept a compromise to keep the peace, they should lose out.

You guys keep bringing up slavery. Some states freed their slaves earlier than others. Perhaps the compromise is being accepted/enforced in some states but left alone in others.

I'm looking at doctrine, not foolish pride of some guy in a funny hat. The Jewish faith accepts the old testament if I understand correctly, which makes it the same God (the Father). From what I read in a thread about Islam, they claim to be decendents of Abraham, and as such also follow the same Heavenly Father, only through the teachings of a different prophet.

But I don't know their doctrine. I am not able to speak for them. I wouldn't speak for the Jewish and Muslim faiths if I wasn't criticized for opnly speaking for a Christian perspective...

Now that you mention it, Ralph has been used as term for that action as a reference to the sound it makes.

I'm just warning them what's coming if they don't repent and change their ways. I'm h=not the one that sends them to Hell...

Dinosaurs may be in the fifth creative period, but since they were no longer in existence, they were not mentioned. Evolution would be a more detailed theory on the process of the fourth, fifth and possibly sixth creative periods.

And even I accept the civil unions while fighting hard to resist the urge to vomit. I find it distasteful and repulsive, but this compromise is only accepted in the name of restoring peace. If I had my way, homosexuality would still be treated as a mental illness or criminal offence. I'm trying to "move into the 21st century" like you want me to, but are some now trying to tell me that I am not welcome there with you?

But what about people who either hate religious people becausae they are ignorant meatheads or can't accept that their ways may not be the best?

And then you've got people that don't like religion who mock those that believe because their ways aren't "progressive enough" for their tastes. What you fail to realize is that your ways aren't exactly progress...

It's not a matter of faith that has people making others miserable. A lack of faith can justify the same thing...

Let's see...

Me: Marriage is sacred, please respect it.
Others: Gnarf, no it isn't, you're a fool.

Repeat for over 600 posts...

Basically that's what it is.

Point debated in other threads. I'm not giving you that one. Try again in a different thread.

Just like most of the stuff in science class. It's right because this book says so. They don't go through every little experiment to verify it. They only do enough experiments so that students learn the process. In religion, we only have the recorded testimonies of the prophets of old. What is to say in another 2000 years, the old science texts will not be questioned the same way? Would people 2000 years from now debate the existence of Charles Darwin or condemn his work?

I can't accept that you exist because you say so by that logic. Good try, but you've just discredited your own arguements there too.

Isn't that what the rest of you do here in the Alleys?

I've learned that from watching the others here in the alleys. I just haven't got the accusations right yet.

Yes. That's right.

Actually, they didn't get everything right. They did this a few hundred years removed from the death of the apostles...

That's one of the things they didn't get right. No religion reserved the right to deprive someone of life.

But I did dispute it. Therefore it is disputable.

It is that simple. It's other people that made it so complicated...

So an overly simple story of creation is enough to reject religion? Then everyone else here has gioven me tons of reason not to believe the stuff they say. By your logic I should believe absolutely nothing. Sorry, I won't live that way.

But on that, God was explicit: Homosexuality is wrong. Period. What else could it mean? And nothing stupid or insulting either...

Okay, by that, Joseph Smith, prophet, seer and revelator. His translation was done under the divine guidance of God to make sure his word was accurately maintained. Still trumps people here...

Because I don't have all the details of that. I didn't manipulate the genetic material in such manners. I do believe that family size was much greater to allow for a faster difusion of genetic material.

 

Okay, given that you're in Canada, I'll forgive you for this mistake and not make a smart-ass remark about paying attention in history class. (Though any American to whom Gnarf's response made sense should consider themselves accordingly belittled. )

Reservations weren't for the slaves, they were for the native peoples that we forced out when we 'settled' the US. (Manifest Destiny was the belief that we were granted the right to 'settle' the land, laying claim to that which was not ours.) Making them live in the least desirable areas because we considered them "primitive". Silly people worshipped the land (treating it well) instead of our infallible god. Personally, I find the similarities somewhat disturbing considering the largest discrepancies would be on the scale.

 

I don't like certain religions but I don't look down on marriage since there are sometimes connections to those religions. Marriage is an agreement between two people, a contract even, designed to allow both parties to share everything and is built on mutual respect and devotion to another. Religion is not a requirement for that union.

I believe the compromise was naming every marriage after the type of ceremony it was taken under eg. Mormon-Christian Marriage, Hindu Marriage, Civil Marriage etc. The thing you're demanding is that marriage should never be used to describe the relationship between two homosexuals even though it is legally the same damn thing as a Mormon marriage.

No. You're actively trying to stop them from doing something. If somebody wants to call something marriage it doesn't affect you. So don't try to stop them.

This theory might hold water if it wasn't for the fact that the Bible clearly says DAYS as in 24 hour periods. The time it took for God to create everything was exactly 144 hours. Things don't evolve that fast. Entire species aren't wiped out that fast. Even the stages didn't occur like that or even in that order.

The fact that you would believe homosexuality to be a mental illness or criminal offense (two mutually exclusive things and you can't even identify what one it should be) shows how very little understanding you have for these people. Your opinions of them are biased and the reasoning behind wanting to deny them something is based on a heavily debateable source. I believe this is what people don't like.

Are you saying religious people are ignorant meatheads? I take it you mean the people who hate religious people. There might be a few but I doubt their reasons for hating religious people has anything to do with caring whose way is the best but rather would be based on the reasoning and justification religious people use to express their views.

You used the word can and that makes your statement correct. However it isn't the case in what we are describing here. The reason homosexuals are miserable is because other people are making them miserable. It has nothing to do with a lack of faith. It has nothing to do with wanting a relationship with God, with not having a relationship with God, it is because they are being told their lifestyle is wrong, is an abomination and that they should change when change is something they just can't do.

Hurgh? No, it isn't. Scientific fact (FACT, no debate here, it IS what happened) shows that pagan religions occured before Christianity took off. Chronologically it is IMPOSSIBLE for those religions to have been inspired by Christianity.

Rest to follow...

 

Gnarf, you have just destroyed every scrap of credibility you had on this topic. You haven't been arguing from the point of view of religion from the start, otherwise you could have come up with some genuinely relevant arguments.(Of which there are a number in the Bible) You've proved to everyone that you're using Christianity as a mask to disguise your own opinions and shout "I hate Gay people!" over and over again.

That is not what indisputable means. It means you cannot back up an argument against something due to overwhelming evidence. So what because you say so, the history books are wrong and should be re-written?

That's a heck of a thing to "Not get right." A religion that kills people that argue with their ways, cites that theirs is the one true way and everybody else is wrong and then claims they just want a quiet life, while at the same time standing on street corners and ramming their beliefs down peoples' throats? Aren't we right back to the KKK?

We have a guy in our high street that stands every day next to a board which says "You are all sinners, there is only one way to be saved! Embrace Christ!" While preaching at the top of his lungs. I find this offensive and irritating, but because saying so is religious discrimination, I go about my life and ignore him. Compare this to gay people who go about their lives, pay taxes, love one another in the face of discrimination and lead otherwise "Normal" lives. Which here is the lesser of two evils? I would find it very amusing if a gay man took his place shouting that the one true way to happiness was to have sex with other men and anybody else was going to burn in hell. Would you find the latter as acceptable as you obviously find the former?

 

Sorry if im over asumming here gnarff, but im going to asumme you never took a higher degree in any form of science, because that there is completely bullocks.
and Darwin is allready questioned all the time, we know his most basic ideas hold "true" (as true as our data shows) and current data has disproven some of his theories, the newest data from islands, shows for instance that two different evolutions can take place for the sam race living in a small enclosed area under the same conditions, before that the general idea was that evolution took place only in one direction trickered by the conditions.
In science, any form of it, you allways question the source. no law or theory in science is true just because some guy says so, you allways test the data or experiements, thats a major different.

im sure you wouldn't start to worship some goddess if I wrote a book claiming a burning bush had come and told me the devine laws which all most follow.
Secondly we dont question the excistence of all the sources, we know that for instance Paulus excisted, but we question what some of them says, for instance Noah, because there is no data that back this story up. In fact all data says that this story isnt plauseble.

nice to see you just hide behind the bible, that you infact find gays frightning and repulsive, regardless of what the bible says.

secondly nunsbahne nicely pointed out that the word used was yom which means day. not creative periodes. yet you question this part of the bible, while the rest of it hold true.

 

And then there's this idiot

I'd love to see the research behind his claims, as opposed to a loose series of tenuous causal jumps.

 

It hasn't turned me gay... yet (In reference to Rally's amusing link).