Homosexuality and Religion #2

Remove all ads!

This doesn't even make sense, not even with the Gnarfflinger-approved Ellipse ("..."). How can a lack of faith be used to justify harming someone?

Is that really how you see it in your head? Because, I'm seeing it more as:

Gnarf: Homosexuals shouldn't get married because the word marriage(tm) is trademarked by Christianity!
Others: That's not what the State calls it, and marriage didn't originate with Christianity.
Gnarf: Shut up religion haters! It says so in the Bible!

Uh, no, actually. You see, there is more proof for Equester's existence than just his word.
And he is right. You're saying the Bible is right because the Bible says so and it's right because it's the Bible ad infinitum.

No, see, we like to do do this crazy thing called "making a point and then backing it up with evidence". You were doing it just fine until the credibility of your source came into question, and from there it started to degenerate into ad hominems (religion hater!), circular arguments (The Bible's right because the Bible says so!) and outright prejudice (gays are just disgusting, okay!).

Wow, so you've gone from insulting your detractors to insulting EVERYONE who frequents the Alleys? Hey, mods, isn't there supposed to be some kind of rule against this? You know, making baseless accusations? And I do believe he said he just finds gays "disgusting", and since he didn't back up this claim that's against the rules as well, isn't it?

Although I do seem to recall a delighful little party in the vein of the Inquisition, which killed many people and justified it with their religion. And there were the Crusades. and early missionary work in places like Africa. And the witch hunts. in fact, it seems quite plausible that Christians throughout history have reserved the right to end lives, directly due to their faith.

I dispute the existence of gravity! I dispute the existence of gravity, therefore it is disputable!

Yeah, with their ridiculous "free will" and whatnot! I mean, you'd almost think morality and relgion weren't completely and utterly objective looking at these people!

Comedy gold. "I don't CARE if my beliefs don't make sense, I'm going to believe in them anyway, so screw you!"

You know, I had a vision earlier. I've realised that I am in fact the Messiah, and therefore above your petty "Joseph Smith". Therefore, my word trumps yours, and you can't prove me wrong, since God told me I was the Messiah himself and this is ample proof by your logic.

 

nope, first off, i have as much as possible, quoted other sources baking up my statements. none of the articles i qouted was written by me, in that way I rend a form of credibility to the statements i make. for instance when i way back claimed that the noah myth, orininated to earlier flooding myths from the same area, i took in articles that said so, with several links to historic sources (plural) not just one source.

so none of my sources claim they are right, just cause they sa so. every time, they make a statement, they back it up with data.

your counter argument is the bible, where your proof for the bible being a good source, is the bible telling you its a good source., your source, is then only claimed as good by it self.
your second argument is that its true because god says so. Here you somehow suffer from religius blindness, since you dont seem able to comprehend, that to us, a good source is not a man who is entirely fictionel.
There exist absolutely no prove of the existence of an almighty being, your source is beild completely on the believe that this excist, which cant be proven.

thirdly, you cant accept i excist just becuase i say so. firstly here there is a difference between me and god, god excist because other people says so, if god directly came to me and said he excisted, i might be more inclined to believe him.

but lets try to prove my excistence. physically i cant prove i excist to you, but at least some form of sentinent being, going on this board calling him or her self Equester excist. the prove is, you can read my posts, simple as that. you can see im more then just as simple computer program or chatboard, by the fact that im able to interackt on a higher level then what is currently possible.
So with the current data, its more likely that im a Human then a Machine.
Secondly its proven beyond doubt, that im more then i figment of one mans imagination, by the fact, several people can read my posts.
we could of cause assumme if we liked to persue this sillienes further, that all the posts was infact the figments of one mans imagination and we could have a lovely discussion figuring out who of us, who is imaginin this, but it would take a complete other thread, to do so.

so lets for now accept that im most likely a human writting this.

 

Sexual orientation is utterly trivial. For all of the attributes by which a person can be defined, sexual preference is about as significant as hair color. Yet, christians believe, unless they dispute God's judgement, not only that practicing homosexuals are going to burn for eternity but that they *deserve* this fate. I can't believe in God nor in the Bible and doctrine concerning homosexuality is one of the more compelling reasons.

@Rally, I drank a glass of soy milk and suddenly realized how *fabulous* my window dressings are! Maybe I will get a soy fix before undertaking any creative endeavor which could be enhanced by my more creative feminine side. Thanks for the link.

 

Fel: I was not attempting to refute your point about reservations but trying to propose a different theory on the matter at hand. Rather than herd Gays into states that grant Civil Unions I proposed that some states simply grant them sooner than others will, until eventually this compromise is in place across the country, much similar to emancipation. I was actually trying to make a positive point...

That's why under teh law there is no difference. If those few words are going to upset you, then I'll live with you being upset in exchange for the ability to wash our hands of something the state does that contradicts our doctrine.

We believe the word marriage sacred. We don't want it slandered to be applied to homosexuals. That position hasn't changed. It will NEVER change.

Defiling that which we consider sacred by order of the state makes us second class citizens. If you can't give one group rights without protecting the rights of others, then you're going to get a fight.

If you want to write off what I believe because of a strict interpretation of a word, then that's your business. But your insistance on a 24 hour day is no different than my insistance on marriage being sacred and exclusively heterosexual.

Kleptomania is a mental illness. Stealing is a criminal offence. The two are not mutually exclusive. To some the desire to have Gay sex is so strong they believe themselves unable to resist, just like the compulsive thief. It does not make it right.

The Latter is correct, yes. Basically, the accusation of bigotry goes both ways on this debate. They call me a bigot because I don't accept homosexuality as okay, I believe them to be bigots because they don't accept my religious beliefs to be okay.

How did those pagans end up in Britain. Their ancestors had to come from somewhere? I put forth that those ancestors, who didn't leave you any historic documents to counter my arguement, were decended from Noah after the great Flood, and as such would have got their traditions from the basics of Crhistianity that they had in the Old Testament...

Either: A: People didn't believe a word I say, ergo I had no credibility to destroy on this topic, or B: People take a similar view to that, therefore there is no change in Credibility on this topic. Take your pick, you're still wrong.

Because the Bible says so is relevent enough for me, but most people don't like it. They will call anything from the Bible irrelevent. Next!

pure unadulterated What I'm getting pissed off with is all the put downs and implications that what I hold sacred should be put down and desecrated because it does not echo a science book, or tells people not to do as they please. They accuse me of trying to treat people as second class citizens when trying to do the same thing as me. That, to me, is

Religion does not reserve the right to take away property by force or to cause injury, or to inflict death. We do believe it just to warn the righteous to save themselves and to cry repentance unto all who will listen. This is not persecution, but rewarding the righteous.

The first guy, the one you don't like, is doing as God requires. You don't like it? That does not change the divine imperative. You reserve the right to ignore him, which you do at the peril of your eternal soul. The second is committing a greivous sin. He is otherwise a good person, but God has forbidden what he does. If he fails to repent, then he will be punished according to his sins. By this, the active sin of homosexuality is the greater evil, while ignoring the Lord's messenger's call to repentance is the lesser evil.

Your assumption is correct, and that is not what I was referring to. In High school, I did receive the opportunity to tour an engineering building at a nearby university. There I did see such equipment. In highschool Chemistry, however, we don't have equipment to show us things on a molecular or sub atomic level, and are asked to take what the text says as fact. They do describe the research, but do not show is the research first hand. That is what I was referring to.

Contrary to what some people assume about religion, we do question whether there is a God, and whether what we are asked is really His will. These answers do not come in the form os something that proves it for everyone, but it proves it to us personally. Can we not call that valid?

Moses wrote the first 5 books of the bible. Do you still question his existance? Records from those days were not as extensive as they are today, or even in the time of Paulus...

I find their actions repulsive, and their objectives frightening. You'd be frightened too if some group sought to make you a second class citizen by degrading that which you considered sacred...

One, I have acknowledged other religions use the word Marriage. I don't seek to deny them this in as much as they use it to apply only to heterosexual unions. Two, from our beliefs, marriage was ordained of God from the beginning to be between a man and a woman and sacred.

But the Bible is the only record from that time period. There is no other record to back it up because nobody knew how to write!

You forgot treating me like an idiot when I question your evidence...

I was? I never knew that. But there is no other record of that time or the events recorded. There is only one such record. It lacks the luxury of other records to back up the information presented.

Religion hater? When I see my beliefs attacked, what am I supposed to think? Circular logic? What else do I have to go on besides personal conviction from personal experience? Prejudice? What they do is repulsive. There is a big difference between a person and their sins.

If I meant to insult everyone, I would have said everyone. In fact, not all of my detractors fit into this others category. If you insist that I make this personal, I will try to work on that just for you...

Like the one you just made against me? Thank you for demonstrating that no-no.

First, homosexuality, as in the act of gay sex, is what I found disgusting. Secondly, My backup is in the Bible, which you have made abundantly clear you reject. It's not that it's not backed up, it's that you don't like how it's backed up.

And none of those incidents were right either. I'm not here to defend the Roman Catholic church. I remember int he Bible where it said "Thou shalt not kill." That in and of itself condemns those incidents and likely many others that are lesser known.

They choose to make this more complicated to allow for what they want to do as opposed to that which God wants them to do or to rationalize that which God has forbidden.

That's so stupid it would be hilarious if it were not so insulting.

To you, maybe. To us, no, it isn't. Our sacred ethical tradition lists homosexual relations as a grievous sin, on par with fornication, incest, adultery, pedophilia and beastiality. On;y the shedding of innocent blood and denial fo Christ after having a perfect witness rank as greater sins.

I don't know when I will get back to this topic, but I would not be surprised to find it closed. It seems more and more clear that you are not interested in debate, but a fight. The Civil union compromise is designed to allow the state to uphold it's supposed principles while not reducing the religious to the status of second class citizens. Those that insist on the word marriage being used are trying to do just that. That's how I see it...

 

not really, unless your going to accept the mental ill person with voices in his head, as a valid source. because while he cant prove to the rest of the world that what the voice(s) tell him is true and that they excist, its true to him.

secondly I after reading your lastest post, fear we live in to different realities. yours is one where god and everything the bible says is true.
therefor you cant doubt that all the people in the world originate from noah.
in my world science has proved beyond doubt that, that cant happend.
you believe in god as the highest instance, higher then the state, higher then the people and higher then democracy.
I dont believe in god.

since we dont even have the same base idea of how we came to be on earth, or what is the base of society, discussing this seems futile.

 

Do you realize how fanatical you sound, Gnarff? I actually find you quite frightening...

 

I'm giving up. He wants to believe in things like Genesis, Adam and Eve, Noah repopulating every known species on the planet via only a male and female of each animal, only a few people building a boat large enough to house all those animals using only wood and rudimentary tools...

Esentially he wishes to believe the impossible, use it to justify pointless prejudice and to claim his religion has the right to dictate what should be called marriage or not.

The idea of separation of church and state is that they are completely separated. Congress/Parliment may pass no law based on religious justification or for religious reasoning. No government could pass a law so that a religion wouldn't be offended, this would be shown as favoring one religion, bowing to their wants. If the government wanted to make sure no religion was offended then modern society would cease to exist, homosexuality would be illegal, pre-marital sex would be illegal and thus would be punished (now picture all the people who would be in prison and the costs of policing such a law).

Religion and government do not mix well and those who don't conform to said religion suffer and suffer greatly despite the fact that they harm nobody.

 

Abo,
you don't get it. "Esentially he wishes to believe the impossible" - that's flat wrong, and everything that follows, however well reasoned, is as much beside the point as the entire thread for that instance. This is how it's right:

He believes.

That is a very important thing to understand. You disagree for good reason. However, in questions of faith, reason comes second. That is what faith is about.

 

You still don't seem to understand the simple fact that the government does not, and never has called the union between two homosexuals "marriage". Your argument is completely irrelevant in this respect, and the fact that you continue to argue it is beyond me.

But does that automatically make it solid fact? Should we believe everything the Bible tells us simply because it was written in a time when historical records were sparse to non-existent?

I'm afraid that's just in your mind, pal.

So why should we place faith in it?

I don't know, maybe just accept that people have different beliefs from you instead of calling them names?

Nothing. Nowt. Nada. And that's why I'm questioning your justification for supporting the suspension of key rights from homosexuals. And it's not just about marriage, is it? You've proved that in your last post.

The action makes the person. You find the act of homosexuality repulsive, therefore you find homosexuals repulsive.

well, you did say

So, it does sound like you're insulting everyone in the Alleys.

Well, if you want to just insult me, go for it. it's not like I'll be surprised that you'd stoop that low or anything.

you're accusing everyone in the Alleys (or maybe just me) of twisting statements so they sound plausible. There was no evidence to back this up, and since you're attacking the integrity of us (or me) without providing evidence, that is a baseless accusation.

Sigh. You just repeated the statemnent I was referring to, and then claimed that the Bible is "backed up". AFTER you claimed that there is no evidence backing it up. Make up your mind, man.

You're still talking like it's your way or the highway. It's not, okay? Just because you are a Mormon and believe that God did all of this wacked-out shizzle doesn't mean EVERYONE has to believe it as well.

But you can't argue it, can you? Using your logic, my claim that I am the Messiah is infallible, since I have the mandate of God Himself. If you attempt to question my credibility as the Messiah, it will bring into question the credibility of ol' johnny Smith.

Once again, it's not just your way. Everyone has their own ideas of how the world ideally works, and they are no less right than you.

I can honestly say I knew this was how it was going to end. You argue your point over and over again, insult your detractors when they argue with you, and then leave, accusing everyone of "trying to start a fight", because you honestly can't bear people questioning your beliefs. Just grow a pair and be a man for once.

Twice in one post! A new record! Hmm, obviously I didn't get through the first 4 or 5 times. Well, maybe this'll be the lucky shot: THE STATE DOESN'T CALL GAY UNIONS "MARRIAGE", THEY HAVE NEVER INTENDED TO, NO-ONE IS TRYING TO FORCE THE STATE TO USE THIS WORD, AND THEREFORE YOUR ARGUMENT IN THEIS RESPECT IS IRRELEVANT.

 

Gnarff,

Cut it with this "attacking my faith" crap. No one is attacking your faith, we're attacking your arguments which are, by your own admission, supported solely by your fundamentalist interpretation of Mormon doctrine and the bible (which is NOT universally accepted by all Christians). And we are doing THAT because your arguments are thoroughly devoid of reason, intellectual honesty or plain old modern day common sense. We don't hate Mormonism, we don't hate God, we don't hate you...your arguments just...plain...suck.

If you would use something other than the Bible to back up your arguments, we wouldn't be having this problem. But you insist on it and in turn attack us for deeming your source - your ONLY source - insufficient. Not wrong, per se - just insufficient. Your claims that essentially "it's not my problem if you don't accept God's word/plan" are as logically fallacious as they are intellectually insulting. Just as you won't take Clixby's word for it that he's recently had a messianic revelation, we don't take your word for it that you're speaking on God's behalf. It's pretty arrogant of you to continue to claim that you know "what God wants for us," when you have no way of proving it. And since you can't prove it, and no other human being can, you should really stop making that claim. Period. Making claims you can't prove and having your credibility assaulted go hand in hand. A lesson you seem unable to learn after so many pages.

If you were really interested in proving yourself correct, you'd come at this from another angle and find other means to lend credibility to your position. But obviously you can't, so we have no choice but to measure your arguments on their merits, which are wanting. You refuse to accept that your evidence is inadequate, which is your right. But don't tell us we're jerks for attacking you when you clearly can't stand to stretch your mind to entertain differing points of view, particularly regarding your interpretation of "what God wants for us."

I've been lurking in this thread since I bowed out 20 pages ago. But in carefully reading your responses, I can't escape the observation that you appear to be working so hard not to convince us that we're wrong, but to continue to your prove your own case to yourself. I think deep down you know how logically fragile your position is, but admitting it to be flawed would undermine your faith - your rock of Gibraltar, if you will - which is CLEARLY the only meaningful thing you have going for you in life. While sad, it does make your persistence more understandable.

If this were a court case, and you continued presenting evidence that the court deemed irrelevant and inadmissible, you'd be laughed out of court - regardless of how SURE you were about that evidence. And before you say "but my judge is God and he's throwing out YOUR evidence" or something similarly ridiculous, why not take that as a cue that you need to come up with better evidence? Something not based on the bible that can be accepted by us Mormon-hating heathens? I'm not talking about science, either. I'm talking about a sound, reasoned argument. I believe you to be utterly incapable of such (hence my recent dismissal of you), but it would absolutely make my year if you were to prove me wrong. I'd LOVE it.

Your move.

[ December 15, 2006, 17:50: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

Well, I'm sure you know the answer to that already, BTA. He's not providing any PROOF, he's providing BELIEFS, which are nothing at all. Proof is required when you're taking up the kinds of positions that this... person, is taking up.

The only person with a problem here, is Gnarff. He's just not living in the 21st century, it's as simple as that. I've known him to be perfectly fine in other sections of these boards (i.e. when he's not shaking his bible in everyones faces and calling homosexuals vile and disgusting), but on this his position is absolutely untenable because he can't offer any proof to his claims and just keeps repeating the same old weak 'belief'.

 

@ BTA,

Because I believe he's using his interpretation of God's plan to justify his position, and I believe that interpretation to be unfair and incorrect. He claims to be following in Jesus' footsteps but he's championing a position contrary to the SPIRIT of Jesus' message, which is unconditional love and acceptance. Basically, he's speaking for an entity whom is impossible to present to verify the veracity of said testimony. I could be claiming up and down that I'm expressing what Joe Pesci wants for us, but the difference is, it's actually possible for Joe Pesci to appear here and confirm or deny what I'm saying, and further more slap me silly for speaking for him if he doesn't hold the position I'm championing in his name.

I'm insisting that he stop speaking for Jesus, and only himself - because his moral exclusivity and condemnation are, IMO, insulting to Christianity at large. More than that, his position provides a handy refuge for denying a logical approach to this problem, because "God defies logic" or whatever. Faith is not fact, and thus is a terrible foundation upon which to build real world arguments.

I also don't think this is a hopeless pursuit. There are plenty of pointless debates around here that die after a page or two. This, as asinine as it appears, seems to be getting somewhere.

 

Oh, by the way, I have a question, for everyone, really: since the basis for the prohibition of homosexuality is the fact that they are not carrying out god's plan (breeding), would it be acceptable for someone who is infertile to be homosexual? So, if a man ain't got no tangle in his dangle, so to speak, he wouldn't be breeding either way, would he? Would it still be considered a sin?

 

And the end result is different how? I don't really see that as positive.

That is disturbingly logical...so long as you're not referring to all detractors as such. Bigotry, by defintion, requires a narrow mind, and I'd like to think that most of us reading these topics try to keep our minds open.

...without legitimate grounds for doing so. Questioning evidence with only "I question that evidence" holds zero weight. Meanwhile, the other side is using logic to attempt to discredit your source (the Bible) and is for the most part succeeding.

The 24-hour day thing, for example. They've pretty much shown how the authors of the Bible could have used a word that did not mean a strict 24-hour day, and could even have gotten as generic as "a while" or something like that, and yet they chose a term that DID mean a 24-hour day. In response, you refute their understanding of the text without cause, and without addressing their point about the language. Dismissing a well-reasoned point does not make it wrong.

 

Besides, this is the 2nd topic with that name (yet certainly not second on the issue) ... and I'm confident there will be a third and fourth.

 

Here's my problem, BTA. I don't expect Gnarfflinger to change his beliefs, and I certainly don't want him to. What I mind is the hypocrisy of his arguments. He refuses to bend to accommodate another set of beliefs, yet he expects EVERYONE ELSE to bend to accept what he claims to be the truth. All I've ever asked of him is a reason why I, a non-Mormon, should be required to live in accordance with Mormon morality.

Color me surprised that no such reason has ever been forthcoming.

 

By that logic, I should never absorb or read anything online because it's not reinforced by my familiar offline environment. Or I should never try to get an idea across via such a medium because I am, for all intents and purposes, a stream of pixels to everyone but Chandos (whom I've actually met) and don't really exist.

Discussions with people on this board have changed my mind on certain matters, even serious ones like abortion that I was once certain about. People are only obtuse by choice. Even Gnarff.

But then, at least a small degree of intellectual honesty and curiosity are unfortunately a prerequisite for such change of thought. So you may be right in this case.

 

Rally,
it's not hypochrisy. A hypochrite preaches one thing and does another. I really don't think that's the right term. I rather think that Gnarff is very consistent.

While my cynical side presumes that Gnarff tries to persuade his doubting self as much as he tries to convince doubting others, my milder second guess is that he rather tries to proselytize to what he thinks is right. Which is, according to his beliefs, a noble thing to do, wheras you probably find it rather annoying - but that would then be a small price to pay for possibly saving a soul I guess.