Homosexuality and Religion

Remove all ads!

@Triactus:

Saying it is a sin is not the same thing as trying to prevent it. I think part of our confusion is that I see the legal aspect (i.e. Congress's proposed ammendment on the issue) as seperate from the moral aspect which ranges from 'I'm forcing you to go along with me (ala linch mobs and the like)' to 'I disagree with you, but won't force the issue' to 'I agree with you'. I see these as two seperate issues. The first is just the consequence of living in a republic or democracy, you have to live with laws set by the majority (sort of). The second is the topic of arguement I see here. In this case, Gnarf wouldn't force you to live by his standards, not unless he's willing to fake ballots all over the nation to try and falsify the vote.

My point was that you can't assume it is the only one, which means you can't assume the law is invalid today. If you generally believe the Bible is true, we're faced with two possibilities:
1.)That was the only reason and the rule was just written poorly.
2.)There are other reasons we don't know about.
IFF you believe the Bible is the divine Word of God Almighty, then 1 is out of the question, which only leaves us with 2. Well, that or not believing the Bible in the first place. Either way, the Biblical law is just as applicable today as it was when it was written.

I think you're counting a vocal minority as the majority. Most christians aren't about to force their neighbors to do anything.

@Clixby:

How about you go and read the book I mentioned? You don't even have to buy it, you can just flip through the pages in the bookstore and you'll see some of what I mean.

No, this is agnostics. Atheists believe there is no God, gods, or anything like that. That is a specific belief.

You obviously haven't spent much time in the US public education process. Count yourself lucky. If you had, and had payed any attention to it, you would have realized that the few teachers that had religious beliefs weren't allowed to talk about them, not even a 'this is what I believe' statement out of class, when prompted. There have been a few court cases over this, and the teacher usually wins, but that just moves things back to where they were (i.e. the teacher is no longer fired). The enforcers (and initial interpreters, i.e. the principal) of the rules are still in place. If you have a religious teacher teaching about world religions, you're in luck, as there is little to no open and obvious contempt for any religions. This is also true of about 1/2 of the atheist/agnostic teachers. The other half, however, openly believe anyone who follows any religion is incapable of coherant thought, and do little to hide it.

On the contrary, the law and the courts say that any religious belief system that is supported in the student body must be allowed to have an after-school organization (provided the students start one). The problem is many of the principals don't want to allow them and many of the students don't know enough about the law to know that they have to.

Their generally called assemblies, and not all schools do the whole school at once, but these are used for 'inspirational speakers' as often as anything else. Now I'm not saying all these speakers are extreme atheists, but I have seen a few, and I have never seen any that were allowed to express any religious sentiments.

On top of that, when NON-SPORTS PLAYERS protest the coaches praying before a game (i.e. none of the players who are praying with him mind) and the action is prohibited, when validictorians, saludictorians, and elected student body officials aren't even allowed to mention God in their speaches, and are cut off if they begin to, then I'd say we have a problem.

@Abomination:
Ah, but that was a presbyterian school. Not all of us can afford that.

I almost failed molecular biology because I said evolution was a theory. That's my experience in public schools. There was no chaplin, and the counselors weren't allowed to talk about religion, even if the students asked.

@Dendri:
... ... ...
That was it? Come back!

@Nataraja:

Your opinion is not the only one. You represent here the same kind of offensive ignorance you accuse us of.

@Abomination:

Have you even read any of my posts?

Pretty good summary, though.

@Equester:

That one never made any sense to me. Is it some Catholic thing? Jesus made wine, so there obviously isn't anything wrong with it, and He worked miracles on the Sabath, so there isn't anything wrong with that. Where did this law come from?

@HB:

Well, it depends on what you call 'organized', but they both go back farther than we can accurately tell, so who knows? Marriage certainly seems to go back farther than organized government, though again we have issues about 'organized'.

@Triactus:

Mmm, not always. I have seen (and heard) some gays openly try to convince heterosexuals of the same sex to try homosexuality out. Usually using the 'how do you know you don't like it if you've never tried it' approach.

Gnarf:

Actually, at this point, they'd probably declare you (whoever said the first part) unfit to raise children and, yes, prevent you from doing so. That's for other reasons, though.

@Abomination:

Unless he's right. That's the issue, is there an absolute moral code or not.

Gray is only very small particles of black and white very close together.

In many cases we're hard pressed to prove harm, and it was impossible until about 50 years ago, when an understanding of the psychology of pedophilia and it's effects began to develop.

@Equester:

Wrong again. The practice of marriage for all these cultures goes further back than we can find, so we don't know where it originated from or who had it first. The only religions you can say that about are the 'new' ones (christianity and islam and the like) who inheritted it from their predecessors.

 

Wouldn't it just be easier if you gave me an extract of the book that provides solid evidence for the existence of God? That's all I'm asking for, here.

I'm starting to feel like a broken record here, but can you at least give the names of a few of these cases, or at least something to back this up? I've never even heard of this, and I refuse to believe this kind of persecution is occuring without evidence.

Actually, Agnostics believe there MAY be a higher being of some description. Atheism is the closest you can get to not having beliefs.

All we did at my primary school assemblies was sing Christian songs like "He's Got The Whole World In His Hands", and I can tell you now I'd take a frothing hardline athiest over that any day. Urgh.

Can't they just pray in their heads? What were they doing to draw so much attention to themselves? And just why would a student body president mention God in a speech, anyway?

[ October 16, 2006, 22:22: Message edited by: Clixby ]

 

Yes, and they pretty much follow this line of reasoning: "My religion says this so this group of people can't have that.

Well till he is proven right we'll have to assume he isn't correct. As for the absolute moral code there is one thing shared by democratic countries and that is the idea that as long as you don't impede on somebody else's rights you're free to do as you please.

Uh, yeah, um... well done. Since you're going to argue semantics, let me present another take on the black and white thing. There is no single moral code in this world. There is no absolute right and absolute wrong. A hardlined set of rules that can never change will always encounter problems when one action fulfills the requirement of one rule yet breaks another and is especially difficult when apathy also is against the rules.

Frankly I don't always think a pedophile harms children, there are varying degrees of pedophilia and it should be taken on a case-by-case basis in my opinion. However, some people believe in a hard-line age that people magically become mature at say 16 years old. But the end of the day is that pediophilia is illegal because far more often than not the child suffers severe psychological trauma or even physical trauma. Somebody is harmed by another's actions.

 

@Clixby:

Well, I've posted a few of these things in other topics, but here's a few examples.
The odds of our solar system being capable of supporting life as we know it is somewhere on the order of 10^270,000. This from things like the formation of our moon, the right kind of star, the right planets in the right formations to protect us from asteroids, the right distance from a galactic core, the right oscillation through the galactic plane.
There are over 2000 prophecies concerning the suffering (first coming) messiah in the Old Testament, and these are specific prophecies like "He will be born in Bethelaham" and "He will never break a bone" and "He will be pierced for our transgressions". Of these, nearly all can be confirmed to have been fulfilled by extra-biblical records. The odds of anyone fulfilling that many detailed prophecies made before their birth are roughly 10^440.

Can't cite any of these, but there was just a case this past May in Ohio State? about a college validictorian being cut off in the middle of her speach for mentioning God (i.e. thanking Him). The most recent school that tried to keep the christian club out was in Nevada.

There are two types of Agnostics. Strict Agnostics believe there MAY be some form of being, but either humanity doesn't have enough evidence to know or humanity CAN'T know. Non-strict agnostics (note it isn't capatalized here) are simply the 'other' category for religion. They are the type that never payed it any thought, never payed it enough thought, or just don't care. This is the total lack of beliefs.

Lol, but you went to a Christian school, which explains that.

Nothing. They were praying in the locker room together, but some cheerleader or someone not associated with it in any way found out and found it offensive. The ACLU took the case (they HATE christianity, not sure about other religions) and won.

@Abomination:

That just proves you haven't read them, which makes a lot of sense considering what you have written in past. I have never said I want to force my religious beliefs on others, just that I don't want theirs forced on me.

That's a dangerous assumption. I'd rather not assume anything on that issue.

Goes with the above. You may blieve that, but it is totally unprovable (unless you're talking about relative morality i.e. what people think is right).

I agree with this, but that doesn't apply to the Bible, which is what I assume you were talking about.

Hmm, not sure I agree on that one.

I'm not talking about a 16 and an 18 year old here, that's statutory rape, not pedophilia, and a totally different issue. I'm talking 45 and 12 or the like. The children will often defend the pedophile, and, as I said, it was not until rather recently that we understood the psychological effects. My point was that there are still things we don't know and, while I don't advocate making laws on what may possibly be true, I do think it foolish to believe we know all the answers, or even all the questions.

 

Nobody is forcing you to marry a homosexual.

 

Adam and Eve were the first Humans. They were married by God. That part is literal. That also shows that the God worshipped in the Abrahamic Religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) gave us the ordinance of Marriage. This makes marriage a Religious ordinance, and thus outside the realm of the state.

No, it isn't. It is an ordinance, something sacred.

I'm not the one making that decision, they are trying to change laws to desecrate something we hold sacred. If someone was trying to wipe their ass with something you valued highly, wouldn't you get pissed off?

That applies to all activists. Pointing one finger at me over that one remember the other three pointing back at you...

But that's irrelevent. They can't help themselves, they have no choice in the matter. Therefore it has to be legitimized under the law as you have claimed it. The less attention one group of people who are considered deviant from Normal gets, the better for other such groups...

So if you can prove that the underage person did not consent or was tricked, then you can still prosecute.

Take an objective look at the morallity I defend (Please look from the source, I have clearly proven that I suck at such sales pitches). I think you'll find that the world would be a better place if that morality was adopted universally.

But Since Adam and Eve were the first people on the earth, then those marriages would be a modified version of what God intended as such a religious ordinance.

As such, it suggests some measure of Conformity.

And marriage is a religious ordinance, therefore the state should stay the hell out of it.

Only those seeking it's ordinances--like marriage.

Then your marriage laws are unconstitutional. I'm guessing that they trace their roots to the Roman Catholic ordinance. That's a law based on religion. By your own claim, it's wrong.

In all such cases, then covenents are not maintained. Not a fair comparision.

And any degree of black can be dangerous...

So it's okay for people to haver sex with those of the same gender but it is wrong for them to pray publicly or to publicly acknowledge God? Actually, in the Book of Mormon there's a scripture that says that it is the spirit of evil that tells us that we must not pray.

Then the course of action must be thought out more clearly. Even if that is not possible, there is still the atonement of Jesus Christ, by which we may be forgiven for the things that we still do wrong.

 

How does what other people do with marriage affect you? I think George W. Bush is an idiot, but I don't claim that he is somehow cheapening my marriage, because an idiot like him was allowed to get married. The fact that he is married has ZERO impact on my marriage. Same with same-sex unions. Their unions have ZERO impact on my marriage. Marriages in the Congo have ZERO impact on my marriage. Marriage by Hare Krishnas have ZERO impact on my marriage. Live and let live.

 

I'll take a realistic look at the morality you're defending. Dogma is something I will never conform to since it is unchanging.

Oh for crying out loud. Christianity does NOT have a manopoly on marriage. It's a union between two people based on love and a joining of their families. You don't need any divine intervention to make it so. There are state-weddings that don't have any preacher from any religion uniting the parties. People marry without religious consent.

For one: he said "passed" as in today. Two: Marriage is not only rooted in religion, there are desert tribes in Africa who had concept of marriage before Christians arrived.

I don't know how much I can stress this but Christianity does NOT own marriage.

What? No. The most important factor is that it harms nobody who isn't consenting. The argument about it being a choice or not is an 'on the side' topic considering how religion claims it to be a temptation. There are many choices that I can make that religion considers a sin yet they're not illegal because they harm nobody. I can legally have sex with the wife of another man, with an unmarried woman, with another man - all are sins, all are choices yet none are illegal because they harm nobody! (provided consent is given by the person you're having sex with, the only dodgy thing is that you would be harming the husband of the wife but it's indirect harm).

 

This is not a fact, this is based on believe, for instance The chinese religions had marriages long before christianity and jewidism and does not believe in this creation story, does that make all Chinese marriages void? in your eyes maybe, in theres and mine, no.
again, your trying to pull a mather of believe in as a fact.

 

To whoever it is that was screwing up the definition of atheism: keep in mind that Buddhists are also atheists. 'Atheist' is a very broad term.

 

I'd say that, in a universe that is as close to infinite as you can possibly get, any event which has a non-zero probability will eventually occur.

But how many WRONG prophecies were there? And how many of these prophecies had ALL of the relevant information? Was there one which said "He'll be born in Bethlehem", while the rest of the prophecy was way off the mark? Also, those last two are ambigous enough to fit more than one scenario. You're not taking into account the mythological component of Jesus, either. I doubt the Bible has the pure skinny on ol' JC. They'd want to make him seem as flawless and godlike as possible. If there was one prophecy which said, "His name will be Jesus Christ, He'll be born in Bethlehem, he'll teach people about how nice it'd be if everyone was nice to each other, and he'll die when the Romans nail him to a plank of wood", then I'd concede this point, but the evidence you're putting forward is speculative, anecdotal, or up to interpretation.

So you've got two examples. Well, three including the sports team thing. Not exactly representative of the system as a whole, is it?

[ October 17, 2006, 13:21: Message edited by: Clixby ]

 

you also forget, There is no tale about jesus birth in the Marcus evangelion, which is the oldest of the four evangelions about Jesus life. Marcus wrote it 30 years after jesus death, the second oldest is Evangelion about Jesus life is the Lucas evangelion written almost 70years after Jesus death, this is the first of the evangelions to take in Jesus Birth, the fun part about jesus birth time, is it accures on the same Date as the god of one of the other popular cults at this time, whoes name currently escapes me (its mith something, ill look it up).
the other thing is, his birth is strangely similiar, they are both born from a virgin, at the time of a heathen winter festival.

I find it strange that for the first 100years, Christians did not find Jesus Birth relevant, then they become an institution in "war" with another religion that has a birth story about there savior "bam" Jesus has a birth story, strangely similiar to that.

Edit: and NOG could you please provide some qoutes from these prophesies or a aproxemation of book/chapter where I can find them. I dont recall reading does, so it would be fun to look them over. thanks in advance.

 

Mithra? He is an old Indo-European god. God of bonds and oath, the eternal friend. Lots of similarity there in the Mithraism cult that the Romans semi adopted, semi developed on their own. That's what you're talking about Equester, I'm sure.

 

thanks Nataraja, that was exactly what i was babbling about, was about to call him mithrandir at a point, never been good with names.

 

You're welcome. I knew Mithra/Mitra was an Asura and that his worship was extremely popular in the Roman Legions. Nearly everything ritualistic and ceremonial concerning Christianity traces its roots back to the worship of Mithra, an Asura...a being that is opposed to the Deva in the Vedas. Asura are basically demons of some sorts, but not really, since theyre god-like, only they aren't fit to rule or be worshiped or something. I think it's something to do with two different pantheons in Indo-European religion, the Asura/Ahura/Aesir and the Deva etc. Yep, so basically Mitra/Mithra is a demon sorta guy. Nice going, Christianity

 

That was very interesting post

 

Good point, because you only ever hear about the prophecies that came true.

 

@Clixby:

Except that our universe doesn't seem to be infinite. Quite to the contrary, there seems to be a perfectly finite amount of mass, and thus a perfectly finite number of star-systems and galaxies.

None. There were some that could not be confirmed by extra-biblical records, like the Virgin Birth, and others that spoke of the conquering Messiah (second coming) that haven't come true yet, but none were wrong, and all were specific enough that they could be proven wrong if they were, unlike prophecies from figures like Nostradamus.

None of them were totally specific. Even teh one that specifies His town of birth doesn't say when, or what part of town, or to whom, or what the circumstances would be. Others speak to some of these things, but no one prophecy details everything. Likewise, there are prophecies that could describe more than one thing, but still a very limited number. For example "He was pierced for our transgressions" describes piercing as part of His death, but not what kind of piercing. Also, there is one that He will be hung on a 'tree', but that could mean hanging, impaling, or crucifiction. It could not mean being devoured by lions, however, nor being be-headed. Likewise, hanging would not normally involve piercing. There were many people that met one or even two or three of these. No doubt there were other people born in Bethelehem that died from piercing wounds, or were somehow pierced as part of their death, but how many were descendants of David, never broke a bone in their body, and were hung on a 'tree' as part of their death? And that's just combining 5 prophecies.

Yes I am, that's why the people who calculated the odds only considered prophecies that the person could not control themselves (like the town of their birth) and ones that could be confirmed by extra-biblical records (such as the Roman Census confirming Jesus was born in Bethelehem).

You seem to be arguing that each prophecy has to be considered seperately and independantly, which is nonsense.

@Equester:

There is still a lot of debate over when the different books were written, but only the most sceptical of estimates places any of them being written around 100AD. Most place the writing of Matthew, Mark, and Luke somewhere between the early 50's AD (about 20 years after Jesus's death) to the late 60's AD (40 years after Jesus's death). John was probably written last, somewhere between 70 and 85 AD.

Actually, the rough date of birth comes from a Roman Census, which was taken about that time. Again, extra-biblical records, so this isn't mythology.

Again, probably wrong dates. The birth story of Jesus is probably first recorded somewhere between 50 and 70 AD, 30 to 50 years before your date and conflict.

They're spread all throughout the Prophets, but there are a lot in Daniel and Isaiah. Micah 5:2 talks about the town of birth. Isaiah 7:14 talks about the Virgin Birth, though virginity can't be confirmed by extra-biblical records. Psalms 22 16-18 talk about His death. This site covers 31 prophecies in detail, and gives a specific probability for those 31 along with a nice analogy to give you some idea what that probability entails.

@Nataraja:
You seem to have Mithra a bit mixed up. Mithra was part of the Ahuric Triad, supposed to preserve order in the Universe. His domain was humanity, thus the popularity of his worship. He was also the only one created by Ahura Mazda that is worthy of worship and sacrifice, but I can't find anything about a virgin birth. That may be my failing, though. Anyway, there doesn't seem to be anything about his sacrifice, or his being tempted, or a ritualized eating of him, or him saving souls of the living from destruction, though he was apparently entrusted with escorting the souls of the dead to paradise. Anyway, kind of hit and miss on that one. There are also people that have compared Jesus to Osiris, with about equal success.

 

You can't know that. You weren't there when they were all making the predictions. You have no idea how many whacky predictions never made it into the final version you've got now......

"I predict that one day, people will pay lots of money to people for televisions, just to watch other useless people sing and then pay more money to vote for the ones they want to see sing next week!"

"You idiot! We're not going to put that one in. That will never happen. Get back to your camel, Simon"

Edit: Sorry, getting a bit off-topic. Back to homosexuality and religion.

 

Well, I was talking prophecies in the Bible, and since we've already covered the topic of 'changes to the Bible', I think your comment is more or less moot. So yes, I can say none.

EDIT:
Wow, we really are off topic.