More religious madness

Remove all ads!

I generally agree, although I am inclined to think that the risk of damage is a little higher with anal as compared to vaginal sex. After all the former is design as an "out only" opening.

 

I am not a prophet of God, therefore I have only personal experiences with His teaching in my own life (which have bee rejected) and what is written in holy books. I can't produce God to tell you for Himself what he thinks. By the same token, you yourself can't produce all the fancy scientific equipment and replicate the experiment, and must rely on books. I can't use my books, you can't use yours. Fair enough?

But you can choose which food to eat. You can choose between KFC and Pizza. You can choose a roast beef dinner or a strict Vegan diet. Some choices are better than others. Further, the amount of food desired varies from one person to the next. Likewise, Sex is a natural drive in all humanity. It varies in tastes and how much is desired, but you may still choose your sexual partner. What we, as Christians, ask is that you not choose those of the same gender and restrict yourself to your opposite gender spouse. We believe that this is best for all of us.

Then why not go to the source of the Christian Church--Jesus Christ Himself, and ask his help in changing? If they are unwilling to do that, then I have no sympathy for their plight. I have offered my counsel, take it or leave it.

You have stated that you are heterosexual. And I believe that you have stated that you are male. You are free to choose which women you have sexual relations with. Could you abide restrict your choices to exclude those women who are married, under age or already related to you? It's just a natural extention to ask that you restrict your sexual partners to those of opposite gender.

I have opinions on that too, but that's way off topic.

They aren't because a) She's of the opposite gender, b) you are legally and lawfully married. AS long as you don't get too showy with it, I would think you OUGHT to be showing her affection as much as possible.

It's not about harm, but about living righteously.

Reproduction is not the only purpose of sex. There are benefits to the relationship between man and wife as well. Homosexual relations are an example of improper sexual relations. Just like using it to drown a person is an improper use of water.

I gave a list of options. I choose Sin off that list. As such, it can be resisted.

Correlatin does not mean causation. As well, statistics can say whatever you want them to say.

Yes, a community to share the values of said community. But you want to restrict which communities are allowed to share their values. You say that the values that I wish taught are less valued than other values? By what right or authority?

Well, there may be issued with contemporary socialization of gender roles too. Teaching men that they must be more aggressive is not a good thing because it generates morte aggressive men. Again, it comes back to the values taught.

The Vagina is designed to allow babies to come out. I have yet to pass a "daily log" that size. I have yet to see a penis that size either...

But Unnatural works both ways. Genocide is unnatural. Just like someone had to design and build the airplane, someone had to design and build the death camps in World War II. The question is does this elevate the human condition in the world or does it weaken it. I say that it does not help, but rather hinders the human condition.

It's not the people I don't like, but the fact that they feel the need to claw away at what I believe in. When they kept to their own, I didn't know about their sins, we could get along just fine. When they wanted to make their sex lives my business, then they made my opinion their business.

This actually goes back to the topic to start with. The Pope spoke out against Islam because of a belief that he and those who look to him were targetted for anihilation by them. Faraaz has stated otherwise. Likewise, You attack Christianity believing that we hate homosexuals. This is not true, we are commanded to love them, but we cannot condone or support them in their sins. You would not argue for the rights of carjackers to take a car from someone as long as they don't hurt them, would you?

Thanks, that's one of the points I was trying to go for. Also, isn't there a risk involved with oral sex if it gets screwed up? As a single person in a religion that forbids fornication, I have little experience with that...

 

Uh, no. Not fair enough. The challenge was issued for you to give reasons why homosexuality is actually 'bad' for humanity. How homosexual relationships cause harm to society as a whole without referring to religion or words such as "sin" and "righteous" since something is only one of those two if God says it is.

Personally I can not produce all the experiments and fancy equipment to prove something but other people HAVE and they achieved certain results and can proove, without a doubt, the results of their findings. To say I can't use that type of evidence to back up my argument... ah! Purple space monkeys who rule the universe think that homosexuality is just fine and dandy.

But you can't choose if you want to eat food or not. You have to eat. That's the type of feeling associated with homosexuality. They can't feel attracted towards somebody of the same sex because they simply don't. It's the exact same to how I imagine you feel towards somebody of the same sex, you can't 'get it up' looking at them much the same how homosexuals don't find people of the opposite sex attractive. They have 'no' choice.

Excuse me... BAHAAHAHAHAHAHA! Since when has there ever been a recording of somebody taking up the fine print with the Big Man and Him appearing saying "Oh, you know what I said about gays? Well Brian here has convinced me that I was kind'a out of line about that. You fags ain't so bad. As long as you're not banging my priests I got no beef with you, peace a'ight?". It's never happened. The argument being presented is to prove that homosexuality is actually wrong without referring to religious scripture. So far it's only bad because God well... kind'a says so.

They don't need to ask me to restrict myself since I feel no inclination towards wanting to have sex with anyone of the same gender. Homosexuals are not so lucky. They only feel sexual attraction towards people of the same gender so asking them to forego sexual relations with people of the same gender is the same as asking them to forego sexual relations period.

Actually homosexuals have never tried to make their sex lives your business. They just want to be legally entitled to the same rights as a married couple, it's religion that's butting in, not homosexuals.

 

My god says that homosexuality is just fine.

Do I win?

 

My god says that homosexuality is *not* fine and that your god is wrong.

Oh, and since someone said something about "do not kill" some silly 2,000 years ago, we shouldn't have new treatments for diseases nowdays. J/K! The sooner we die, the sooner we may have our salvation!

 

IMO, the reason fundamentalist Christians aren't strapping dynamite to themselves is because their country isn't undergoing massive political upheaval combined with a war right on their doorstep. If America was in the position Iraq is in now, I'd be willing to bet money it'd be more or less the same situation. just watch Jesus Camp.
There are kids in the US that are getting taught that they are the Warriors of God, Bush is God's right-hand man, and that it's a good and honourable thing to die for God. Sound familiar?

Any religion can be twisted to promote violence if necessary. Hell, kamikaze pilots in World War 2 were Buddhists.

Oh noes!

 

@ Gnarff, [EDIT - lengthy debunkery ahead]

According to YOUR definition of righteousness, which clearly not everyone shares. Your judgement and condemnation of others, whose lifestyle and nature do NOT effect you in any meaningful way, is far from righteous. Again - stop hiding behind your religion - I'm not buying it.

Exactly my point. Sex creates an emotional and romantic bond between two people. Some would argue that's much more important in this day and age than reproduction. I'm one of them.

Homosexual relations are improper FOR YOU. We've established that. But proper is a relative term. Someone engaging in homosexual relations, though improper to you, also has no impact on your life whatsoever and harms no one else. Let me give you an example.

You live on a city block. Two blocks away from you lives an ordinary gay couple. A normal, friendly, tax-paying, non-violent, drug-free committed gay couple (like most of them are, whether you choose to believe so or not). For sake of arguement, you live in this close proximity for most of your lives. In this example, there are two scenarios.

In the one scenario, you go your whole life without knowing this couple is gay. You live your life, go to work, raise your kids, and are not harmed by their presence in any way. In another scenario, you find out one day that they are a gay couple. You will still live your life, raise your kids, and go unharmed - the only difference being that now that you know you think it's all yucky and wrong, but your life (just as before you found out) goes on otherwise unchanged.

Point: what someone else chooses to engage in, especially when that act doesn't cause harm to anyone, is not your place to approve of or deny. Even if you choose to hide behind the book of mormon and/or the bible, you are in fact passing judgement on others who's lives and actions harm you in no way whatsoever. As drowning someone is improper use of water, what YOU are doing is improper use of YOUR faith. As such, I find it dispicable, petty and counterproductive.

It's a stretch (not to mention intellectually dishonest) to compare being gay to genocide, or the development of modern flight to erecting a prison camp - but I'll bite. You're right - unnatural does work both ways. But again, you're choosing to see as harmful something that is not. It clearly does no harm to you or anyone else. When you say it does not help, it does not help YOU. Speak for yourself. There's nothing righteous about forcing your beliefs on others.

Clinging to archaic beliefs hinders the human condition too, you know.

Ah, the old "the gays are invading my whole life" crap. Please tell me how homosexuals have clawed away at your beliefs. And by doing so, please also acknowledge that your beliefs are so WEAK to begin with that gay couples living their lives completely seperate from your own can actually chip away at your connection to God.

This has got to be the most hypocritical thing I've ever seen you write. YOU are the one who is making the sex lives of others YOUR business. The mere act of someone wanting to be open with who they are and what they do does NOT constitute shoving it in your face and making it your business. You have as much right to be openly Mormon as others do openly gay. In fact, I would argue that evangelical Christians like yourself do far more "shoving in the face" of your own beliefs and hangups than all the gays the world has ever seen combined. Is your own sexuality so insecure that someone doing something contrary to it is such a threat to you?

Gnarff, a carjacker taking a car from someone is, by definition, hurting them! In fact, I'm glad you wrote that: this (along with your point about homosexuality increasing STD likelyhood) illustrates nicely the reason I'm so often at odds with your views. I think you allow your faith to divorce you from your common sense. Sometimes it seems you do so willingly.

Let's be clear - I'm not attacking Christanity. I'm a christian myself. Who I'm attacking are other Christians, like you, who won't be happy until everyone believes and lives as they do. Who refuse to find a place for homosexuals within the folds of their faith. If we lived in a simple, perfect world this might be possible. Instead we live in an extremely complex world where precious few things are black and white, no matter how badly you wish it were. Clinging to archaic beliefs does not move society forward. One needn't look further than the middle east to see what I'm talking about.

I don't think the bible is as clear about homosexuality being a sin as some seem to. I've seen the chapter and verse, many times, and I believe it's vaguely worded and open to interpretation. And even if it were crystal clear, the bible is FAR, FAR from perfect. It has been written and rewritten by human beings several times over the last two millenia and as such, is as fallable as we are. There are many things the bible condemns that people choose to ignore. I think evangelicals dishonestly use the bible as a crutch to justify their own prejudices.

At the end of the day, my whole problem with this stems from the fact that sin or not, homosexuality is pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things. It's one very small part of what makes someone a human being, and certainly should not be grounds for denying someone a personal connection to God. Again - I say a personal connection - which is what religion and faith are supposed to be about.

[ September 30, 2006, 23:10: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

DR, give it up. In the end, Gnarff's opinion boils down to his belief of what will happen on Judgement Day. All those sinners will be fighting on the Ole Lucky's side. Gnarff seems to be terribly afraid that his side will loose. That's why he wants to prevent gays to live their life.

 

Gnarffling one of your major problems other than the obviuse you just plain hate homosexuals is you take your holy book and says its just as good and well argumentated as scientific research.

the problem is, for most of us religius books do not equel a scientific research. because it is based never changing dogma's and often give no reason for its statements. Becuase god says its bad, its not a reason for me, for i am a none believer.
so while a certain scientific reasearch might produce some facts your holy book produces none other thn age old prejustice.

Oh and by the way the bible says its sinfull to eat pigs, badgers and the cave bat. i hope you havent eaten any of them lately

 

Sorry to ask this question again, but how would I do that?

 

messiah@msn.heaven

 

/me blinks in amazement

WTF, people, the topic of this thread is the Pope's comments in his recent speech. WHY ON EARTH must every topic about religion end up discussing homosexuality?

Let me sum it up: Gnarff thinks we're all damned because we don't agree with him on this topic. Most others think Gnarff is suffering from a severe case of arrogance and double-standards.

There. Can we now move onto some new material, please?

I read i the paper this morning that a rather significant aspect of the Pope's speech is getting lost in all the furor over his poorly chosen quote (and I'm still not convinced that he didn't realize perfectly well what reaction he would receive). Apparently the gist of the speech was that the only chance the world ahs for peace is for everyone to follow Catholic thinking and teaching.

I don't know for certain, but something tells me that trying to make this happen would cause more strife that anything that King George, et. al., have concocted.

 

But you are still taking their word for it. Just as I am taking the report of prophets, living and dead of their experiences with God. Why is your second hand report valid and mine not?

But having sex is optional. Analogy discarded.

ARRRRRRRRRGHHHHHHHHHH! We aren't talking about changing the rules, but the person asking. It's about helping a person overcome temptation. Anyone unwilling to test that really isn't contributing anything useful.

I'm not talkiing specifically about same gender here. Read my all of my posts, not just the parts you want to mock.

Throwing their relationships into the public eye? Trying to change morality to suit their desires? When they make it public, that becomes my business. Normally their sins aren't my business, I'd like to keep it that way.

I'd like to think we'd have better resistance tactics. Then again, if the war was not in Afghanistan or Iraq, it could well be here. Remember 9/11?

And I'm not buying your claims of superiority. What's your point? Are you just bashing religion for fun? If so, then you really need to get a life...

Having never been married, I really don't have much experience with that, but I suspect that without the covenent of marriage, these bonds can make things more complicated when the relationship sours...

They don't shove their relationship in my face, then their sins are between themselves and God. They didn't make it my business, I have no need to trouble them with my opinion...

I say my piece, but if they don't listen then I've done as asked. The subject is dropped. I'm still uncomfortable with them, but they don't throw their relationship in my face, I don't preach at them.

I am warning them of the Judgement of God, which is commandment.

As does arbitrarily tearing down the normal morality as has existed for generations.

How about getting some idiot judge to rule--contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms--that the definition of marriage ought be changed to accommodate them?

You could have fooled me. To follow Christ means to stand as a witness at all times and in all circumstances, even though they may be "politically incorrect". To champion a cause opposite to the teachings of Christianity while claiming to be one is hypocritical.

Faith is more than belief, but obedience to these teachings. This includes obeying the laws and ordinances of the bible.

How about clarifying those archaic beliefs instead of changing them. How many precepts can you change fromt he bible before you are no longer Christian?

It is on the personal level that we are addressing here. The more greivous the sin, the greater disconnection between man and God. God is no respecter of persons. The law is the same for all. What I am attempting to encourage is people to try to bring their lives more in line with the laws laid out in the Bible.

Wrong. God's victory is foretold. I merely fight for the souls of those of my brothers and sisters from before we came to earth that have fallen into Satan's traps.

How about this logic:

If scientific theory refuses the existence of God and if God exists, then that theory is flawed. Ironically Pope Benedict XVI put it best...

"When the Creator's divine plan is ignored, the truth of human nature is lost."

Prayer. Pray to God the Father in the Name of His Son, Jesus Christ, with faith that He can help you to bring your desires in line with His will.

How should I know? It just always comes up when the religion haters jump in on a religious topic. My answers don't change...

Change Catholic to Christian and I would agree with that. If we can all agree on right and wrong, then a large portion of the contention in this world would disappear.

King George didn't concoct this, but he didn't succeed in stopping it either. I think that most of what has happenned was what Bin Laden wanted...

 

Sorry gnarf still aint good enough. your still trying to force your religeus belive on people who might not even believe in your god. that makes you no better then Muslims forcing women to wear certain types of cloth and marry men they dont even know.

Secondly the difference between your book and a scientific research is firstly a scientific research has to be of relative newer date to be valid and secondly it with has to be repedeble.
your book is neither. so in no way does it equel science.
Also unlike your book, science is willing to change and adopt new ideas.

there is no proofs or facts in religion, only funny stories that you can either belive in or not.
oh and according to the old testemony, the same that says homosexuallity is a sin, so is eating certain animals, while rape can be avoided as a sin if you pay the womans farther a certain amount of silver...

 

While I agree with your second statement, I must point out that Christian != Right. It's the same question as ever - what makes YOUR definition of "right" any more valid than MINE?

To try to compel others to live in accordance with your beliefs is the height of Pride, and by your very own rules you're all therefore doomed to hell.

QED

 

Sorry, I can't act surprised at that without being accused of not paying attention. I've been hearing that ever since I got here. My sources don't change.

Not forcing, but advocating them. I'm not going to bust in on people in the middle of their sins and execute them. I do advocate that the Government to stand up and defend this morality.

So how how long before some of the theories that I keep getting bludgeoned with are out of fashion? Maybe in another hundred years this annoying gravity bit will no longer apply? It hurt when I fell and hit the back of my head on the floor...

The point I have is that the truth does not have an expiration date. I believe that my religion is true, which exempts it from an expiration date. Further, I know that some of the things recorded in scripture are in fact repeatable. People just have to actually try to repeat them...

Well, the record of Elijah versus the 400 Priests of Baal was hilarious (1 Kings 18:22-40 I think)...

Divine source is the easy answer. If that is not granted, then there will be less consensus, and I admit that ALL my points are based on this premise. If I am ultimately wrong, then it falls apart, and the consequenses vary from irrelevance to exclusion from an afterlife I wouldn't feel comfortable with.

True, but I seek not to compel, but to warn of wrong choices. I CANNOT stop people from sinning, but I can warn them of the danger that they are in.

 

Christian madness

The worst thing is that he is not the only US Colonel to talk about Satan in Iraq

 

What I'd like to know is has there been further comment on the issue from either side, the Vatican or the Muslim clerics??

I can't seem to find anything about further developments...