| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Timbo
The Wandering Prophets
Joined: 05 Jun 2004
Post Count: 2964
Location: Darja
410837 Potch
300 Soldiers
835 Nation Points
|
 Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:13 pm Post subject: |
  |
|
| Yvl wrote: |
| Quote: |
I think it needs to be pointed out that homosexual sex is a sin, but I can't see anything about homosexual attraction. When talking about 'gay people' being against Christianity or condemned by christianity, I find this is untrue. Homosexual sex is the sin. A homosexual person isn't constantly having homosexual sex. Being homosexual means that you are sexually attracted to members of the same sex as yourself. When two homosexual peopel are having sex, it's a sin, but their being is not.
|
So they should just repress it? There are terrible psychological effects for repressing the urge for sex for too long as well. |
I agree that there are terrible psychological effects. But if they wish to not commit a sin, according the the Bible, they shouldn't do it, despite the consequences. Consequences are unimportant to the action.
Adultery involves massive amounts of repression as well, but that doesn't stop it from being a sin.
From my reading of the Bible, it is a very deontological ethics system, meaning that something is wrong because it is wrong, not because of the consequenes of the action.
An example hatwould enver actually happen: You are in a car with sixpeople and the brakes go out as you are going down a large hill. There is a large truck at the bottom of the hill that if you hit, you will all be killed. On the outside of the road there is a place that you can pull into that will make it so you will not all die, but there is a person sitting in it who you will have to run over to get in and live.
Many would say that you run over the person, because in the situation it's either six people dying or one person dying adn you should do what results in the least death. This view is based off of the consequences for justification, not the action.
Some would say (and I believe that Bible would be off this point fo view as well) that you drive into the truck, because the deaths of the people in the car aren't your fault, but if you run over the person, you made the choice to kill some one and went through with it. This means you are responsible for a murder, despite the murder saving more lives. This view doesn't care about the consequences, just the action.
_________________
"There is no normal life, there's just life. Now get on with it" |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
RedCydranth
Ice Dragons
Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Post Count: 3384
Location: Crystal Valley
3650446 Potch
194 Soldiers
100 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yvl... Um.. You made a comment saying Hinduism is as polytheistic as Christianity. I'm not quite sure what you meant by that. Are you saying Hinduism is NOT a polytheistic religion, or are you saying Chrisianity IS a polytheistic religion?
Either way this assumption is incorrect.
Hinduism does beleive in one ultimate god, Brahman. However underneath Brahman is Vishnu, Shiva and Shakti. These demi-gods, also known as Devas, serve as vessels in which to pray to. My extent of the Hindu practice and faith prety much ends here. However it is pretty clear they have a multi-tier god system much like the Greeks, except it is far more spiritual and less individually representative.
Christianity has one god. He is simply God. I am led to believe your interpretation of a Polytheistic Christianity stems from your lack of knowledge about the Holy Trinity. God is comprised of three parts. God the Father, The Son (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit. These three are one. Its a tough thing to grasp if you've never been in practice of christianity. In heaven the three are not seperate, one is not more powerful than the other. Some sects try to say the Father si more powerful, whiler others say the Son has more power. However the fundamental belief is that all three are as one and none are more powerful than the other.
Its tough to explain how this is not polytheistic. Acheron seems to have an excellent grasp on religion so perhaps he could asist me in this explaination.
Acheron, just to make this clear, in no way am I trying to sway your belief is Jesus or christianity. If anything, you are helping me understand more about it so I may become a better christian. Sage, The sarcasm I used above was not meant to cause negativity or stem hatred. I apologize.
On to the homosexuality issue. Timbo, you said Homosexuality itself is not a sin, but the acts are. So, if a gay man looks at a woman and feels absolutely no attraction thats fine. And when he looks at a man and finds attraction this is also okay. However, he is not allowed to act upon this attraction? He must repress who he is because some book from 2000 years ago says he can't? You're saying he's allowed to be gay, but not with another man.
An argument can be made that Gays are like Killers. Its not the Killer that god hates, its the act of killing. However there's a distinct difference between these two. One is a choice while the other is not. A killer makes the choice to pick up a gun/knife/candlestick (if you're playing clue) and kill their victim. A gay man does not choose to be attracted to men. Its not as if he one day wakes up and think "Yeah, today I'm gonna go start having sex with Todd." Homosexuality is not a choice. Why would some people have this natural attraction to people of the same sex and it be considered wrong to act upon it, but it okay for people to be attracted to the opposite sex and act upon that? If I'm attracted to men, I'm not going to deny it because some book tells me my deepest feelings and desires are wrong.
Wes, If we are going by the Bible and a gay man does not want to act upon his urges and represses them because they are wrong biblically, then so too is Masturbation. I'm not as versed as others are on the bible but I know somewhere in Corinthians it states self gratification as a form of adultery and as we all know, Adultery is one of the 10 commandments. I would go looking it all up, but I'm rather lazy at the moment. I need to eat.
| Sage wrote: |
| f they are dedicated to their religion and really want to follow it, then the answer is yes they should because it is the lifestyle they have chosen to follow. |
No. Wrong. Homosexuality is not a choice. Its just not. Its not like one day these people were walking down the street and they mulled over homosexuality and it sounded like a great idea. Its something they can not help. Its like telling a Dwarf to stop being short. Its something that is there since birth and its not a choice for them. Sure a dwarf can get those bone grafts to become some what taller, but thats denying who they are. I'm not saying homosexuality is a genetic defect, mind you. I'm just saying some people are born gay. Just as a dwarf should be proud of their stature, or lack thereof, a gay man or woman should embrace who they are and be proud of it. Its not a choice Sage.
Kuwaizair. I'll try to answer a few of your questions.
You are correct, there are folks out there that beleive the words of Genesis verbatim. As if they don't understand that there's a lot of metaphoric speak in there. I know for a fact there are plenty of people who believe Snakes once had legs and because of the treachery of the serpent in the Garden of Eden the species lost their legs. However, I think these people should take a step back and look at the bible from afar. Use a little of that gift god gave us, free will and decision making, and look at this intelligently. For god to make the world and everything on it, including Man, in 7 days is preposterous. Ok, its not preposterous, but its not what happened. i mean, he IS God and all, he can do what he likes. However the fact remains there were dinosaurs and the earth was around LONG before mankind ever was. My explaination is that God's time is infinite. What God defines as a day could be millenia. Time is a man made creation and to say God goes by our time is ludicrous. Its like saying he wears Levis and an Oakland A's baseball cap. So when the bible says God created Earth and everything on it in 7 days, its not literal. It was written that way so it didn't have to go into the philosophical discussion of how god is timeless and eternal. So our tiny little heads could wrap around it.
Do I believe in Adam and Eve? Sort of. While Adam and Eve were the first people he created, I do beleive he created far more than just those two. Why would he create just those two so that their sons and daugthers would have to commit incest, something that later on in the Bible is condemned? To say Adam and Eve were the first humans is fine, to say they were the only ones to me is not. I personally don't believe Adam nor Eve literally existed, but for those who like literal Bible stroies I think thats a fine comprimise. I thinkn that there was no Garden of Eden. its like Santa Clause and the tooth fairy. Its something that was told so that people could have peace of mind about their humble beginnings.
If Jesus taught all those people using Parables and metaphoric teachings, why is it so crazy to think that the people who wrote the Old Testament implemented this tool as well? The fall of Jericho, Noah, Jonah, David and even Moses and the plagues tell tales of supernatural occurrances to get points across. God is almighty and great. If you're with him, you'll be protected and right, if you're against him, you'll be smited and you end will not be a good one. Scare tactics. It works too.
Your sponge and jellyfish question is hardly a biblical one. When the bible is going over what is animal and what is not, (Mostly in the book of Leviticus which Acheron has shown as more a historical document than a guideline to life) this is to determine what can be eaten or not. The Bible is not concerned with Jellyfish and Sea Cucumbers and the like because what is plant and what is animal is basically irrelevant. I doubt there were many sea diving Jews. Anenome, coral and Jellyfish weren't available for their diets, thus they were not covered. However if they were I think they'd be inedible biblically because, A. Coral and Sponges are inedible by nature, B, Jellyfish would be thrown into the Lobster and Shimp category I flamed earlier. However even now we don't eat jellyfish because its pointless. There's nothing to it to eat. Would they BE animals in the bible? I think they's consider a Jellyfish an animal because of its free movement, and the Coral and sponges probably would have been classified as plants at that time.
And quickly, I've heard the Hell being translated as Grave or vice versa before, but thats only in one or two laguages where those two are almost synonymous. Its not Hebrew, Arabic or Greek like the ancient scriptures were originally written in so its not a major concern. I think it might be some dialect of Romanian or Russian where that confusion once took place. Don't quote me on that though.
_________________
I'm sorry and I apologize are the same thing.
Except at a funeral.
Fantasy Football (NFL) Sign Ups in Sports Forum! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iscalio
Joined: 28 Mar 2004
Post Count: 8370
1681589 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Moon Knight wrote: |
| Hinduism does beleive in one ultimate god, Brahman. However underneath Brahman is Vishnu, Shiva and Shakti. These demi-gods, also known as Devas, serve as vessels in which to pray to. My extent of the Hindu practice and faith prety much ends here. However it is pretty clear they have a multi-tier god system much like the Greeks, except it is far more spiritual and less individually representative. |
That is not correct. "Hinduism" is not a single religion anyway - it is a western collective term for the multitude of Indian religious traditions with a few exceptions (Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism). The differences between some of these schools of thought (or rather: religions) are more extensive and essential than the differences between Christianity and Islam for example - it is a momentous mistake to think that there exists the Hinduism.
There are monistic-monotheistic, monotheistic, henotheistic, polytheistic and even atheistic Hindu schools. And none that I am aware of believes in a triad of Vishnu, Shiva and Shakti under the Absolute (Brahman).
The Christian trinity was discussed in the What is your religion? thread, pages 23 and 24, I think. [Link]
| Moon Knight wrote: |
| An argument can be made that Gays are like Killers. Its not the Killer that god hates, its the act of killing. However there's a distinct difference between these two. One is a choice while the other is not. A killer makes the choice to pick up a gun/knife/candlestick (if you're playing clue) and kill their victim. A gay man does not choose to be attracted to men. |
I suppose I don't have to say how excessively inappropriate it is to compare homosexuals with killers, but since you made this unfortunate example I will use it as well.
The distinctive difference you mention does not exist. You claim that the sexual preference of homosexuals is not a choice, so to sleep with a person of the same gender can not be a sin. On the other hand, a murderer commits his crime following a decision of his free will. You make an obvious mistake here. Let's ignore for now the question of "sin". Let's just look at the two actions you mentioned. Both have two "parts".
murder
1) The desire to kill another person
2) Actually committing the murder
homosexual intercourse
1) The desire to engage in sexual intercourse with a person of the same gender
2) Actually committing the sexual act
In both cases, 2) is a free action (unless you want to imply that homosexuals have no impulse control at all, which of course you don't). 1) on the other hand is not a free act (in most cases). You apparently forget that sexual attraction and libido are not the only emotional, "natural" incitements. Hate, anger, jealousy (the most common reasons for murder) are as well. And the tendency to anger, to violence, is as much based on the genome as sexual preference is.
The "job" of free will is to govern over these desires and passions.
If we look at modern neurological science (or a variety of religious texts [St. Augustine, Al-Ghazzali, the rabbinic tradition]) it is - by the way - questionable just how free 2) actually is. In can be debated that it is only the appropriation of an action or desire that is morally relevant, not the action itself.
Last edited by iscalio on Thu Dec 14, 2006 10:22 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kuwaizair
blauuurgggh!
Joined: 22 May 2004
Post Count: 3427
Location: Plaats
174392 Potch
0 Soldiers
1291 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 7:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I suppose I don't have to say how excessively inappropriate it is to compare homosexuals with killers, but since you made this unfortunate example I will use it as well. |
many compair this to other things, a guy I know said "if we allow gays to marry, then we should give theives and murders more rights also" and he was being serious.
as for anyone saying the dinosaur thing, there apparenry is proof that vegan t-rexes lived with Adam and Eve, as peacefull animals.
anway can anyone varify somthing? I hear paperclip theift is the same kind of sin as Genocide, all sin are equal and the same in God's eyes. Do other religions have this? I'd like to belive in some karmaic justice. Like if you beat on animals all your life for fun, you'll be reincarnated as a feedlot/factory farm meat/fur animal. But its not, its a one shot deal, either live a life of peity and repend and or don't sin, or be barbecued forever. (also how can one be in a lake of fire in darkness?)
_________________
few runes short of a set of 27
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iscalio
Joined: 28 Mar 2004
Post Count: 8370
1681589 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 7:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kuwaizair wrote: |
| as for anyone saying the dinosaur thing, there apparenry is proof that vegan t-rexes lived with Adam and Eve, as peacefull animals. |
I just want to point out that the vast majority of christians does of course not think that Adam and Eve actually existed (which does not at all mean that Genesis is not true). Evolution and the cosmological findings of modern astrophysics perfectly consort with the bible's myth of creation. The paradise fable teaches about you and me and every human being. You are Adam and Eve and the fall of mankind happens now and constantly in every single human. To quote Horace, Satires I,1: Mutato nomine de te fabula narratur.
The bible wants to teach about the human nature and humanity's relation to God and creation. The bible is not a scientific book, and according to the vast majority of the world's christians every attempt to read it as a work of physics, biology or geology or whatever is fatuous. Unfortunately, one of the world's most educated countries seems to have an awful lot of people who don't realize that.
| Quote: |
| anway can anyone varify somthing? I hear paperclip theift is the same kind of sin as Genocide, all sin are equal and the same in God's eyes. |
According to which faith is it supposed to be like that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kuwaizair
blauuurgggh!
Joined: 22 May 2004
Post Count: 3427
Location: Plaats
174392 Potch
0 Soldiers
1291 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| iscalio wrote: |
| kuwaizair wrote: |
| as for anyone saying the dinosaur thing, there apparenry is proof that vegan t-rexes lived with Adam and Eve, as peacefull animals. |
I just want to point out that the vast majority of christians does of course not think that Adam and Eve actually existed (which does not at all mean that Genesis is not true). Evolution and the cosmological findings of modern astrophysics perfectly consort with the bible's myth of creation. The paradise fable teaches about you and me and every human being. You are Adam and Eve and the fall of mankind happens now and constantly in every single human. To quote Horace, Satires I,1: Mutato nomine de te fabula narratur.
The bible wants to teach about the human nature and humanity's relation to God and creation. The bible is not a scientific book, and according to the vast majority of the world's christians every attempt to read it as a work of physics, biology or geology or whatever is fatuous. Unfortunately, one of the world's most educated countries seems to have an awful lot of people who don't realize that.
| Quote: |
| anway can anyone varify somthing? I hear paperclip theift is the same kind of sin as Genocide, all sin are equal and the same in God's eyes. |
According to which faith is it supposed to be like that? |
yeh, but some push it as 100% true. the Universe can be proven to be 6,000 years old, and people are pushing others from god with "millions of years between this and that", that the bible speeks of kangaroos (Satyars?) and dinosaurs (dragons)
what is frustrating here is slugging through that and the others, the ones who make everything out to be litteral.
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/dinos_on_ark.asp
that one is intersting, for people who cannot swallow "common ancestors" they sure do accept that one canine can make dogs, wolfs, coyotes and foxes. granted you can breed horses with zebra with donkeys, still, saying the're the same animal sounds like accpting evolution to me.
others say, that (i guess everyone shold belive/know) that its imposslbe for the conventional belife, because nothing died 'before then". dinosaurs went extinct after the flood.
what I'm wanting to do, is make up a story to have people belife, such as magic and dragons were seperated from this world, or our mundane real world is a trial world. If others can do I, I can, afterwards...I shall fight to have my fabrications/belifes taught in schools.
(such as a new classyfication system of animals that includes gods, angels and mythological creatures, the old of offends me greatly)
what about unlabled spirtuality? does anyone want to bring that up? there are people who take it as serisoly as they do religion. Even if it means saying they were Luke Skywalker in a past life.
_________________
few runes short of a set of 27
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Timbo
The Wandering Prophets
Joined: 05 Jun 2004
Post Count: 2964
Location: Darja
410837 Potch
300 Soldiers
835 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 8:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
On to the homosexuality issue. Timbo, you said Homosexuality itself is not a sin, but the acts are. So, if a gay man looks at a woman and feels absolutely no attraction thats fine. And when he looks at a man and finds attraction this is also okay. However, he is not allowed to act upon this attraction? He must repress who he is because some book from 2000 years ago says he can't? You're saying he's allowed to be gay, but not with another man.
An argument can be made that Gays are like Killers. Its not the Killer that god hates, its the act of killing. However there's a distinct difference between these two. One is a choice while the other is not. A killer makes the choice to pick up a gun/knife/candlestick (if you're playing clue) and kill their victim. A gay man does not choose to be attracted to men. Its not as if he one day wakes up and think "Yeah, today I'm gonna go start having sex with Todd." Homosexuality is not a choice. |
I never said homosexuality is a choice. I said performing homosexual sex is a choice. You may not have the choice in your attraction, but you have the choice of having sex or not. You could be a chaste homosexual, and I can't find anything in the Bible against that.
You analogy doesn't make sense as well, since homosexuals have the choice of going through with homosexual sex or not, just as killers would have the choice of killing or not.
| Quote: |
| Why would some people have this natural attraction to people of the same sex and it be considered wrong to act upon it, but it okay for people to be attracted to the opposite sex and act upon that? If I'm attracted to men, I'm not going to deny it because some book tells me my deepest feelings and desires are wrong. |
If you labeled yourself as a Christian and performed this act, then, according to the Bible, you would be performing sin. As for a reason behind it, like many other aspects of the Bible and justification for rules, it's because it is the proclaimed word of God.
I personally find that a little silly, but God's rules are law according to the Bible.
_________________
"There is no normal life, there's just life. Now get on with it" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vextor
Joined: 09 Mar 2004
Post Count: 12081
Location: Hell
11324811 Potch
23689 Soldiers
160 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The murderer/homosexual analogy doesn't work:
A person is not a murderer unless they first consummate the act of murder. Thinking about killing somebody doesn't make you a murderer. The label is defined by consequence.
However, if you are attracted to men, you are already homosexual whether or not you consummate your inclination. The label is defined by intent here.
Thus, you have a choice in being a murderer, while you will have no choice whether you are homosexual or not. The two are logically dissimilar, and comparing the two is like comparing orangutangs with breakfast cereals. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Acheron
Stonewall Brigade
Joined: 13 Feb 2005
Post Count: 3951
Location: Mar-Uruk
172597 Potch
200 Soldiers
1325 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 10:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The murderer/homosexual analogy doesn't work:
A person is not a murderer unless they first consummate the act of murder. Thinking about killing somebody doesn't make you a murderer. The label is defined by consequence.
However, if you are attracted to men, you are already homosexual whether or not you consummate your inclination. The label is defined by intent here.
Thus, you have a choice in being a murderer, while you will have no choice whether you are homosexual or not. The two are logically dissimilar, and comparing the two is like comparing orangutangs with breakfast cereals. |
My stance on homosexuality... As a precursor, I represent my opinions and my faith as a Christian, but must emphasize that these feelings should not be held to represent all Christians as there are some who agree with me and others who don't.
One of God's commands was to make the world populated, which means make lots of babies, which means have sex. Homosexual sex is not done in order to procreate. There in lies the problem for most Christians. To most, homosexual marriage would equate homosexual intercourse, because that's how it's done in the Christian faith (marriage, than have sex). Homosexual Sex is a sin because it is not in the effort of having children and can be misconstrued as having selfish motivations and not that it is being done as a manifestation of love for the other. While I have no problem with gays who want to come to church or who profess Christianity, I do have a problem with marriage because it is like the church approving of homosexual intercourse which would be contradictory. I don't mind if the government gives permission to do so but it should be at the discretion of the church/minister to decide who they wed and if it is right to wed a gay couple.
As far as personal relations with homosexuals, I have no problems. As cliche as it is to say but I have plenty of gay friends. One of my regular sparring partners from wrestling is gay and I'm an avid choral performer, which events(All-state choir, All-County Choir, some local collaboration performances, to name some with which I have personal experience with) are frequented by homosexuals. As far as I'm concerned, the recent actions by the Southern Baptist Convention to disallow churches who accept homosexual members is detestable and in no way an effort to reach a public of whom they attempt to reach. If anything, the church should be open to anyone who comes to their door seeking guidance and/or help. Anyways!
In response to Sin... again same as above, it is my personal opinion as a Christian, but I don't represent all of the Christians. These are my opinions and my personal faith.
| Quote: |
| anway can anyone varify somthing? I hear paperclip theift is the same kind of sin as Genocide, all sin are equal and the same in God's eyes. |
My stance is this. Even the smallest sin will mar you in the eyes of God. Because sin is the absense of God, by having any part of you absent of God your whole self must be absent from God, since God by nature cannot be in the presense of the absense of himself. It just doesn't work. Therefore you must become pure and without sin when you are before God. Thus, in my faith, Jesus came and through his sacrifice we may have our sins be superceeded by his perfection. It's from this that they say all sins are equal in God's sight because any sin will disallow your admission to heaven, no matter how small. All have sinned, all need something to stand in for them if they want heaven, according to my faith. Take it for what it is, it's what hold as truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zeik Tuvai
Aura of the Wolf
Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Post Count: 902
Location: Schiavik
12319 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 11:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I am agnostic, and I bear no ill will to any religon. That being said, some of the things that come out of the mouths of those who ARE religon tend to disgust me to the point I don't want any part of it.
There are some aspects of each religon which simply do not coincide with modern discoveries, or damage the peace that religon tends to want to protect.
The bible, for example (since it is the only example I am at all knowledgable about) is supposedly "the word of God." However, in the bible, it says that mankind is imperfect. The Bible was written by human hands, and if humans are imperfect as the bible says, there is bound to be a mistake here or there, especially with all the revisions it has gone through over time. The same can probably be applied to other religous texts - all were written by human hands (and even prophets are human in some form, if Muhammad wrote the Quran, which is apparantly debatable) and are thus prone to errors.
Mankind did not know of the kinds of scientific advances that we would be discovering today, so even with inspiration from God Himself, the writers of religous texts only could write what they were aware of, or as was regarded as fact all those years ago.
Far too many people try to refute what has been scientifically proven (or demonstrated to the point that it is virtually impossible to refute) based on the fact that something someone wrote thousands of years ago says otherwise.
Again, I do not mean to offend anyone, but it is true that God Himself did not write any of these books with His own hand. It is only my intention to get any who might be clinging too strongly to the words of their god to question the validity of the translators and question everything. Do not let a mistake that could be as minor as a typo from hundreds or thousands of years ago misguide you. |
These are my opinions, and in know way relate to rest of whatever it is I am. These are opinions, they aren't based on facts.
Yvl... You asked if God Himself did not write any of these books with His own hand. In my personal opinion, no, God did not write any book with His own hand. Humanity did. In my personal opinion, humanity also created faith as a means of self empowerment, to help guide their lives, and be good to other peopel. However, in my opinion, humanity created religion to have power over other people, governing and controlling lives to a certain extent. Again, personal opinion, not based on any facts or anything.
I love the idea of having faith in something. Faith is good. Faith is wonderful. I just personally don't understand the creations of so many religions, and then those breaking down into hundreds of other religions, and forming their own private sects. I always viewed the Bible as a moral guidebook, to take it seriously, not literally. Literally means that's how it was, and there's no variation.
I'm aware that to a lot of people, I probably live in sin. I am rather abscent of God, or gods. I just like living, and trying to keep myself from doing things that make it hard for me to look myself in the mirror. It's a very fulfilling and wonderful lifestyle. Lots of grays inbetween the black and white.
***
| Timbo wrote: |
| I personally find that a little silly, but God's rules are law according to the Bible. |
Excuse my abscent mindedness, but... Would you mind giving me the passage of the Bible that says that, specifically, homosexuality is a sin?
| Sars wrote: |
The murderer/homosexual analogy doesn't work:
A person is not a murderer unless they first consummate the act of murder. Thinking about killing somebody doesn't make you a murderer. The label is defined by consequence.
However, if you are attracted to men, you are already homosexual whether or not you consummate your inclination. The label is defined by intent here.
Thus, you have a choice in being a murderer, while you will have no choice whether you are homosexual or not. The two are logically dissimilar, and comparing the two is like comparing orangutangs with breakfast cereals. |
Oh, thank you Sars! I fully agree with this!
_________________
Those who stray from the path of justice,
Are those who have no courage...
But under the wing of a strong leader,
Cowardice cannot survive.
Last edited by Zeik Tuvai on Thu Dec 14, 2006 11:27 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
St. Ajora
SOUL PATROL!
Joined: 19 Dec 2004
Post Count: 917
Location: Caldeaux
-98944 Potch
-54 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 11:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Acheron wrote: |
My stance on homosexuality... As a precursor, I represent my opinions and my faith as a Christian, but must emphasize that these feelings should not be held to represent all Christians as there are some who agree with me and others who don't.
One of God's commands was to make the world populated, which means make lots of babies, which means have sex. Homosexual sex is not done in order to procreate. There in lies the problem for most Christians. To most, homosexual marriage would equate homosexual intercourse, because that's how it's done in the Christian faith (marriage, than have sex). Homosexual Sex is a sin because it is not in the effort of having children and can be misconstrued as having selfish motivations and not that it is being done as a manifestation of love for the other. While I have no problem with gays who want to come to church or who profess Christianity, I do have a problem with marriage because it is like the church approving of homosexual intercourse which would be contradictory. I don't mind if the government gives permission to do so but it should be at the discretion of the church/minister to decide who they wed and if it is right to wed a gay couple. |
Then why aren't churches fighting against pre marital sex as hard as they fight against homosexuality? It seems like the general consensus is to turn a blind eye to all of the people having sex for pleasure, just because they're hetero. There are millions of people who have sex for so-called selfish reasons though there isn't a holy war being fought against heterosexual individuals who take their sexuality into their own hands by doing what they feel comfortable with.
My stance on religion is this- I don't follow a be good and get a bone reward system to live my life, I know that sounds pretty harsh to some but I can't fathom following some sort of codebook (that doesn't just stand for religion, yeah I'm a big rebel ohh :P). I'm me, if God/Goddess is up there peering at me (which I do believe, we are buds, God and I) then I believe I'm going to live my life without conforming to two extremities. Nobody pure and without "sin" supposedly would pick and choose whom they love, and reward them for certain behaviour.
The good and bad (and overcoming it) is the beauty of mankind, I tell ya. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Stark
War Machine
Joined: 19 Feb 2005
Post Count: 3030
Location: Darja
536068 Potch
250 Soldiers
1600 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 11:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I like most of what you have said so far Acheron.
| Acheron wrote: |
| One of God's commands was to make the world populated, which means make lots of babies, which means have sex. Homosexual sex is not done in order to procreate. There in lies the problem for most Christians. |
This just seems a little silly to me. The bible leaves it unclear as to whether or not things like masturbation and marital sexual relations other than intercourse are permissable. Catholics believe that masturbation is a sin because it wasts a man's seed that could be used to procreate. Sperm have a 2-day life, and there is about one week a month where an egg can be fertilized. Assuming a man does not have sex everyday, and he is unmarried, he will inevitably waste sperm anyway. And even in a married couple one must assume that three weeks of sperm will be wasted. Even after menopause, couples are able to have sex. So, basically, with that argument you presented even married couples should only be allowed to have sex one week a month and after menopause, just go without. But I've never met or heard about anyone ever believing in that. Seems sort of like a contradiction, don't you think?
I'm not saying homosexual sex is not a sin, but that procreation argument is stupid.
_________________
Last edited by Tony Stark on Thu Dec 14, 2006 11:29 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kuwaizair
blauuurgggh!
Joined: 22 May 2004
Post Count: 3427
Location: Plaats
174392 Potch
0 Soldiers
1291 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 11:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
One of God's commands was to make the world populated, which means make lots of babies, which means have sex. |
what about infertile people? they shold be celibite? I guess so. Humans are of those beings that use sex for communications and fun, like dolphins and chimps.
_________________
few runes short of a set of 27
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Acheron
Stonewall Brigade
Joined: 13 Feb 2005
Post Count: 3951
Location: Mar-Uruk
172597 Potch
200 Soldiers
1325 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Then why aren't churches fighting against pre marital sex as hard as they fight against homosexuality? It seems like the general consensus is to turn a blind eye to all of the people having sex for pleasure, just because they're hetero. There are millions of people who have sex for so-called selfish reasons though there isn't a holy war being fought against heterosexual individuals who take their sexuality into their own hands by doing what they feel comfortable with. |
Because the church isn't being pressured into making a public stance on the issue because to the general public, it is a moot point. Before the issue of homosexual marriage was a national issue, the church didn't say anything about it because they were focused on other things. When asked to make a stance, they did and have been expected not to disregard the matter since it's causing such a stir. Despite itself, the church is often caught in politics because the two are similar and mix. This is the case with some issues and it's not all the churches cause. They could choose not to respond but they have a responsibility to address what they've been drawn into.
Churches do advise abstinance until marriage. It's not as if they completely disregard the issue all together.
Hopefully this addressed your concern to satisfaction. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zeik Tuvai
Aura of the Wolf
Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Post Count: 902
Location: Schiavik
12319 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 11:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Because the church isn't being pressured into making a public stance on the issue because to the general public, it is a moot point. Before the issue of homosexual marriage was a national issue, the church didn't say anything about it because they were focused on other things. When asked to make a stance, they did and have been expected not to disregard the matter since it's causing such a stir. Despite itself, the church is often caught in politics because the two are similar and mix. This is the case with some issues and it's not all the churches cause. They could choose not to respond but they have a responsibility to address what they've been drawn into. |
Is it the Church's stance, or is it God's stance? Before, you made direct referrence to God.
What I mean here is, the Church spreads the word of God. Going by what you said, it seems as if the Church isn't spreading the word of God, but the opinions and beliefs of the general public that they choose to support.
_________________
Those who stray from the path of justice,
Are those who have no courage...
But under the wing of a strong leader,
Cowardice cannot survive.
Last edited by Zeik Tuvai on Thu Dec 14, 2006 11:39 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
