<!--QuoteBegin--CrystalSnake+Sep 5 2003, 07:58 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CrystalSnake @ Sep 5 2003, 07:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't know if this is the right time & place, but I'll ask anyway: Did Jesus ever cure anybody of their homosexuality? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That would imply that homosexuality is a disease or that it is genetic. It's not. It cannot and will never be proven to be anything more than mental stupidity. It's a choice that a person makes. A choice to deny that which is natural.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited September 2003
. . . sigh . . .
On second thought, I'll give more than a one word reply. That is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever heard. Have you ever talked to a g@y person before in your life?
That was the sound of Monkey's credibility vanishing.
Most currently available evidence does in fact point to homosexuality being determined before birth, either by genetics or by atypical hormonal influences during pregnancy.
Interestingly, at the time of the New Testament, it was thought that epileptic fits were caused by possessing demons.
Yes, I have. Therefore you cannot classify me as "ignorant." I have spoken to many, I am a college student. On top of that, I have read a fair deal upon it. There is nothing beyond self-induced (or maybe childhood horrors) mental states that lead to homosexuality. Nothing more than thier own selfish lusts drive them to sleeping with one of thier own sex.
So, if you call homosexuality a disease, heterosexuality would be a disease too. Hmm, that just doesn't work.
<!--QuoteBegin--[p4]Samwise+Sep 5 2003, 12:18 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([p4]Samwise @ Sep 5 2003, 12:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Most currently available evidence does in fact point to homosexuality being determined before birth, either by genetics or by atypical hormonal influences during pregnancy.
Interestingly, at the time of the New Testament, it was thought that epileptic fits were caused by possessing demons. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Give me an example by a non-homosexual researcher. I have read those reports only to find that the writer/researcher was a homosexual.
I'm sure "fits" would come along with many demonic posession, especially if the host resisted. And it was not thought to be so, it was known that demons do exist and do posess people that invite them.
By the way, did you know trains can go underground? (Yeah, lets NOT pull things out of thin air Sam, demons have little to with homosexuality)
<!--QuoteBegin--moultano+Sep 5 2003, 12:29 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Sep 5 2003, 12:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You have eyeballs because of genetics. Does that make having eyes a disease? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I have no idea who you aimed that remark at.
By bringing up epilepsy, I'm pointing out that in biblical times, many conditions were very poorly understood. Epilepsy is one example that I think most of us can agree on. Now stretch for a second and imagine that perhaps in biblical times they didn't have access to the same information about genetics, prenatal development, and psychology that we do now, just as they didn't have access to the knowledge of neurology that would have shown them that seizures are not necessarily indicative of demonic possession.
Not such a stretch, obviously, as there are still people today who haven't caught up with modern medicine on this topic.
Unfortunately, not all researchers publish their reports with indications of sexual orientation, but the beauty of the scientific method is that if you want to dispute their results, you're free to conduct the experiment yourself to debunk their findings.
The question becomes - what is it that makes it necessary for the behavior to be resisted? Most of the moral arguments against homosexuality seem to be founded on the premise that it's a deliberate perversion of God's plan (a subtle but much more relevant point, I think, is that it slows the procreation of the species).
Well, if it's genetic, it's not deliberate, nor is it really a perversion, because for that person, it's completely natural, just as attraction to the opposite sex is natural in most other people.
And lest you forget, unlike every other sin on the books (that I can think of), "homosexual behavior" does not demonstrably hurt anyone, and does not in and of itself weaken ties to the community or with God (commonly accepted preconditions for something to be considered sinful). It only weakens these ties if you've already decided that it's inherently sinful behavior, which is fairly circular reasoning, to my mind.
Just because we may be considered stupid and uneducated in 2000 years does not refute what we think and believe. If it did, we should all just kill ourselves and not allow that to happen. The Bible doesn't give you a record of all seizures, does it now? No, it only recorded the ones that were healed, and had relevance to what the author wanted to convey.
Skip the majority of this post if you are easily offended, or just want to get to the part that is relevant to the thread. Again, i'll tell you when to stop.
Sheezy won't be the only one that has the privelege to Catholic bash in this thread... <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You'll need to look elsewhere for ammunition against the papacy. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, sir. Got it right here.
1. How do I go about saying this...Hmm.. I think we can all agree on that democratic republic would have to be the best form of government on the planet so far, right? Why then, do Catholics cling on to a Monarchy style heirarchy? I answer, here's an example of why that system won't work: The priest decides to quit, go to another parish, gets thrown into jail, or whatever. Does the parish get to vote on who they want to have next? No. One is appointed by someone miles away. Do they take into consideration of what the parish wants? That i'm not sure on; however, if it is, why bother having someone ask you what you want who then appoints one for you? Isn't it easier to just vote on the new priest directly? (For future reference, Protestants use the democratic republic system where you vote on which pastor/minister you like best.) Another one: The person you appointed as Pope can't even fulfill his duties. (Is he dead yet? If you have a new one my mistake.) Can you kick a Pope out of office? I doubt it, again i'm not sure. Yet again, the Catholic Church (the one based in Rome) what was their policy during WW2 again?
2. They think the Bible has mistakes in it. Go read Josh McDowel "More then a Carpenter." Edit: While trying to find the website for his book I realized that C.S. Lewis didn't right that book. Haha, i'm an idiot....Har. Wonder what book that guy wrote that I had to read. Oh well it's not important....ha.
3. Like Sheezy said, they worship idols. Example: "Hail Mary full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art though amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus." That was a LOT of emphasis on Mary. In fact, the opening line makes it sound like they are actually praying to Mary. Yeah right, like a dead mortal can hear you. Same thing for the saints, just knock it off, the only entity that can answer or hear prayers is God.
4. A whole mess of beliefs (both former ones and current beliefs) were/are contradictary to the Bible. Example: "Everyone gets to go to heaven. Also, you have to go through purgatory to get there." First off, John 3:16-18. Second, where in the Bible does it even mention purgatory? Third, what was the point of Jesus to come and die for us if God was going to let us all in at the start? Second Example: Indulgences. Ha. Good thing they dropped that one. Example the third: Crusades Yep.
In conclusion, if a Catholic is giving you advice about God, you are better off taking that with a grain of salt and should not make blanket judgements on Christianity as a whole... Like the stance on homosexuality.
Look here -------------> Stop scrolling, num nuts. <------------- Looky looky
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Wherever homosexual desire comes from, the actual behaviour occurs by free choice and can therefore be resisted. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, that is what I mean when I say "Love the person, hate the sin." The person is not any less of a person because they are ****, they are sinning just like the rest of us when we lie, cheat, steal, watch Oprah, etc. Whether being a homosexual is genetic or not, it can be resisted just like any other sin.
I believe there is a larger issue at hand. You can bicker with Chrisitans all you want, but you'll keep spouting random disagreements because you have no intentions of ever beliving what we say to be true or the Bible. In truth, the base things that need to be detirmined are:
- Is there an omnipotent, all-knowing, all-powerful God that created and sustains man and the universe?
- Is the Bible the valid and true Word of God?
If you cannot say "yes" to both, then the furthest this discussion could have gone and still have been worthwhile is agreements and disagreements on if the church was right in thier breaking of that agreement. Discussing homosexuality cannot ever reach a conclusion if we do not have those two points, in agreement, as a base of reference.
Now hold on just a second. The issue at hand was the church's sudden decision to reverse their earlier position, and in effect break a promise. I don't think we should have to take the test of whether-we-are-Christian-or-not before we can post in the thread!
As for the rules, the church has every (legal) right to choose who can and cannot attend their services.
In cases when they discriminate (for example, against homosexuals) I believe it's wrong that they do so. That's my opinion. I don't think they should have gone back and broken their promise, I think that's just low, homophobic and rude. However, it is their prerogative and right to do so. I do not believe homosexuality is morally wrong, nor do I believe that it is a "disease" or "mental stupidity." The church's (and other religions too, we might as well add) bias against homosexuals I think is wrong too; I don't believe in their dogmas so I don't believe their argument against homosexuality (which is based on their own intangible beliefs which I don't share).
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
<!--QuoteBegin--Twex+Sep 5 2003, 11:53 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Twex @ Sep 5 2003, 11:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Wherever homosexual desire comes from, the actual <i>behaviour</i> occurs by free choice and can therefore be resisted. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Someone stepped in it, now.
All right, if homosexuality is a choice, I <b>challenge</b> you to choose to be attracted to the same gender. Even for just one day, and you don't have to act on it.
Right. That one's going to happen.
That's honestly *almost* as idiotic a statement as saying 'heterosexuality is a choice', or 'My god is the One True God!'. There has been extensive research done by independent sources (published publically, in scientific journals.. though normally ones that cover behavioural studies, or are directed at psychologists) that has proved with little doubt besides bullheadedness that homosexuality occurs in every studied mammalian (and some non-mammalian) species... and they took broad slices. Dogs to lions, bats to dolphins, hyaenas to rats, cats to rabbits. In *every* instance, a smattering of individuals were located who would resist any advances of the opposite sex, and engage in homosexual activity regularly, beyond dominance-displays.
But then 'we're better than animals, we can think and choose'. Riiiiiight. The thing is, the research wasn't about if we could restrain ourselves from engaging in it... that's happened for centuries through fear. It was about why, if homosexuality is immoral, wrong, and unnatural.. it occurs VERY naturally all around us?
<!--QuoteBegin--Crazy_Monkey+Sep 5 2003, 12:02 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Crazy_Monkey @ Sep 5 2003, 12:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Just because we may be considered stupid and uneducated in 2000 years does not refute what we think and believe. If it did, we should all just kill ourselves and not allow that to happen. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Correct. However, we should try to ensure that our moral judgements are not based upon fallible human assumptions.
As I have pointed out (and you have failed to refute), it's difficult to make a logical case for homosexuality being immoral. Nem has already pointed out the cultural influences behind the Jews' rejection of homosexuality, and there's also that simple "be fruitful and multiply" directive that may have been important 2000 years ago, but has ceased to be now that our planet is starting to get cramped. Does it not seem plausible that homosexuality might be only as "immoral" as eating pork? That is to say, not a good idea in the context of Biblical times, but not a "sin' as such?
And now I hear that Jesus himself never actually condemned homosexuality specifically. Hm.
Crisqo, your attack against an old, ill man ("Is he dead yet?") was very poor form. I will not correct your many misrepresentations of the Catholic faith because of this, and because these apologetics lead us far off-topic. Perhaps in a different thread.
Talesin, your choice is whether or not to have sexual intercourse, and if so, with whom. Which things you're attracted to is irrelevant. <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Dogs to lions, bats to dolphins, hyaenas to rats, cats to rabbits.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Watching animals is always cute, but as they're soulless, their behaviour bears no relevance for human morals. For example, animals are incapable of celibacy. <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It was about why, if homosexuality is immoral, wrong, and unnatural.. it occurs VERY naturally all around us<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Many horrible things occur around us. Male lions regularly kill the cubs of a pride they take over. Female spiders eat their mates. Should we draw some conclusions from that as well? At the end of the day, animals just follow their instincts, and we don't.
But Twex, the examples you draw of behavior in nature that we shouldn't follow are acts that would be clearly harmful to other human beings if translated into human terms. This still has not been demonstrated to be the case with homosexuality.
In addition, the behaviors you mentioned are atypical, occuring in a minority of species, as far as I know. Talesin's point was that homosexuality occurs in many many species, especially those that are closely related to us.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
<!--QuoteBegin--Twex+Sep 5 2003, 02:19 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Twex @ Sep 5 2003, 02:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Watching animals is always cute, but as they're soulless, their behaviour bears no relevance for human morals. For example, animals are incapable of celibacy. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Untrue. A number of animals (seagulls being a well-documented case) refuse to breed in the case of things like short food-supply. Something which many humans are incapable of, even when legally married. Though I suppose that would be more classified as 'abstinence' rather than celibacy.
Additionally, a number of species (foxes as the first example to-mind) take only one mate as the general rule. If that mate dies, they will refuse to take another. Ever. Yet another aspect many humans are unable to duplicate.
As well, I do take offense at calling animals soulless. Though that's through personal observance, rather than adherence to a book handed down. It's quite easy to defeat an argument backed by empirical evidence by writing off the rest of the world as inferior and flawed, when there is no refuting evidence available.
I was going to post about the incosistencies in the text, and give links to evidence of faulty translations and major editing but if it was going to change anyone's mind by now it would have.
There is a vast amount of scietific information about the subject and yet people adhere to two fictional stories from a 2000 year old book, I just don't undrestand, oh well.
Oh and as far as resisting natural urges, you could resist the urge to eat, it's called Anorexia and look what that achieves.
this is all well and good guys, but the fact of the matter is, it all comes down to this. If you are not a Christian, you cannot relate to what the Cathedral did. I'm not sure why it was going to allow the LGCM to meet there in the first place, but it was the morally and Biblically right thing to ban them, based upon the professed belief of the Cathedral. They profess to be Christians, and like it or not, Christians believe in the Bible. Whether you feel it's old or outdated is of little consequence in this case. The fact of the matter is, the Bible states that homosexuality is a sin, right along side murder, adultry, fornication, and the like. This is the belief that lead to the pressure or whatever for them to not allow the LGCM to mee there any more. Furthermore, the LGCM claims to be Christian, and yet they are directly opposing the word of God, which to Christians is infallible. It's a simple open and shut case. This is why Monkey wanted people to agree to the basics. If you're going to argue a Christian case, you have to agree that there is a God, and that the Bible is His word, and that Jesus is the Son of God and the only way to Heaven. These are prerequisites to being a Christian. If we were discussing this under a different set of beliefs, such as Islam, we would have to agree to come about it from their perspective. If you're unwilling to do so, then your arguments honsetly have no relevance in this discussion. Now, my break is up (there was a lot to read), going back to work now. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
edited September 2003
<!--QuoteBegin--fo sheezy my neezy+Sep 5 2003, 04:22 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (fo sheezy my neezy @ Sep 5 2003, 04:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->this is all well and good guys, but the fact of the matter is, it all comes down to this. If you are not a Christian, you cannot relate to what the Cathedral did. I'm not sure why it was going to allow the LGCM to meet there in the first place, but it was the morally and Biblically right thing to ban them, based upon the professed belief of the Cathedral. They profess to be Christians, and like it or not, Christians believe in the Bible. Whether you feel it's old or outdated is of little consequence in this case. The fact of the matter is, the Bible states that homosexuality is a sin, right along side murder, adultry, fornication, and the like. This is the belief that lead to the pressure or whatever for them to not allow the LGCM to mee there any more. Furthermore, the LGCM claims to be Christian, and yet they are directly opposing the word of God, which to Christians is infallible. It's a simple open and shut case. This is why Monkey wanted people to agree to the basics. If you're going to argue a Christian case, you have to agree that there is a God, and that the Bible is His word, and that Jesus is the Son of God and the only way to Heaven. These are prerequisites to being a Christian. If we were discussing this under a different set of beliefs, such as Islam, we would have to agree to come about it from their perspective. If you're unwilling to do so, then your arguments honsetly have no relevance in this discussion. Now, my break is up (there was a lot to read), going back to work now. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmm. All right, so if you're an outsider, there's no way you can understand. Got it.
Oh, wait... does that count the former-christians, who *had* that degree of understanding, and decided that it was bunk? What about converts? At which point do they get the revelation that brings them into lockstep?
Fo sheezy, the way you present your religion is more apt to describing a fascist state. One thought, one Word, One People. But not of the physical variety... all that is required is a mental tolerance of the described fascism. But then again, I have to grant a bit of leniency. Unless you presume to speak for your entire faith, guided by God, then you are fallible and must be permitted to over-emphasize the importance of your personal opinion regarding the religion. But then, if you adhere to a fascist god, one of the prime elements of that belief is that your god dislikes individual thought and decision, and would thereby not <i>permit</i> someone to speak ill. So the whole thing breaks down into a human deciding to toss his blindly-devoted personal opinion over a subject, parroting back rather than taking time to think about it for himself before responding.
On top of ALL that, the topic of discussion remains that a church GAVE permission... people who are supposedly the *most* devoted of christians... and then withdrew it after a serendipitous political argument made the priesthood nervous about possibly being removed. Wow. Some *really* devoted people there, who stand by their convictions.
@Talesin. No, if you're not willing to use the Bible as the basis for the argument, then you're arguing the wrong thing. Christians believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God, and that the only way to God and heaven is through the perfect sacrifice of Jesus. If this makes Christians and God seem intolorant, then so be it. I speak for all of Christianity in that in any (protestant at least) church you go to, on their little "we believe in" statement, it will without a doubt say that the Bible is the infallible word of God. That Jesus was fully man and also fully God. He was the only human to ever walk this earth sinless, and he made the perfect and last sacrifice for your sins. All you need to do to be saved is to believe in your heart and confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord. If you don't see it, then chances are, it's not a "Christian" church. If you are willing to allow the Bible the credibility of being infallible and therefore it can be used as a reference, then by all means, post away.
And again, on top of it all, whatever the reason they took away permission, the fact remains that it was the Biblical thing to do.
<!--QuoteBegin--fo sheezy my neezy+Sep 5 2003, 07:54 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (fo sheezy my neezy @ Sep 5 2003, 07:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> @Talesin. No, if you're not willing to use the Bible as the basis for the argument, then you're arguing the wrong thing. Christians believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God, and that the only way to God and heaven is through the perfect sacrifice of Jesus. If this makes Christians and God seem intolorant, then so be it. I speak for all of Christianity in that in any (protestant at least) church you go to, on their little "we believe in" statement, it will without a doubt say that the Bible is the infallible word of God. That Jesus was fully man and also fully God. He was the only human to ever walk this earth sinless, and he made the perfect and last sacrifice for your sins. All you need to do to be saved is to believe in your heart and confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord. If you don't see it, then chances are, it's not a "Christian" church. If you are willing to allow the Bible the credibility of being infallible and therefore it can be used as a reference, then by all means, post away.
And again, on top of it all, whatever the reason they took away permission, the fact remains that it was the Biblical thing to do. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> <b>AMEN</b>
Talesin it sounded a lot like you thought earlier that just because you felt inclined genetically to do something made it impossible to condemn morally.
Some people are inclined genetically to kill and r4pe, yet we all expect them to reject those urges, and then we arrest them if they dont.
And as for them not being devoted people, well I seems eveyone agrees there. What in the name of all thats small and hairy possesed them to let LGCM use their hall? Stupid stupid stupid, and not inline with their beliefs. They could either let them continue, which is impossible to justify given their beliefs, or stop them with an apology. They had no choice but to take the second option. To let it continue was wrong, to stop it meant admitting a mistake. They chose to admit their mistake and stop it. Good on them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Does it not seem plausible that homosexuality might be only as "immoral" as eating pork? That is to say, not a good idea in the context of Biblical times, but not a "sin' as such?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is entirely possible Samwise. But please read what I posted earlier. You can only determine that by understanding the Bible, which condemns it in multiple places, not only in Leviticus (which is where the pork quote is). Its also given a flogging in the New Testament. Now if you (and your going to have to use your ancient Hebrew and Greek language skills here) can show me how we all got it wrong and thats not how the original writer meant it - hit me with it. If you cant, well we are going to have to go along and take the author at face value.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And now I hear that Jesus himself never actually condemned homosexuality specifically. Hm.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Samwise he DID condemn it, again as I posted earlier. He condemned sexual sin TO A JEWISH AUDIENCE. Now if its one thing the Jews know its the rules about sex. Again to use my earlier arguement - if I condemn WMD, I dont have to say "and nuclear bombs". We all understand what WMD encompasses, just as the Jews understood what Jesus' condemnation of sexual sin encompassed. And again, Jesus is part of the Trinity, therefore he is God, therefore he is the one who made the original rule against homosexuality.
<!--QuoteBegin--fo sheezy my neezy+Sep 5 2003, 04:54 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (fo sheezy my neezy @ Sep 5 2003, 04:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Christians believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God, <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> As I said before... the Bible describes epileptic seizures as demonic possession. It describes the sky as being a firmament with water above it and stars set into it. To say that the Bible is the literal word of God is a grave insult against God, in my mind.
<!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Sep 5 2003, 05:02 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Sep 5 2003, 05:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Some people are inclined genetically to kill and r4pe, yet we all expect them to reject those urges, and then we arrest them if they dont. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Okay, I'm getting tired of this. How many times in this thread have I pointed out that homosexuality does not hurt people the way that murder and r4pe do? I think about four. AND YET YOU PERSIST in using those as comparisons.
As monkey pointed out, the Bible did not say that all seizures were demon posession. Instead, it gave examples of demon posession, and it just so happens that a common effect of demon posession IS seizures. Christian belief that the Bible is the infallible Word of God stems from the Bible itself, in which God says that the Bible is His Word, and that His Word is timeless and unchanging.
Yes, you may think that murder and r4pe are worse than homosexuality, but strictly Biblically speaking, they are all sin, and are grouped in the same category. In fact, the Bible makes exception to sexual sins (wether it be fornication, adultry, or homosexuality) as being a worse kind of sin, because it is a sin that affects both the mind and the body.
Edit: If you'd like, I'll add references in when I get home
Look Sam Talesin was trying to claim that simply because you felt genetically predisposed towards doing something made it impossible to oppose morally. (at least I think thats what he was saying).
And the logical counter to that arguement is the one I used. I dont feel that it is fair to compare rapists to homosexuals, because homosexuals dont hurt anyone else, but my basic point remains proven. Just because you feel like doing something because of your genes DOESNT make it right. Using the "but we are genetically predisposed" arguement falls flat. Being predisposed simply doesnt justify your actions.
At no stage did the Bible claim that all epileptic fits are caused by demons. It simply described the symptoms of a certain person who was demon possesed and cured. And those symptoms were very much like epilepsy.
What verse does it describe the sky as a firmament of water with stars set in it? Please Im not being sarcastic, I honestly dont know.
Comments
Did Jesus ever cure anybody of their homosexuality? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That would imply that homosexuality is a disease or that it is genetic. It's not. It cannot and will never be proven to be anything more than mental stupidity. It's a choice that a person makes. A choice to deny that which is natural.
On second thought, I'll give more than a one word reply. That is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever heard. Have you ever talked to a g@y person before in your life?
That was the sound of Monkey's credibility vanishing.
Most currently available evidence does in fact point to homosexuality being determined before birth, either by genetics or by atypical hormonal influences during pregnancy.
Interestingly, at the time of the New Testament, it was thought that epileptic fits were caused by possessing demons.
So, if you call homosexuality a disease, heterosexuality would be a disease too. Hmm, that just doesn't work.
Interestingly, at the time of the New Testament, it was thought that epileptic fits were caused by possessing demons. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Give me an example by a non-homosexual researcher. I have read those reports only to find that the writer/researcher was a homosexual.
I'm sure "fits" would come along with many demonic posession, especially if the host resisted. And it was not thought to be so, it was known that demons do exist and do posess people that invite them.
By the way, did you know trains can go underground? (Yeah, lets NOT pull things out of thin air Sam, demons have little to with homosexuality)
I have no idea who you aimed that remark at.
Not such a stretch, obviously, as there are still people today who haven't caught up with modern medicine on this topic.
<a href='http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/scotts/bulgarians/nih-upi.html' target='_blank'>http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/use...ns/nih-upi.html</a>
<a href='http://www.chandlerburr.com/separate/excerpts/2/' target='_blank'>http://www.chandlerburr.com/separate/excerpts/2/</a>
Unfortunately, not all researchers publish their reports with indications of sexual orientation, but the beauty of the scientific method is that if you want to dispute their results, you're free to conduct the experiment yourself to debunk their findings.
Well, if it's genetic, it's not deliberate, nor is it really a perversion, because for that person, it's completely natural, just as attraction to the opposite sex is natural in most other people.
And lest you forget, unlike every other sin on the books (that I can think of), "homosexual behavior" does not demonstrably hurt anyone, and does not in and of itself weaken ties to the community or with God (commonly accepted preconditions for something to be considered sinful). It only weakens these ties if you've already decided that it's inherently sinful behavior, which is fairly circular reasoning, to my mind.
Sheezy won't be the only one that has the privelege to Catholic bash in this thread...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You'll need to look elsewhere for ammunition against the papacy. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, sir. Got it right here.
1. How do I go about saying this...Hmm.. I think we can all agree on that democratic republic would have to be the best form of government on the planet so far, right? Why then, do Catholics cling on to a Monarchy style heirarchy?
I answer, here's an example of why that system won't work: The priest decides to quit, go to another parish, gets thrown into jail, or whatever. Does the parish get to vote on who they want to have next? No. One is appointed by someone miles away. Do they take into consideration of what the parish wants? That i'm not sure on; however, if it is, why bother having someone ask you what you want who then appoints one for you? Isn't it easier to just vote on the new priest directly? (For future reference, Protestants use the democratic republic system where you vote on which pastor/minister you like best.)
Another one: The person you appointed as Pope can't even fulfill his duties. (Is he dead yet? If you have a new one my mistake.) Can you kick a Pope out of office? I doubt it, again i'm not sure.
Yet again, the Catholic Church (the one based in Rome) what was their policy during WW2 again?
2. They think the Bible has mistakes in it.
Go read Josh McDowel "More then a Carpenter." Edit: While trying to find the website for his book I realized that C.S. Lewis didn't right that book. Haha, i'm an idiot....Har. Wonder what book that guy wrote that I had to read. Oh well it's not important....ha.
3. Like Sheezy said, they worship idols.
Example: "Hail Mary full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art though amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus."
That was a LOT of emphasis on Mary. In fact, the opening line makes it sound like they are actually praying to Mary. Yeah right, like a dead mortal can hear you. Same thing for the saints, just knock it off, the only entity that can answer or hear prayers is God.
4. A whole mess of beliefs (both former ones and current beliefs) were/are contradictary to the Bible.
Example: "Everyone gets to go to heaven. Also, you have to go through purgatory to get there."
First off, John 3:16-18. Second, where in the Bible does it even mention purgatory? Third, what was the point of Jesus to come and die for us if God was going to let us all in at the start?
Second Example: Indulgences.
Ha. Good thing they dropped that one.
Example the third: Crusades
Yep.
In conclusion, if a Catholic is giving you advice about God, you are better off taking that with a grain of salt and should not make blanket judgements on Christianity as a whole... Like the stance on homosexuality.
Look here -------------> Stop scrolling, num nuts. <------------- Looky looky
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Wherever homosexual desire comes from, the actual behaviour occurs by free choice and can therefore be resisted. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, that is what I mean when I say "Love the person, hate the sin." The person is not any less of a person because they are ****, they are sinning just like the rest of us when we lie, cheat, steal, watch Oprah, etc.
Whether being a homosexual is genetic or not, it can be resisted just like any other sin.
- Is there an omnipotent, all-knowing, all-powerful God that created and sustains man and the universe?
- Is the Bible the valid and true Word of God?
If you cannot say "yes" to both, then the furthest this discussion could have gone and still have been worthwhile is agreements and disagreements on if the church was right in thier breaking of that agreement. Discussing homosexuality cannot ever reach a conclusion if we do not have those two points, in agreement, as a base of reference.
As for the rules, the church has every (legal) right to choose who can and cannot attend their services.
In cases when they discriminate (for example, against homosexuals) I believe it's wrong that they do so. That's my opinion. I don't think they should have gone back and broken their promise, I think that's just low, homophobic and rude. However, it is their prerogative and right to do so. I do not believe homosexuality is morally wrong, nor do I believe that it is a "disease" or "mental stupidity." The church's (and other religions too, we might as well add) bias against homosexuals I think is wrong too; I don't believe in their dogmas so I don't believe their argument against homosexuality (which is based on their own intangible beliefs which I don't share).
Someone stepped in it, now.
All right, if homosexuality is a choice, I <b>challenge</b> you to choose to be attracted to the same gender. Even for just one day, and you don't have to act on it.
Right. That one's going to happen.
That's honestly *almost* as idiotic a statement as saying 'heterosexuality is a choice', or 'My god is the One True God!'. There has been extensive research done by independent sources (published publically, in scientific journals.. though normally ones that cover behavioural studies, or are directed at psychologists) that has proved with little doubt besides bullheadedness that homosexuality occurs in every studied mammalian (and some non-mammalian) species... and they took broad slices. Dogs to lions, bats to dolphins, hyaenas to rats, cats to rabbits. In *every* instance, a smattering of individuals were located who would resist any advances of the opposite sex, and engage in homosexual activity regularly, beyond dominance-displays.
But then 'we're better than animals, we can think and choose'. Riiiiiight. The thing is, the research wasn't about if we could restrain ourselves from engaging in it... that's happened for centuries through fear. It was about why, if homosexuality is immoral, wrong, and unnatural.. it occurs VERY naturally all around us?
Correct. However, we should try to ensure that our moral judgements are not based upon fallible human assumptions.
As I have pointed out (and you have failed to refute), it's difficult to make a logical case for homosexuality being immoral. Nem has already pointed out the cultural influences behind the Jews' rejection of homosexuality, and there's also that simple "be fruitful and multiply" directive that may have been important 2000 years ago, but has ceased to be now that our planet is starting to get cramped. Does it not seem plausible that homosexuality might be only as "immoral" as eating pork? That is to say, not a good idea in the context of Biblical times, but not a "sin' as such?
And now I hear that Jesus himself never actually condemned homosexuality specifically. Hm.
your attack against an old, ill man ("Is he dead yet?") was very poor form. I will not correct your many misrepresentations of the Catholic faith because of this, and because these apologetics lead us far off-topic. Perhaps in a different thread.
Talesin,
your choice is whether or not to have sexual intercourse, and if so, with whom. Which things you're attracted to is irrelevant.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Dogs to lions, bats to dolphins, hyaenas to rats, cats to rabbits.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Watching animals is always cute, but as they're soulless, their behaviour bears no relevance for human morals. For example, animals are incapable of celibacy.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It was about why, if homosexuality is immoral, wrong, and unnatural.. it occurs VERY naturally all around us<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Many horrible things occur around us. Male lions regularly kill the cubs of a pride they take over. Female spiders eat their mates. Should we draw some conclusions from that as well? At the end of the day, animals just follow their instincts, and we don't.
In addition, the behaviors you mentioned are atypical, occuring in a minority of species, as far as I know. Talesin's point was that homosexuality occurs in many many species, especially those that are closely related to us.
Untrue. A number of animals (seagulls being a well-documented case) refuse to breed in the case of things like short food-supply. Something which many humans are incapable of, even when legally married. Though I suppose that would be more classified as 'abstinence' rather than celibacy.
Additionally, a number of species (foxes as the first example to-mind) take only one mate as the general rule. If that mate dies, they will refuse to take another. Ever. Yet another aspect many humans are unable to duplicate.
As well, I do take offense at calling animals soulless. Though that's through personal observance, rather than adherence to a book handed down. It's quite easy to defeat an argument backed by empirical evidence by writing off the rest of the world as inferior and flawed, when there is no refuting evidence available.
There is a vast amount of scietific information about the subject and yet people adhere to two fictional stories from a 2000 year old book, I just don't undrestand, oh well.
Oh and as far as resisting natural urges, you could resist the urge to eat, it's called Anorexia and look what that achieves.
Hmm. All right, so if you're an outsider, there's no way you can understand. Got it.
Oh, wait... does that count the former-christians, who *had* that degree of understanding, and decided that it was bunk? What about converts? At which point do they get the revelation that brings them into lockstep?
Fo sheezy, the way you present your religion is more apt to describing a fascist state. One thought, one Word, One People. But not of the physical variety... all that is required is a mental tolerance of the described fascism. But then again, I have to grant a bit of leniency. Unless you presume to speak for your entire faith, guided by God, then you are fallible and must be permitted to over-emphasize the importance of your personal opinion regarding the religion.
But then, if you adhere to a fascist god, one of the prime elements of that belief is that your god dislikes individual thought and decision, and would thereby not <i>permit</i> someone to speak ill. So the whole thing breaks down into a human deciding to toss his blindly-devoted personal opinion over a subject, parroting back rather than taking time to think about it for himself before responding.
On top of ALL that, the topic of discussion remains that a church GAVE permission... people who are supposedly the *most* devoted of christians... and then withdrew it after a serendipitous political argument made the priesthood nervous about possibly being removed. Wow. Some *really* devoted people there, who stand by their convictions.
And again, on top of it all, whatever the reason they took away permission, the fact remains that it was the Biblical thing to do.
And again, on top of it all, whatever the reason they took away permission, the fact remains that it was the Biblical thing to do. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>AMEN</b>
Some people are inclined genetically to kill and r4pe, yet we all expect them to reject those urges, and then we arrest them if they dont.
And as for them not being devoted people, well I seems eveyone agrees there. What in the name of all thats small and hairy possesed them to let LGCM use their hall? Stupid stupid stupid, and not inline with their beliefs. They could either let them continue, which is impossible to justify given their beliefs, or stop them with an apology. They had no choice but to take the second option. To let it continue was wrong, to stop it meant admitting a mistake. They chose to admit their mistake and stop it. Good on them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Does it not seem plausible that homosexuality might be only as "immoral" as eating pork? That is to say, not a good idea in the context of Biblical times, but not a "sin' as such?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is entirely possible Samwise. But please read what I posted earlier. You can only determine that by understanding the Bible, which condemns it in multiple places, not only in Leviticus (which is where the pork quote is). Its also given a flogging in the New Testament. Now if you (and your going to have to use your ancient Hebrew and Greek language skills here) can show me how we all got it wrong and thats not how the original writer meant it - hit me with it. If you cant, well we are going to have to go along and take the author at face value.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And now I hear that Jesus himself never actually condemned homosexuality specifically. Hm.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Samwise he DID condemn it, again as I posted earlier. He condemned sexual sin TO A JEWISH AUDIENCE. Now if its one thing the Jews know its the rules about sex. Again to use my earlier arguement - if I condemn WMD, I dont have to say "and nuclear bombs". We all understand what WMD encompasses, just as the Jews understood what Jesus' condemnation of sexual sin encompassed. And again, Jesus is part of the Trinity, therefore he is God, therefore he is the one who made the original rule against homosexuality.
As I said before... the Bible describes epileptic seizures as demonic possession. It describes the sky as being a firmament with water above it and stars set into it. To say that the Bible is the literal word of God is a grave insult against God, in my mind.
Okay, I'm getting tired of this. How many times in this thread have I pointed out that homosexuality does not hurt people the way that murder and r4pe do? I think about four. AND YET YOU PERSIST in using those as comparisons.
Yes, you may think that murder and r4pe are worse than homosexuality, but strictly Biblically speaking, they are all sin, and are grouped in the same category. In fact, the Bible makes exception to sexual sins (wether it be fornication, adultry, or homosexuality) as being a worse kind of sin, because it is a sin that affects both the mind and the body.
Edit: If you'd like, I'll add references in when I get home
And the logical counter to that arguement is the one I used. I dont feel that it is fair to compare rapists to homosexuals, because homosexuals dont hurt anyone else, but my basic point remains proven. Just because you feel like doing something because of your genes DOESNT make it right. Using the "but we are genetically predisposed" arguement falls flat. Being predisposed simply doesnt justify your actions.
At no stage did the Bible claim that all epileptic fits are caused by demons. It simply described the symptoms of a certain person who was demon possesed and cured. And those symptoms were very much like epilepsy.
What verse does it describe the sky as a firmament of water with stars set in it? Please Im not being sarcastic, I honestly dont know.