[BlackDove]

Originally posted by Kazan
yeah and anyone who lives in the year 2005 CE should know better than to trust a book written and assmebled by human beings in the year 300 CE

I'll agree with that.

[aldo_14]

Um....sandwich;
[q]The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed.[/q]

But, ok, fair enough. 'tis in the Bible then.

Still doesn't make it fair IMO to apply it to anyone who is, for example, non-christian.  Or I guess any Christian who has a different interpretation of it (I mean, there must be some form of ambiguity if you have homosexual cardinals and bishoprs or whatever, surely?).

And, of course, I find holding people in, for lack of a better term, contempt because of an old and propagandized (for example, Revalations is IIRC widely regarded as being written to be anti-Nero propaganda) book to be wrong.

[Kazan]

[edit] wrong thread

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Kazan
yeah and anyone who lives in the year 2005 CE should know better than to trust a book written and assmebled by human beings in the year 300 CE

You know, Kazan... no offense, but I do mean this personally: you could stand to read the book of Proverbs and take some things to heart.

Then come back and tell me the Bible is irrelevant today.

Aldo, the fact that there are homosexual bishops and cardinals and storks and whatnot in the church is one thing that makes me no longer consider those "Christian" sects to be very Christian, precisely because the Bible is clear on the issue. It's far too common to see Christians compromising on things in the Bible they find inconvenient or possible offensive. In an effort to be more "acceptable" to the secular world, they compromise on core values of their faith, and thus often generate ridicule of the very thing (their faith) they were trying to make appear palatable.

Sorry for the mini-rant, but this is a subject that ticks me off... blatant compromise in the church.

Anyway, regarding the validity of the Wikipedia article... I was referring to it mostly as a reference to the relevant Biblical passages, not as a well-written or trustworthy opinion piece.

[Roanoke]

Originally posted by Sandwich
In an effort to be more "acceptable" to the secular world, they compromise on core values of their faith, and thus often generate ridicule of the very thing (their faith) they were trying to make appear palatable.

I don't care much for Religion, but I agree with that statement.

[Kazan]

Originally posted by Sandwich

You know, Kazan... no offense, but I do mean this personally: you could stand to read the book of Proverbs and take some things to heart.

Then come back and tell me the Bible is irrelevant today.

i have read it, and it is irrelevant today - the absolute unmitigated hubris you display in assuming that i'm going to suddenly abandon all knowledge and logic and blindly warp words written in a book to try and make them sound true would be absolutely astounding if it weren't for the knowledge of human psychology i've acquired that explains in extreme detail just what religion is: an addiction

[edit]
to ignore to presumption you made in thinking i hadn't read the bible atleast once

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Kazan


i have read it, and it is irrelevant today - the absolute unmitigated hubris you display in assuming that i'm going to suddenly abandon all knowledge and logic and blindly warp words written in a book to try and make them sound true would be absolutely astounding if it weren't for the knowledge of human psychology i've acquired that explains in extreme detail just what religion is: an addiction

[edit]
to ignore to presumption you made in thinking i hadn't read the bible atleast once

My apologies at presuming you haven't read it. I don't recall you ever mentioning that.

Anyway, all I was referring to were the numerous passages in Proverbs regarding wisdom, and the tendencies of those who have wisdom at "speaking softly", in the (paraphrased) words of a more recent famous person.

[TrashMan]

Hm.. While yes, I am addicted to God... you could say religion is an addiction

"A local boy kicked me in the butt last week,
I just smiled at him and I turned the other cheek.
I really don't care, in fact I wish him well,
coause I'll be laughing my head off when he's burning in hell!"

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Sandwich


Aldo, the fact that there are homosexual bishops and cardinals and storks and whatnot in the church is one thing that makes me no longer consider those "Christian" sects to be very Christian, precisely because the Bible is clear on the issue. It's far too common to see Christians compromising on things in the Bible they find inconvenient or possible offensive. In an effort to be more "acceptable" to the secular world, they compromise on core values of their faith, and thus often generate ridicule of the very thing (their faith) they were trying to make appear palatable.

Sorry for the mini-rant, but this is a subject that ticks me off... blatant compromise in the church.

Anyway, regarding the validity of the Wikipedia article... I was referring to it mostly as a reference to the relevant Biblical passages, not as a well-written or trustworthy opinion piece.

If you and they can differ on such a fundamental issue of their faith, then it wouldn't be very fair to hold that faith against people, would it?  When the whole set of rules, credences, etc differ so drastically amongst people professing to share it, surely it's not fair to hold those values over any other person?

(this bit below is sort of a general statement of my opinion on the matter)

i don't agree with the mentality that (for example) homosexuality is wrong, and I will try and challenge it where possible (same as any bias/attitude/prejudice I consider wrong; like racism or bigotry, for example); but that doesn't mean I don't respect the individual right to hold that view (I would be hypocritical to do so).  

What I don't respect, is when people - and this isn't directed at you, just certain people, in general - try and hold that belief set upon the actions of other people of try to control those peoples rights to live a free life, when the only objection they have is one of personal morality.

To me, there can be seen as 2 types of wrongs which people try and legislate.  One is 'proveable' wrongs, things where you can show actual harm or damage - i.e. the things that we find in existing law like murder, theft, etc.  The other is personal belief, and IMO that's simply not legislatable as it implictly infringes the right to believe differently.

That's why I reject any argument against equal rights for homosexuals - including the civil right of marriage - when it has no basis beyond religion.

[TrashMan]

Originally posted by aldo_14


I'm not sure; are you defining homosexuality as being that?  Because it's not; the brain functions normally (motor skills, learning, cognition), and the body functions normally.  The only difference is sexual attraction, but that's something which varies hugely across people anyways (in terms of the type of people we are attracted).  Certainly, there is no damage caused to the individual, unless you care to quantify one.

(If you want to be anal about it, then there is probably no such thing as a 'normal' person in terms of individual behaviour. )

I'll note the use of 'normal' (the implication being that homosexuals are abnormal) chimes in with the link in the first post.

Brain function normally? Is it? If we know that sexual attraction is controled by the brain..
And while it's true that individuals have differnt preferences (I might like a slender brunette, you might like a plum read head, someone else like short-haired blonds) they re normally attracted to the same sex.

And yes, I do use the word "normal behavior" as in the one that should be aime for.
I don't care if someone get's offended. I'm tieed on walking on eggshells and weighing my every word just coause X or Y MIGHT get offended. [/quote]

[Ford Prefect]

Originally posted by aldo_14


If you and they can differ on such a fundamental issue of their faith, then it wouldn't be very fair to hold that faith against people, would it?  When the whole set of rules, credences, etc differ so drastically amongst people professing to share it, surely it's not fair to hold those values over any other person?

(this bit below is sort of a general statement of my opinion on the matter)

i don't agree with the mentality that (for example) homosexuality is wrong, and I will try and challenge it where possible (same as any bias/attitude/prejudice I consider wrong; like racism or bigotry, for example); but that doesn't mean I don't respect the individual right to hold that view (I would be hypocritical to do so).  

What I don't respect, is when people - and this isn't directed at you, just certain people, in general - try and hold that belief set upon the actions of other people of try to control those peoples rights to live a free life, when the only objection they have is one of personal morality.

To me, there can be seen as 2 types of wrongs which people try and legislate.  One is 'proveable' wrongs, things where you can show actual harm or damage - i.e. the things that we find in existing law like murder, theft, etc.  The other is personal belief, and IMO that's simply not legislatable as it implictly infringes the right to believe differently.

That's why I reject any argument against equal rights for homosexuals - including the civil right of marriage - when it has no basis beyond religion.

But if someone who is fervently religious acknowledges that his belief does not point to a provable wrong, he is essentially acknowledging the weakness and insignificance of his entire belief system, which is not something most people will ever do.

[mikhael]

Saying that the Bible is not to believed blindly or on faith is not the same thing as saying that it is irrelevant. Whilst I am neither Christian nor do I place much credence in the whole "word of God" thing, I find much that is relevant in the Bible. The writings of Siddhartha Buddha, Confucious, Mohammed, etc all have some pretty useful stuff too.

On the other hand, the parts of those writings that are relevant in the world today, I think, all have the same basic messages, so I can't see why anyone needs to buy into the whole faith thing anyway. Distill the useful, discard the fanciful and live by the result.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by TrashMan


Brain function normally? Is it? If we know that sexual attraction is controled by the brain..
And while it's true that individuals have differnt preferences (I might like a slender brunette, you might like a plum read head, someone else like short-haired blonds) they re normally attracted to the same sex.

And yes, I do use the word "normal behavior" as in the one that should be aime for.
I don't care if someone get's offended. I'm tieed on walking on eggshells and weighing my every word just coause X or Y MIGHT get offended.  

Again, you're relying upon a personal definition of what is and is not 'normal'.  I'm not sure behaviour can even be categorised within a sense of 'normalcy' due to the inherent abstract nature of it.

If we go back to, for example, ancient Greece*, homosexuality was an accepted, natural part of the society there.  It was recorded in the Karma Sutra in India; it's been recorded in Asia, Africa, the Pacific, the Americas and Europe.  And in turn acceptance has varied hugely across these regions.  To me that doesn't indicate it can be classed in terms of what is normal for a human being, but what a society considers normal.  And that's an entirely seperate thing.

*pedastry was also an accepted behaviour in Greece; don't interpret this as being linked to the acceptability of homosexuality.  We can prove this as wrong because of the issue of informed consent.  

Granted, you can apply the arguement that it shows society can be wrong in retrospect; but if you do so it means anything accepted by society can be wrong in retrospect, such as eating red meat or living your life based on the Bible.

The issue of right and wrong in this case is simply proveable 'wrong' by form of damage.  With 2 consenting adults and no inherent physical or mental damage, you can't define homosexuality as being definitevely wrong in that legal sense, regardless of personal or societal belief.

 You can class behaviour as abnormal based on what are societal pressures, but then you'd have to acknowledge the logical extension that any person or group can be ostracised based on societal norms - blacks, jews, muslims, people who like fat people, etc.

Originally posted by Ford Prefect

But if someone who is fervently religious acknowledges that his belief does not point to a provable wrong, he is essentially acknowledging the weakness and insignificance of his entire belief system, which is not something most people will ever do.

That's probably true, yeah.  That's why I think religious people should know it's not right to hold their beliefs over people that don't share them.

[Bobboau]

I wonder if kids are going to start getting dragged off to the walls of the cities and getting stoned to death for being disobedient and such anytime soon.

[Kazan]

yes mikhael - that is true i should say it's "mostly irrelevant" and TrashMan if you have to walk on eggshells not to come off as a bigot and offend people then perhaps you need to re-evaluate your manner of thinking

[kode]

Originally posted by TrashMan

 And while it's true that individuals have differnt preferences (I might like a slender brunette, you might like a plum read head, someone else like short-haired blonds) they re normally attracted to the same sex.
 

people are normally righ handed, right? so, should we kill all lefties?

[aldo_14]

I hope not.

[kode]

Originally posted by aldo_14
I hope not.

me neither. they'd face some hefty opposition, I might add.

[aldo_14]

DP

[aldo_14]

Mostly from the right side.

Ahahahahaha











I'll get me coat