Is America more accepting of gay men than gay women? - Page 8 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-05-2002, 11:08 AM   #106
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 02:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem:
Im miffed why my questions aren't worthy of addressing! Thot it was pretty straight forward, guess no one reeeally wants to take a stab at what God's agenda really is.
Silly girl--you really expected to take part in this discussion? You're on the sidelines with the rest of us. Know your place, young lady!

Seriously, your comments were pure and simple and I couldn't agree with you more. It is my belief that God created homosexuality as another sacred experience for soul's unfoldment.
__________________

__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 03-05-2002, 12:08 PM   #107
War Child
 
Spiral_Staircase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Knoxville, TN, USA
Posts: 679
Local Time: 03:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem:
Im miffed why my questions aren't worthy of addressing! Thot it was pretty straight forward, guess no one reeeally wants to take a stab at what God's agenda really is.
First off, I should make it clear that I haven't read this whole thread. I read most of the first 2 pages, but none of the third. I'll give my thoughts on Angela's questions nonetheless. I think these were the questions:
Did God create us all equally?
Does God love us all equally?
Did He make us, every single one of us as we are?
Is it a gift from God to love and be loved? One of the greatest gifts He could give us. He let us all love each other differently.


This is what I believe:
Question 1: I believe God created us all equally.

Question 2: I believe God loves us all beyond our comprehension.

Question 3: I believe God created each one of us, but I also believe that a big part of who we are is a result of who we choose to be.

Question 4: I believe it is a wonderful gift from God to love and be loved.

Now, I'd like to say that I wish this wasn't such a huge issue. I believe there are far bigger issues people need to work out with God, before the issue of homosexuality comes up. I wish we would discuss grace, faith, love, and forgiveness as in-depth as we discuss this topic. So I'll be brief in my comments on homosexuality.

I believe, melon's alternate translations notwithstanding, that God, through the Bible, speaks against homosexuality. And I believe that this in no way contradicts Paul's statement in Romans "Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law", or the answers I gave to Angela's quesitons. I don't think God is against homosexuality because it's unnatural, I think he's against it because it's not what's best for us. To melon and others who may be deeply offended or hurt by what I believe about this, my apologies. I have really struggled with this, but I still believe this. That homosexuality doesn't lead to love and satisfaction, but to pain and dissatifaction. How can I say that!!?? What do I know?? Have I ever loved another man sexually?? No. And I don't understand. But I do believe that's why the Bible says what is says on this topic.

Again, I'm sorry if this is offensive, but it's what I believe, and so I felt a need to share my thoughts. Melon, you and I are on the same page about God'd message on love. We only differ in our definitions of love. Let me finish by saying one of my favorite quotes from the Bible comes from the book of 1 John: (my paraphrase) Hey, let's love each other. Because love comes from God, and everyone who loves is a child of God and knows God. Anyone who doesn't love, doesn't know God, because God is love.

And no, I don't think America is more accepting of gay men than gay women.
__________________

__________________
Spiral_Staircase is offline  
Old 03-05-2002, 01:17 PM   #108
Refugee
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 09:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by joyfulgirl:
Elderly?!! Well, guess it's time for me and Bono to throw in the towel and check in to a nursing home.
I'm very sorry, joyfulgirl, obviously I didn't mean it that way, however, it would be a pretty disturbing site to see any man of any age with a girl less than the legal age, don't you think? Thats what I meant.

Ant.
__________________
Anthony is offline  
Old 03-05-2002, 01:42 PM   #109
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 02:05 PM
Yes, I knew what you meant, Ant. I just needed to give you some shit about it because 40 is THE best age I've ever been and you should all look forward to it. I wouldn't want to be in my 20's again for anything. And certainly a 40 year old man would be considered an underage girl's elder, but not elderly.
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 03-05-2002, 01:59 PM   #110
The Fly
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dr Phil's couch
Posts: 37
Local Time: 09:05 PM







---------------------------


-------------
__________________
Oprah is offline  
Old 03-05-2002, 02:23 PM   #111
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 04:05 PM
Angela, I had thought about replying to your post, but it didn't seem really to be a very substantive argument: just four rhetorical questions and a conclusion that doesn't necessarily follow, and isn't necessarily germaine to the discussion.

Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem:
Did God create us all equally?
Does God love us all equally?
Did He make us, every single one of us as we are?
Is it a gift from God to love and be loved? One of the greatest gifts He could give us. He let us all love each other differently.
In response, we are created equally, but I don't know how that applies.

As I keeep pointing out, it's not certain that we are exactly as God intended us - at least, not to the degree that every natural desire we have is therefore God-given and good.

It is, truly, a gift to love and be loved - but I believe that "love" there means charity. You say that love is one of God's greatest gifts, and I would add that there's a gift greater than the capacity for love: God's love itself, which redeemed us before we worth redeeming. Surely, that love is not sexual in any way, and the Christ-like love we are to exhibit towards others is also not erotic. So, you're jumping from charity to erotic love when logic doesn't really allow it.

Finally, you say that "He let us all love each other differently." In terms of charity, that's not exactly true. We're to clothe all those who are cold and feed all those who are hungry. The needs and our resources may be different in each case, but it's not a substantial difference.

And in terms of erotic love, just because we have the capacity for all kinds, just because "He let us love each other differently," doesn't mean we should.

[This message has been edited by Achtung Bubba (edited 03-05-2002).]
__________________
Achtung Bubba is offline  
Old 03-05-2002, 04:38 PM   #112
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 02:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Anthony:

To hell with that, madame; Life truly begins at fifty.

Ant.
That's the spirit! French men apparently say a woman blossoms at 50. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go find my teeth so I can eat lunch.
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 03-05-2002, 05:01 PM   #113
Refugee
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 09:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by joyfulgirl:
That's the spirit! French men apparently say a woman blossoms at 50. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go find my teeth so I can eat lunch.
To the French, women are always in a constant state of blooming.

Ant.
__________________
Anthony is offline  
Old 03-05-2002, 05:08 PM   #114
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 02:05 PM
Oh Anthony, you have the soul of a romantic poet. This is good.
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 03-05-2002, 07:03 PM   #115
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 04:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
Let's put the anti-Bush rant aside (honestly, this isn't the thread for this, and I believe you know that)
I know you are smart enough to spot a metaphor when you see one. No, this is not about Bush, but since I cannot get you to understand my point from the context of the Jewish leaders of 2500 years ago, I put it in a modern context. Human nature has seemingly changed little. So, let's close the chapter here on this Bush remark, since it has served its purpose.

Quote:
NOW look at the Old Testament: Moses murdered a man before meeting God, tried to weasel his way out of doing God's will, and so thoroughly upset God that he wasn't permitted to enter the Promised Land. King David committed adultery and murder - and lost his son and temporarily lost the throne in the process. The people themselves were not only constantly under attack (and occasionally defeated and put into captivity), but the Old Testament clearly says that the Isrealites THEMSELVES were to blame.
I love the fact that they aren't perfect people. Yet, somehow, the people of the New Testament are somehow to be put at a higher standard?

Despite their reckless behavior, Moses and King David (not to mention King Solomon, who was a scoundrel himself) are all considered holy men, yes? What an easy way to excuse the bad behavior of the Jewish rabbis, who could have cited the supposed bad behavior of Moses and David as reasons why they are still holy and command power over the people.

Quote:
How does Matthew 7:21 qualify as a parable? No mention of seeds, sheep, salt, or fruit. No hypothetical story in which Christ Himself plays no role. Because Christ mentions himself in the first person, I think he's being quite literal: "Not every one that saith unto ME, Lord, Lord...".
Fruit and Sheep:

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Just so, every good tree bears good fruit, and a rotten tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. So by their fruits you will know them. Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven." -- Matthew 7:15-21

In short, anyone can call themselves righteous, but by their actions, you know whether they are or not. Hence, faith without good works is dead.

I would always assume that you'd know the context in which you quote your passages, but, apparently, you do not. I guess I shall not make such assumptions in the future.

Quote:
The comment that chapter is un-Jesus-like begs the question: by what standard? It seems to me that you've picked out what verses fit your idea of who Christ was, then excised the other verses on the grounds that they don't fit. On what basis did you pick out the original "authentic" verses?
Call it faith. There is a Gnostic gospel that portrays Jesus as a "mass murderer." Anyone who refuses to submit to His commands, Jesus kills them. Apparently, the canon councils had to make a judgment call on the "authentic" texts, although I'm sure that modern "Christians" would have loved to see this book in the canon, so they could justify their own hateful desires.

Funny enough, the Gnostics are, ideologically, the predecessors to today's fundamentalists in that they were the first to believe that the Bible was 100% literally correct. The early Christian Church destroyed them, as they did not believe this. Once again, I must remind you, the early Christians saw the Bible as for guidance, not the ultimate and final word.

Quote:
This seems to be very similar to your translation; either way, it also seems to be quite judgmental, which was my point to begin with.
It doesn't seem very judgmental to me.

Quote:
Either way, the KJV's inaccuracy is no reason whatsoever to "never trust" a Protestant Bible, or to suggest that "A Protestant Bible is as good as toilet paper in terms of translation accuracy."
Catholic Bibles are always open to revision in the face of greater techniques for translation. In fact, the Church is currently in the process of revising the Bible to make note of the facts discovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are older than the texts previously used.

Most interestingly, the Dead Sea Scrolls only support my theory: people added their own bias in later texts, rather than the Bible being a fixed text that people translated faithfully over the centuries.

Unfortunately, I've seen most Protestant Bibles just sticking with traditional interpretations, often amplifying the incorrect passages even worse than they were before, and then having the gull to state 99.9% accuracy. No Bible is perfect, granted, because even the Catholic Bible still maintains a few uncorrected mistakes, but they are very few and, at least, gives footnotes on historical context.

But I don't wish to turn this into a pissing contest on Bibles. I just respectfully disagree with Protestant Bibles as translated (also in the fact that they are incomplete to me), and I retract my statement about "toilet paper." I wrote it in anger.

Quote:
An "official" footnote? Surely, the footnote wasn't in the original manuscript. Surely, it's merely the addition from some church official. What I wonder is, what makes it more "official" than the Bible itself (like Matthew 10)? And, if the Jewish rabbis are so prone to corruption as to alter the Old Testament, why trust Catholic priests to correctly interpret?
In the study of classic literature, much of the classroom discussion usually involves figuring out context. A statement that looks matter-of-fact to us could easily have had a different meaning for the time it was written. For example (one ironically fitting for this discussion), if a text said the word "gay" in the 19th century, it would mean "happy." If a text said the word "gay" now, it would mean "homosexual." But to look at a 19th century text and have no contextual knowledge, you might incorrectly think that the book is referring to a homosexual, when that would be incorrect.

Catholic Bibles, in addition, are subject to great scrutiny and debate amongst very highly educated Biblical scholars. Generally, no traditional interpretation is taken seriously; a text's meaning must be surmised by the original texts.

What the footnotes are, really, are a great service to people reading the Bible to assist them in discovering what a seemingly obscure passage really meant, according to a consensus of Biblical scholars. This is to prevent people from taking a passage like:

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." - Luke 14:26

And taking it as a literal interpretation of Jesus telling you that you must hate your family to be a true Christian. The footnotes, in essence, are there to prevent you from dropping the eggshells into your recipe that calls for eggs.

To clarify, though, by "official footnote," I meant the "official footnote for the Catholic Bible." I see it as guidance, not the means to an end.

Quote:
"The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with the men of this generation, and condemn them: for she came from the utmost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here. The men of Nineve shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here." - Luke 11:31-32
I love how you pick the most cryptic passages in the gospels. I see no problem with this passage, but since I'm tired of always interpreting Bible passages for you, I'd like you to interpret this passage to me.

Quote:
But, it is first of all telling that Matthew 10:37 appears to be a more literal, reasonable translation than Luke 14:26 - and it still confirms my original assertion that Christ preaches more than just love and unification.
Yes, the third requirement is faith. Since I write my texts from the assumption that those who will even care what I write is Christian, I don't think I need to state the obvious.

Quote:
John 8:4-5 seems to have very little to do with the verses I quoted.
Well, I must make a correction, since I have discovered my error. His Jewish followers believe their salvation to be dependent on their birthright; hence, like their forefathers, they believe they can be as despicable as they like, but still have salvation. That is the context that is missing, as Jews believe themselves to be automatically saved as the "chosen people."

Jesus continually tells them the otherwise, but they refuse to listen, still bringing up the fact that they are children of Abraham. Hence, Jesus gets angry, since they won't listen to a word He says, and continues to use the same arguments Jesus just overthrew. At the same token, I don't blame Jesus at all...remember my little outburst in this thread for the same reason?

It is yet another passage on faith and good works, yet, also, a passage that opens faith to those who do not share this "birthright," as He casts it aside.

Quote:
An interesting theory, but that also implies that the book is a flat-out lie, since its premise is a supernatural revelation from Christ Himself. Revelation also seems to run parallel to all of Mark 13; to condemn one as pure symbolism surely condemns both.
http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/revelation/intro.htm

This gives you all the historical context you need on Revelation. The book is not a "flat-out lie," but written with a totally different meaning whose context we, as modern readers, seem to miss completely. I'd have pasted it, but it is a long text.

Quote:
And I'm keenly aware of your contradictions. Verses in which Matthew says something different than the other Gospels is apparently proof that it's inaccurate; verses in which Matthew agrees, even if not verbatim, is apparently proof that it's a rip-off of the other Gospels.
I must admit that now I am confused with my own arguments. Let me quote, once and for all, what I was taught.

Preface of Matthew:

"The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Mat 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories. The attribution of the gospel to the disciple Matthew may have been due to his having been responsible for some of the traditions found in it, but that is far from certain.

The unknown author, whom we shall continue to call Matthew for the sake of convenience, drew not only upon the Gospel according to Mark but upon a large body of material (principally, sayings of Jesus) not found in Mark that corresponds, sometimes exactly, to material found also in the Gospel according to Luke. This material, called "Q" (probably from the first letter of the German word Quelle, meaning "source"), represents traditions, written and oral, used by both Matthew and Luke. Mark and Q are sources common to the two other synoptic gospels; hence the name the "Two-Source Theory" given to this explanation of the relation among the synoptics.

In addition to what Matthew drew from Mark and Q, his gospel contains material that is found only there. This is often designated "M," written or oral tradition that was available to the author. Since Mk was written shortly before or shortly after A.D. 70 (see Introduction to Mk), Mt was composed certainly after that date, which marks the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans at the time of the First Jewish Revolt (A.D. 66-70), and probably at least a decade later since Matthew's use of Mk presupposes a wide diffusion of that gospel. The post-A.D. 70 date is confirmed within the text by Mat 22:7, which refers to the destruction of Jerusalem."

Preface to Luke:

"Among the likely sources for the composition of this gospel (Luk 1:3) were the Gospel of Mark, a written collection of sayings of Jesus known also to the author of the Gospel of Matthew (Q; see Introduction to Matthew), and other special traditions that were used by Luke alone among the gospel writers. Some hold that Luke used Mark only as a complementary source for rounding out the material he took from other traditions. Because of its dependence on the Gospel of Mark and because details in Luke's Gospel (Luk 13:35a; 19:43-44; 21:20; 23:28-31) imply that the author was acquainted with the destruction of the city of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70, the Gospel of Luke is dated by most scholars after that date; many propose A.D. 80-90 as the time of composition.

Luke's consistent substitution of Greek names for the Aramaic or Hebrew names occurring in his sources (e.g., Luk 23:33; Mar 15:22; 18:41; Mar 10:51), his omission from the gospel of specifically Jewish Christian concerns found in his sources (e.g., Mar 7:1-23), his interest in Gentile Christians (Mar 2:30-32; 3:6,38; 4:16-30; 13:28-30; 14:15-24; 17:11-19; 24:47-48), and his incomplete knowledge of Palestinian geography, customs, and practices are among the characteristics of this gospel that suggest that Luke was a non-Palestinian writing to a non-Palestinian audience that was largely made up of Gentile Christians."

I hope this clears things up.

Quote:
In the first case, theologians limit God all the time - they believe he is unchanging, incapable of committing evil, incapable of a mistake, etc. I'm doing the same: "limiting" God because the alternative is nonsense. If God exerted His FULL WILL on the universe, we would be INCAPABLE of resisting that will and doing what we want. We are able to do what we want, thus He is not exerting His full will.
Regardless, you have to draw a line somewhere. I know of no parents who use their "free will" to craft a child as they want. They have to leave it to God as to what traits that child has.

Of course, there have been exceptions, most infamously, thalidomide in the 1950s, but you cannot blame foreign chemicals on the creation of homosexuals. Not only have they existed for thousands of years, before the advent of these "chemicals," but there is no modern scientific knowledge to even support your claim. I can claim that the sky is blue because I willed it to be, but there is that little thing we call "evidence."

Quote:
Further, "difference" itself is a weak argument for the idea that homosexuality is in fact part of God's plan. Yes, the lack of differences may be "boring", but that doesn't make that lack less good; nor does variety necessarily make things better. As a quick counterexample, the big city can offer a HUGE variety of vices, from illicit drugs, to prostitution, to stolen merchandise, to pornography - but the monestary's life offers little more than routine. Is it then natural to conclude that the monk's life is LESS MORALLY GOOD? Hardly.
Lovely pendulum swings. But no one is born to those "vices." No one is born a prostitute, nor a drug addict. But I can play your game too.

I could take the position of St. John Chrysostom, who stated that your sexual desires, in fact, are not part of God's plan, which is only limited to celibacy or sex for procreation--basically, because everyone should strive for the perfection that St. Paul elevated with celibacy. Hence, that means that you should only have sex as many times as the amount of children you have in your lifetime, and you are not allowed to enjoy it. But, lushy you, I'm sure you'll have sex for pleasure once you are married. I should condemn this very vice that you have professed yourself that you are looking forward to upon marriage.

And now, because modern religion in the 20th century changed the rules to suit heterosexual weaknesses, sex for pleasure is accepted in a married context. Essentially, it came down to the fact that it was unessential for faith.

Quote:
If I am correct, you believe that homosexuality is good because it is, to some, a natural urging. THAT idea - that the natural urging is NATURALLY good - is hedonism defined. It reduces to morality to one's feelings; if one feels something, the feeling must be good, so it must be okay to indulge it.
I hope you never have sex for pleasure with your wife, because you will be a hedonist yourself.

Quote:
And I again ask, what about the effects man exerts on his surroundings? How can the universe remain truly perfect if man is also truly to free to screw it up?
Man's effects on his surrounding only go so far. I can slap my neighbor and make him hurt, but I cannot change his skin color because I will it. Just as I believe that the design of life is perfect, and that includes the design of free will, does not mean that I think that everything we do with it is perfect.

Of course, you seem to believe that man has free will over everything, and that is preposterous. That was my point. What is out of our free will, which includes the design of life, is perfect, because it was created by God. Otherwise, He's a sadistic individual, who creates people for the explicit purpose of suffering, which would be contrary to the idea of a loving God.

Quote:
The left-handed example is quite different from homosexuality, in ways that I think invalidate the comparison: Left-handedness is an ability, while homosexuality is an expression of desire. Left-handedness is statistically frequent enough to justify the belief that it's one of the many common configurations (black, white, male, female, righty, lefty). I believe left-handedness is genetic; taken to its natural conclusion, it propagates to the next generation. Homosexuality, if it is genetic, is a genelogical dead-end. Finally, there is no reasonable moral objection to left-handedness while there is one overriding reason to reject homosexuality: the possibility that God intentionally created the two sexes so that one from one sex would join with one from the other sex.
Bingo. I was waiting for this argument.

"Homosexuality, if it is genetic, is a geneological dead-end."

Well, what about those born infertile? Aren't they a geneological dead-end? And if sex is just for procreation, as you've implied, then I hope you never use birth control, because you'll be denying a potential child from being born, creating a "dead-end" from your sex act.

Of course, I'm speaking to someone with zero knowledge of genetics. Your black-and-white "male" and "female" (basically, XY and XX) leaves out a wide range of documented deviations from this over the centuries (so that leaves out "human interference" from technology), all of which are "geneological dead-ends." You have the intersexed, those born with male and female organs, but rendered infertile, because the same hormones that activate the sex organs also destroy one set of organs or the other. This is relatively very common amongst live births, but science generally surgically creates a "boy" or "girl." You have X women, XYY men, XXY people (incidentally, a lot of androgynous "female" supermodels are this--they are infertile), XXXY, etc.

God did not create just male and female! I believe God sees us as gender neutral, which is more than apparent from our fetus development, which is gender ambiguous, with male and female organs. Yes, Bubba, you had a uterus in your early development. If God was so very adamant about just having heterosexual males and females, He certainly would never have allowed any deviations from that to even have existed.

Once again, the limited mind of the human refuses to see beyond the black-and-white "male" and "female," despite the not-so-uncommon deviances that stare right at our faces!

Besides, with your argument, I think we should test all people to see if they are infertile before they get married. Then those who are infertile should be forced into celibacy and forbidden to marry, since any sex act they do will be counterproductive against procreation, since you've so very stated that sex is just for procreation, in not so many words.

Secondly, your belief on genetics is flawed. There are non-Mendellian genetics traits, such as "dwarfism" (I forget the scientific term), which is a dominant trait. Under Mendel's model of genetics, that means that anyone who carries that gene will be a "dwarf" as well. However, two "dwarfs" often create children who carry the dominant traits, but are still normal sized! However, six generations down the line, all of a sudden, that same dominant trait will create another "dwarf."

"Inheritance" is far more complex than you'd like to believe, and I wouldn't be surprised if homosexuality falls under this same premise. Hence, it would be very difficult to find a "gay gene," because straight people likely carry it as well, but, for some reason, do not express it.

Why would there be "geneological dead-ends?" Mary, in an apparition, stated that we are to never worry about artificial population control methods, for God will always provide so that will never happen. Maybe homosexuals, along with infertile heterosexuals, are God's natural way of reducing the birth rate, without artificial methods of birth control or abortion.

Third, you've made it implicit that you believe that gays are not born that way. I don't like being lied to. If you really believed that, which doesn't surprise me, then why didn't you say so? Trust me...regardless of the origin, no one chooses their sexuality.

Quote:
So, my assumption that you called me a Pharisee out of anger wasn't completely wrong, was it? Apparently, the analogy was not only intentional, but you're also extending the analogy: you're Jesus Christ by comparison.
I'm not going to lie. I do think that your faith is like a Pharisee at times. But I'm not Jesus Christ; however, I try and strive to be like Him, which we are all supposed to do.

Quote:
2. Lonliness can indeed bring on "resentment and hatred of God", but many heterosexuals experience the same condition on the basis that they're, honestly, incapable of having a relationship. That's not a reason to change the rules, forcing people to keep others' company.
This isn't even a correct comparison. Heterosexuals, in your example, are free to seek out relationships. No one forces them to stay in one. Homosexuals are told not to seek them out in any circumstance, even if they find someone worthy of their company. In the first model, it is the heterosexual's fault for having a potentially garrulous personality. In the second model, personality means nothing; they are hated just for being who they are.

Quote:
3. Whether I would be saying this if the shoe was on the other foot is irrelevant. Whether something is moral or not is external to whether I would actual follow the precepts. I have trouble turning the other cheek; that makes the commandment no less vaild.
So easy to say on your Ivory Tower. You can leave this discussion and forget all about it, because it doesn't concern you. If there is reincarnation, I verily hope you end up gay in the next life. Then, let's see how you react to it.

I guess not everyone has empathy for those who aren't like them.

Quote:
4. I don't believe I have quoted too many verses out of context; in fact, I'd be more than willing to go through every verse mentioned in this post and tally where I was out of context and where you were out of context. If we were to do that, I would win.
Incorrect. How many times have you gone in only posting the verse? I, at least, will discuss the entire chapter, along with the situation of why such a verse was written.

Quote:
5. "If money is preventing you from loving God, give away all your money." What if poverty is preventing you from loving God? Should one steal? No, of course not. So the entire argument is invalid.
Are you then saying that a man who steals bread for his family, if the family is starving and cannot afford bread, is sinful? Even Jesus had righteous indignation against authorities. If we were just to tow the line, America, itself, wouldn't exist. We'd still be British. Or, perhaps, French, considering they were making inroads outside of the Thirteen Colonies.

Quote:
If we WERE born exactly as God intended, then that can mean only one of two possible things: either we're all cogs in a machine in which everything leading up to the birth is ALSO in God's will (since such things as radiation and chemicals can affect that birth); or the actions leading up to the birth have ABSOLUTELY no effect on that birth. BOTH of those ideas preclude free will, thus I cannot believe in them.
I don't know how this even applies to this thread, minus the latest detail where you finally revealed that you don't think people are born gay.

Secondly, assuming that your passage is true, the child would be the "victim," and would not be expected to live exactly like the "normal" people. We would make accomodations so that this person could live a happy and full life to the greatest extent humanly possible.

Yet, the same is not given to homosexuals, who are repeatedly denied compassion and told to be "normal" like everyone else. It would be like taking a thalidomide child, a victim of a human drug, born with "flippers" for arms and legs and told to stand up straight and walk. Or telling someone with asthma, a victim of environmental pollution created by humans, to stop weezing and breathe normally without medicine. Then publically berate both for not doing so.

Love is a basic element of humanity, which, for most people, is the reason why they even want to live. Love, in itself, serves no functional purpose. In fact, animals live life completely without love. However, to deny love to a human would be cruelty; the one element that seemingly separates us from being as banal as an animal. However, seeing the history of Christianity, cruelty seems to be right up its alley; all done in the "name of Jesus." I really doubt that both God and Jesus are so monolithic and ignorant of intention that they would deny an entire class of people love.

Now I have addressed it. Now are you going to ignore it and repeat that passage?

Quote:
Guess what? An adult daughter of a widow isn't as uncommon as a purple sky and chocolate rain; to reject it as such is immature.
Dammit...I feel like I'm arguing with a fool. Let's change it to a blue sky, instead of a purple sky, but keep the statement about chocolate rain falling from it. A blue sky and chocolate exist separately. An aged daughter and older father exist too. However, I don't know in what sick plain of reality you are on to think that this situation even occurs regularly, whereas a daughter and a father fall in deep passionate love and want to fuck each other. Of course, this was a "Jerry Springer" scenario, but it is well-known that his show is scripted with actors.

Chocolate rain and a purple sky are both possible. Volcanic ash can create a purple sky and chocolate can rain if someone chose to emit it from an airplane or something. Both scenarios, mine and yours, are possible, but are highly unlikely to happen.

Quote:
That's great, but it separates the question, "What about abortion?" with the the specifics of the question: whether humans are born exactly according to God's will. If/when we count the times we each take the Bible out of context, I would also like to tally the number of times you take my words out of context.
You are starting to get under my nerves. That aborted child was about to be created exactly as God intended, but a human interfered and killed it. The child, though, is not guilty of its own death.

If I take your words out of context, it is because you don't make any sense.

Quote:
But you DO have a hand in it. You determine WHETHER the child exists, both by the decision to have sex AND by the decision not to abort the child. Whether you smoke or drink, whether you subject the child to radiation, whether you play music around the child are believed to contribute to what the child is at birth. Truly, you don't have complete control, and that control is as unpredictable as a roulette wheel, but you do have some control. You have some influence on the child before its birth - THEREFORE God doesn't have complete control, THEREFORE the child isn't born perfectly compatible with God's will.
UGH...my parents had a hand in my birth. I had no role in my birth, though. That is my point I've been trying to regurgitate to you for the last half of this argument!

But God does have His hand in birth. When a couple has sex, there are billions of different sperm and a constant cycle of different eggs. Humans do not choose which sperm fertilizes which egg. Hence, the parents do not choose which child they have!!!! I feel like I'm trying to convince someone that the sky is blue, when they're so adamantly convinced it is black.

If you have some supernatural ability to have the free will to choose your children and their traits someday, under the confines of nature (not technology), then please, for the love of God, leave us non-supernatural people alone.

Quote:
Whose rhetoric?


UGH...it was on the side argument of abortion, which had nothing to do with this thread!

If you wrote with the intention to see who can get discouraged and pissed off the most, then you've won. The Rush Limbaugh style of argument, which you seem to expouse, gives me a headache after a while. I'm finished with this thread, as I've argued everything I've meant to argue. The next question you have, reread my old posts, where I likely answered the question five times over, but you didn't see it (or chose to ignore my answer). I can't keep on writing posts that take up two to three hours of my afternoon anymore.

I'd love to see other people comment on this thread besides me.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 03-05-2002, 07:07 PM   #116
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 04:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
In response, we are created equally, but I don't know how that applies.
Angela, Bubba doesn't think that gays are born that way. They are, in fact, choosing to like the same sex in some manner or the other to him. Hence, he thinks we are all created equally, but homosexuals are going against their nature; when, in fact, I think that they are part of nature just like straight people, not to mention that this same belief is expoused by science and even the Catholic Church (how funny that they are still homophobic). Some people will never agree.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 03-05-2002, 09:03 PM   #117
Refugee
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 09:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon:
I'd love to see other people comment on this thread besides me.
Melon
Melon;

I think those who have had something to say have said it, those who believe homosexuality to be normal, natural and the
way God intended to believe it, while those who don't don't - and I'm afraid thats the way it will remain until something life-changing happens to them.

AchtungBubba has argued strongly for what he believes in, as have you, but the argument is still there and at the end of the day you will both disagree anyway. That is not to say that it is not worth debating simply because someone disagrees with you, thats not what I am suggesting at all, but when the topic is as controversial as homosexuality, people are either prejeduiced or not, much like the debates over the existence of God; its a pretty useless battle to fight with one another because nothing you say will convince AchtungBubba otherwise.

All I'm saying is, if you're getting worked up over the heated debate between you and AchtungBubba, then you shouldn't. Those who agree with you, like me, are free from the such prejeduice and judgmentalism, those who don't have their own reasons for doing so; ultimately the ones who are prejeduiced are the ones who suffer.

Apparently, according to the rhetoric of the homophobes, the homosexuals are as guilty of their 'vices' and faults as much as left-handed people were of their left-handedness in the old days, and nothing will make them change their mentality otherwise.

To those who think homosexuality as unnatural; who are you to think of it as unnatural? What authority has ever been given to you to judge the way someone may love another? And I mean LOVE. Not bestial acts with animals who aren't capable of even the perception of consent, and the rape of innocent youth. I mean love, the love that is shared between people and thus makes them better people, creates a passion in their souls and bodies to live a happy life as much as any other heterosexual person can. A love that allows people to live and let live.

You state that it's against God's will, but how do you know God's will? Are you God? No, but you put your trust in the Bible, and thats all very well and convenient for your words of condemnation and judgement, notice how you use Jesus' words of love and tolerance and use them to judge and condemn.

Oh, it is true, I have never considered myself a Catholic, but I was raised as one, and if one believes that the Bible is there to condemn and cast judgement, then one is no different from the Muslim Fundamentalists who use the Koran to condemn Christians as infidels.

The word of God can never be one of condemnation, for condemnation is not the way of Love, in any sense; whether brotherly, platonic, sexual or romantic. Love exists as the highest of emotions, does it not? Love exists as the way of God. And before you inteject with your various definitions of love, AchtungBubba, though I agree the word 'love' is used all too frequently, if not abused in this day and age, do you mean to tell me that the love between you and your girlfriend is merely platonic and not romantic? Yes, there are different forms of love, but why you should apply it only for the heterosexuals deprive it from the homosexuals does not correlate with your self-proclaimed logic.

Ultimately, God is everything, AchtungBubba, atleast to me - the good and the bad. Your argument of the proceedings within the womb of a mother states that God's will does not necessarily always take place, so if it doesn't, does it mean that the Devil is on equal footing with God? Is the devil as powerful as God? Was it not God who exiled Satan? I don't see how your 'womb theory' works, unless Satan is as powerful as God, but he isn't, is he? This is an inquiry to what you believe, because I don't think your theory works. So, God's will is subservient to OUR will, and therefore God is just there to slap our wrist from time to time.

Doesn't it make more sense that God created the concept and gave US the idea of free will, that he is directly responsible for it, and that his will is always observed? Yes, free will does create the problem of evil, of that I am sure. But don't you think that, by your own account of your theory, that the way we are born is the way God intended, that a gay person can't exactly help it if they're gay, no more than you can help it if you don't like French Onion soup?

Ultimately, I believe that those who oppose homosexuality have nothing to do with the Bible, whatsoever, except that they use it to condemn homosexuals and others.

Ulimately, it is NOT because of God's word being anti-homosexual that you believe in it so passionately, but simply because you were raised to think and feel in such a way that makes you cringe when you see two homosexual lovers kiss in public. It is the way you were brought up to think that whatever goes on in the house of gay lovers as hedonistic and evil, it is simply the way you were brought up or have viewed life.

Oh, indeed, I have been much impressed by the quality of debate, but I have not engaged in it sooner because I believe it to be ultimately farcical as it is directly repugnant to human nature; I would sooner have more respect for you (generic 'you', not you specifically AchtungBubba) to simply say that you 'just don't like fags'. That you simply despise them because they are not like you, that they behave in a manner that is different from yours and it is therefore wrong. Oh no, that would be too simplistic, barbaric and downright ugly; the truth hurts.
Atleast that approach would be honest, instead of pretending to know God's will.

How can ANYONE, even the Pope himself, believe that they know God's will, how arrogant have we become in our own self-righteousness.

If what you say about God being against homosexuals is true, then I hope never to see God in the face, for it destroys everything that God is supposed to represent and be, including the God that is painted by your Bible.

If a homosexual man was indeed put on trial for his immortal soul, and was found to do none harm, think none harm and pray for the welfare of everyone, how could you condemn such a pure soul? If these fundamentals aren't enough to keep a man alive both in this life and the afterlife, then I myself long not to live in either.

You would rather condemn than to seek understanding without prejeduice, but ofcourse, that is the way God's will commands it. I forgot, you know God's will and feel qualified enough to be God's voice.

Ant.
__________________
Anthony is offline  
Old 03-06-2002, 03:04 AM   #118
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 04:05 PM
I will be as brief as possible.

Quote:
I know you are smart enough to spot a metaphor when you see one. No, this is not about Bush, but since I cannot get you to understand my point from the context of the Jewish leaders of 2500 years ago, I put it in a modern context. Human nature has seemingly changed little. So, let's close the chapter here on this Bush remark, since it has served its purpose.
Yes, I know a metaphor when I see one. It wasn't a metaphor:

Look at America, for instance? Using the guise of terrorism, the Bush Administration has easily rolled back any sense of privacy we had left. Could he have done the same thing if everything was perfect?

Quote:
Despite their reckless behavior, Moses and King David (not to mention King Solomon, who was a scoundrel himself) are all considered holy men, yes? What an easy way to excuse the bad behavior of the Jewish rabbis, who could have cited the supposed bad behavior of Moses and David as reasons why they are still holy and command power over the people.
But Moses and David were severely punished by GOD for their behavior. So your theory doesn't hold water. In fact all it does is contradict your original theory that rabbis went out of their way to make the Jewish leaders look GOOD.

Quote:
In short, anyone can call themselves righteous, but by their actions, you know whether they are or not. Hence, faith without good works is dead.

I would always assume that you'd know the context in which you quote your passages, but, apparently, you do not. I guess I shall not make such assumptions in the future.
The verse is associated with a parable, but it isn't ITSELF a parable. Compare the verses to Matthew 13. Verses 3-9 are the parable, verses 18-23 is the EXPLANATION. I believe that Matthew 7:21 is likewise an explanation of a parable and thus MEANT to be taken literally.

Once again, your snobbery at me apparently taking verses out of context (which I'm not) comes off as the pot calling the kettle black:

Most interestingly, this was Saul's reaction to David and Jonathan's relationship:

"Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan. He said to him, 'You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother's nakedness?'" - 1 Samuel 20

An interesting comment made over just a "friendship."


Quote:
Call it faith. There is a Gnostic gospel that portrays Jesus as a "mass murderer." Anyone who refuses to submit to His commands, Jesus kills them. Apparently, the canon councils had to make a judgment call on the "authentic" texts, although I'm sure that modern "Christians" would have loved to see this book in the canon, so they could justify their own hateful desires.

Funny enough, the Gnostics are, ideologically, the predecessors to today's fundamentalists in that they were the first to believe that the Bible was 100% literally correct. The early Christian Church destroyed them, as they did not believe this. Once again, I must remind you, the early Christians saw the Bible as for guidance, not the ultimate and final word.
That choosing which verses apply is a matter of faith is fine; but it's presumptuous to proclaim without any qualification that the chapter is un-Jesus-like. You think the chapter is un-Jesus-like because your interpretation of it doesn't fit with your idea of what Jesus is or should be; that's all.

To bring up apocryphal books to say that other psuedo-Gospels are angry ignores a key difference: the other books were rejected, Matthew wasn't.

(And I suppose your swipe at "Christians" - presumably, those of us who disagree with you - is another mere metaphor?)

At any rate, are you actually suggesting that even the early Israelites didn't also see the Bible as "the ultimate and final word"? That seems hard to swallow.

Quote:
Catholic Bibles are always open to revision in the face of greater techniques for translation. In fact, the Church is currently in the process of revising the Bible to make note of the facts discovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are older than the texts previously used.

Most interestingly, the Dead Sea Scrolls only support my theory: people added their own bias in later texts, rather than the Bible being a fixed text that people translated faithfully over the centuries.

Unfortunately, I've seen most Protestant Bibles just sticking with traditional interpretations, often amplifying the incorrect passages even worse than they were before, and then having the gull to state 99.9% accuracy. No Bible is perfect, granted, because even the Catholic Bible still maintains a few uncorrected mistakes, but they are very few and, at least, gives footnotes on historical context.

But I don't wish to turn this into a pissing contest on Bibles. I just respectfully disagree with Protestant Bibles as translated (also in the fact that they are incomplete to me), and I retract my statement about "toilet paper." I wrote it in anger.
I'm glad that you finally retracted the statement, and the fact is, many Protestant Bibles agree with Catholic Bibles in a lot of verses. To suggest that Protestants are somehow less academically minded is, I think, a sign of prejudice on your part.

Quote:
In the study of classic literature, much of the classroom discussion usually involves figuring out context. A statement that looks matter-of-fact to us could easily have had a different meaning for the time it was written. For example (one ironically fitting for this discussion), if a text said the word "gay" in the 19th century, it would mean "happy." If a text said the word "gay" now, it would mean "homosexual." But to look at a 19th century text and have no contextual knowledge, you might incorrectly think that the book is referring to a homosexual, when that would be incorrect.

Catholic Bibles, in addition, are subject to great scrutiny and debate amongst very highly educated Biblical scholars. Generally, no traditional interpretation is taken seriously; a text's meaning must be surmised by the original texts.

What the footnotes are, really, are a great service to people reading the Bible to assist them in discovering what a seemingly obscure passage really meant, according to a consensus of Biblical scholars. This is to prevent people from taking a passage like:

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." - Luke 14:26

And taking it as a literal interpretation of Jesus telling you that you must hate your family to be a true Christian. The footnotes, in essence, are there to prevent you from dropping the eggshells into your recipe that calls for eggs.

To clarify, though, by "official footnote," I meant the "official footnote for the Catholic Bible." I see it as guidance, not the means to an end.
And I believe you'll find Protestants as devoted to scholarly study of the Bible as well - and those who also rely on footnotes, commentaries, and multiple translations, myself included.

My point wasn't that the verse was to be taken literally - MERELY that Christ didn't always speak in a language of love.

Quote:
I love how you pick the most cryptic passages in the gospels. I see no problem with this passage, but since I'm tired of always interpreting Bible passages for you, I'd like you to interpret this passage to me.
By the way, thanks ever so much for interpreting Scripture for me.

Honestly, KJV falls short here, but I find myself facing the reality that you've criticized every translation I've used, so I figured I'd stick to one until using another translation was necessary. "Cryptic" as it is, I believe the New Living Translation offers a better translation:

"The queen of Sheba will rise up against this generation on judgment day and condemn it, because she came from a distant land to hear the wisdom of Solomon. And now someone greater than Solomon is here and you refuse to listen to him. The people of Nineveh, too, will rise up against this generation on judgment day and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah. And now someone greater than Jonah is here and you refuse to repent."

The translation seems clear: the contemporary Jews will be harshly judged at the end of time for having the Son of God in their midst (and as one of their own, since they're the first Chosen People) and not responding - particularly in comparison to the Gentiles who didn't have the luxury of being in His midst.

Cyptic, indeed.

Quote:
Jesus continually tells them the otherwise, but they refuse to listen, still bringing up the fact that they are children of Abraham. Hence, Jesus gets angry, since they won't listen to a word He says, and continues to use the same arguments Jesus just overthrew. At the same token, I don't blame Jesus at all...remember my little outburst in this thread for the same reason?
Yeah, very amusing.

Point is, we can both admit that Christ exhibited anger, so I don't see how Matthew 10 is contradictory to who Jesus is.

(Honestly, the entire Bible, Old and New Testaments, emphasize BOTH God's sense of justice and His mercy. Without mercy, we're doomed, but without the justice, God is no longer perfect, or at least mercy seems less necessary.)

Quote:
http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/revelation/intro.htm

This gives you all the historical context you need on Revelation. The book is not a "flat-out lie," but written with a totally different meaning whose context we, as modern readers, seem to miss completely. I'd have pasted it, but it is a long text.
An excellent description, one that I don't disagree with on many points, but one observation must be noted:

"Whether or not these visions were real experiences of the author or simply literary conventions employed by him is an open question."

The very beginning of Revelation has the author in communication with the risen Christ. Either that happened or that didn't. If it DID happen, whether the rest is metaphor (probably is) or the description of what the author actually saw in his vision is irrelevant. If it didn't happen, the entire book is a lie; call it a metaphor if you want, but the guy claims a personal contact with Christ. If that actually didn't happen, he's a liar.

The other explanations were also helpful. Two observations though: the explanation of Matthew itself does not imply that Matthew is contradictory to the rest, was just there for historical reasons, and should be ignored (as you have insisted). Also, there's this line:

"The post-A.D. 70 date is confirmed within the text by Mat 22:7, which refers to the destruction of Jerusalem."

That seems very skeptical of any possibility of divine intervention. If the crux of the Gospels (that Christ was the Son of God, killed and raised from the dead) is to be believed, why not the possibility that Christ accurately prophesied, or that the writers were guided by God Himself?

Quote:
Regardless, you have to draw a line somewhere. I know of no parents who use their "free will" to craft a child as they want. They have to leave it to God as to what traits that child has.

Of course, there have been exceptions, most infamously, thalidomide in the 1950s, but you cannot blame foreign chemicals on the creation of homosexuals. Not only have they existed for thousands of years, before the advent of these "chemicals," but there is no modern scientific knowledge to even support your claim. I can claim that the sky is blue because I willed it to be, but there is that little thing we call "evidence."
I'm not implying that chemicals caused homosexuality, or that man has supreme power over the universe (or anything more than a slight ability to exert his will on the surroundings). What I'm saying is that man's ability to exert his will on his surroundings ELIMINATES the possibility of an absolutely perfect, God-willed universe, thus eliminating the possibility of births that are absolutely perfect and completely under the will of God.

Quote:
Lovely pendulum swings. But no one is born to those "vices." No one is born a prostitute, nor a drug addict. But I can play your game too.

I could take the position of St. John Chrysostom, who stated that your sexual desires, in fact, are not part of God's plan, which is only limited to celibacy or sex for procreation--basically, because everyone should strive for the perfection that St. Paul elevated with celibacy. Hence, that means that you should only have sex as many times as the amount of children you have in your lifetime, and you are not allowed to enjoy it. But, lushy you, I'm sure you'll have sex for pleasure once you are married. I should condemn this very vice that you have professed yourself that you are looking forward to upon marriage.

And now, because modern religion in the 20th century changed the rules to suit heterosexual weaknesses, sex for pleasure is accepted in a married context. Essentially, it came down to the fact that it was unessential for faith.
What pendulum swings? You essentially assert that homosexuality is good because it's different, and I simply don't accept that.

And I trump St. John Chrysostom with an older source, a BIBLICAL source: The Song of Solomon.

Quote:
I hope you never have sex for pleasure with your wife, because you will be a hedonist yourself.


Merriam-Webster says hedonism is "the doctrine that pleasure or happiness is the sole or chief good in life." That means a hedonist would think sex with the missus is good BECAUSE it is pleasurable. I think it's good because God says it's good (or, at least, I believe God says so). That's NOT hedonism.

Quote:
Man's effects on his surrounding only go so far. I can slap my neighbor and make him hurt, but I cannot change his skin color because I will it. Just as I believe that the design of life is perfect, and that includes the design of free will, does not mean that I think that everything we do with it is perfect.

Of course, you seem to believe that man has free will over everything, and that is preposterous. That was my point. What is out of our free will, which includes the design of life, is perfect, because it was created by God. Otherwise, He's a sadistic individual, who creates people for the explicit purpose of suffering, which would be contrary to the idea of a loving God.
Again, man isn't all-powerful, but because he has SOME power over creation, and that small bit of power affects so much, it's enough to prevent the case that everything is perfectly congruous to God's will.

You say, "Just as I believe that the design of life is perfect, and that includes the design of free will, does not mean that I think that everything we do with it is perfect." Well, one of the things we do with our free will is affect a child in the womb - perhaps not to any great degree in most cases, but we do affect the child.

Quote:
Bingo. I was waiting for this argument.

"Homosexuality, if it is genetic, is a geneological dead-end."

Well, what about those born infertile? Aren't they a geneological dead-end? And if sex is just for procreation, as you've implied, then I hope you never use birth control, because you'll be denying a potential child from being born, creating a "dead-end" from your sex act.

Of course, I'm speaking to someone with zero knowledge of genetics. Your black-and-white "male" and "female" (basically, XY and XX) leaves out a wide range of documented deviations from this over the centuries (so that leaves out "human interference" from technology), all of which are "geneological dead-ends." You have the intersexed, those born with male and female organs, but rendered infertile, because the same hormones that activate the sex organs also destroy one set of organs or the other. This is relatively very common amongst live births, but science generally surgically creates a "boy" or "girl." You have X women, XYY men, XXY people (incidentally, a lot of androgynous "female" supermodels are this--they are infertile), XXXY, etc.

God did not create just male and female! I believe God sees us as gender neutral, which is more than apparent from our fetus development, which is gender ambiguous, with male and female organs. Yes, Bubba, you had a uterus in your early development. If God was so very adamant about just having heterosexual males and females, He certainly would never have allowed any deviations from that to even have existed.

Once again, the limited mind of the human refuses to see beyond the black-and-white "male" and "female," despite the not-so-uncommon deviances that stare right at our faces!

Besides, with your argument, I think we should test all people to see if they are infertile before they get married. Then those who are infertile should be forced into celibacy and forbidden to marry, since any sex act they do will be counterproductive against procreation, since you've so very stated that sex is just for procreation, in not so many words.

Secondly, your belief on genetics is flawed. There are non-Mendellian genetics traits, such as "dwarfism" (I forget the scientific term), which is a dominant trait. Under Mendel's model of genetics, that means that anyone who carries that gene will be a "dwarf" as well. However, two "dwarfs" often create children who carry the dominant traits, but are still normal sized! However, six generations down the line, all of a sudden, that same dominant trait will create another "dwarf."

"Inheritance" is far more complex than you'd like to believe, and I wouldn't be surprised if homosexuality falls under this same premise. Hence, it would be very difficult to find a "gay gene," because straight people likely carry it as well, but, for some reason, do not express it.

Why would there be "geneological dead-ends?" Mary, in an apparition, stated that we are to never worry about artificial population control methods, for God will always provide so that will never happen. Maybe homosexuals, along with infertile heterosexuals, are God's natural way of reducing the birth rate, without artificial methods of birth control or abortion.

Third, you've made it implicit that you believe that gays are not born that way. I don't like being lied to. If you really believed that, which doesn't surprise me, then why didn't you say so? Trust me...regardless of the origin, no one chooses their sexuality.
I was ONLY pointing out the differences between left-handedness and homosexuality.

If that mad scientist argument from earlier was too different to be considered, so is left-handedness.

THAT WAS MY ONLY POINT.

NOT that sex is for procreation only, etc.

Other things you got wrong in the above quote:

God did not create just male and female!

"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh." - Mark 10:6-8.

Mary, in an apparition, stated that we are to never worry about artificial population control methods, for God will always provide so that will never happen. Maybe homosexuals, along with infertile heterosexuals, are God's natural way of reducing the birth rate, without artificial methods of birth control or abortion.

While this isn't wrong, per se, it's amusing that you're apparently putting so much faith in a reported vision when you put so little faith in the Bible.

Quote:
Third, you've made it implicit that you believe that gays are not born that way. I don't like being lied to. If you really believed that, which doesn't surprise me, then why didn't you say so? Trust me...regardless of the origin, no one chooses their sexuality.
You misunderstand:

I don't know whether gays are born with the desires that they have. What I believe is that, if they are born with immoral homosexual desires, those desires were not part of God's original plan. BIG difference.

Quote:
So easy to say on your Ivory Tower. You can leave this discussion and forget all about it, because it doesn't concern you. If there is reincarnation, I verily hope you end up gay in the next life. Then, let's see how you react to it.

I guess not everyone has empathy for those who aren't like them.
You JUST quoted me admitting anger issues - saying that there are moral laws that I myself would rather not follow - and you say I'm in an Ivory Tower? COME ON.

Quote:
I don't know how this even applies to this thread, minus the latest detail where you finally revealed that you don't think people are born gay.

Secondly, assuming that your passage is true, the child would be the "victim," and would not be expected to live exactly like the "normal" people. We would make accomodations so that this person could live a happy and full life to the greatest extent humanly possible.

Yet, the same is not given to homosexuals, who are repeatedly denied compassion and told to be "normal" like everyone else. It would be like taking a thalidomide child, a victim of a human drug, born with "flippers" for arms and legs and told to stand up straight and walk. Or telling someone with asthma, a victim of environmental pollution created by humans, to stop weezing and breathe normally without medicine. Then publically berate both for not doing so.

Love is a basic element of humanity, which, for most people, is the reason why they even want to live. Love, in itself, serves no functional purpose. In fact, animals live life completely without love. However, to deny love to a human would be cruelty; the one element that seemingly separates us from being as banal as an animal. However, seeing the history of Christianity, cruelty seems to be right up its alley; all done in the "name of Jesus." I really doubt that both God and Jesus are so monolithic and ignorant of intention that they would deny an entire class of people love.

Now I have addressed it. Now are you going to ignore it and repeat that passage?
Again, I DON'T KNOW whether people are born gay. What I was rejecting was the idea that their being born gay is completely in line with God's will. AGAIN, BIG DIFFERENCE.

On the issue of expecting children with birth defects to be normal, etc., I'm NOT suggesting that a homosexual must fake heterosexual desires and get married. What I am suggesting is indulging the original homosexual desires is a sin and must be avoided.

Finally, homosexuals would be denied erotic love, and erotic love only. Erotic love isn't the only love - and it's not even the most important love.

Quote:
Dammit...I feel like I'm arguing with a fool. Let's change it to a blue sky, instead of a purple sky, but keep the statement about chocolate rain falling from it. A blue sky and chocolate exist separately. An aged daughter and older father exist too. However, I don't know in what sick plain of reality you are on to think that this situation even occurs regularly, whereas a daughter and a father fall in deep passionate love and want to fuck each other. Of course, this was a "Jerry Springer" scenario, but it is well-known that his show is scripted with actors.

Chocolate rain and a purple sky are both possible. Volcanic ash can create a purple sky and chocolate can rain if someone chose to emit it from an airplane or something. Both scenarios, mine and yours, are possible, but are highly unlikely to happen.[/b]
You're getting frustrated? TAKE A NUMBER AND GET IN LINE.

YOU SAID incest is wrong because it involves a lack of consent and adultery. I offered a counterexample (the grown daughter and the widowed father), and YOU REPLIED that such a scenario is as likely as chocolate rain.

If you mean, "a grown daughter and a widowed father" is EXTRAORDINARILY rare, you've lost your sense of reality. About half of the married couples in the world have daughters, and in about half of those couples the wife dies first. So, the circumstances should be common.

If you mean, "a grown daughter and a widowed father engaged in incest" is rare, I AGREE, but it's beside the point. It's within the realm of reality, and I ask, why would it be wrong?

I contend incest is wrong because God says so. Thus, this instance of incest is wrong.

You contend incest is wrong because of consent and adultery. In the above case then, would incest be okay?

Quote:
You are starting to get under my nerves. That aborted child was about to be created exactly as God intended, but a human interfered and killed it. The child, though, is not guilty of its own death.

If I take your words out of context, it is because you don't make any sense.
1) I'm not saying the CHILD is guilty of its own death; I'm saying those who KILLED him are guilty. Either way, human free will (in this case, THE MOTHER AND THE DOCTOR's free will) interfered with God's will.

2) If my words "don't make any sense", why would you take them out of context and make them less sensible?

Quote:
UGH...my parents had a hand in my birth. I had no role in my birth, though. That is my point I've been trying to regurgitate to you for the last half of this argument!

But God does have His hand in birth. When a couple has sex, there are billions of different sperm and a constant cycle of different eggs. Humans do not choose which sperm fertilizes which egg. Hence, the parents do not choose which child they have!!!! I feel like I'm trying to convince someone that the sky is blue, when they're so adamantly convinced it is black.

If you have some supernatural ability to have the free will to choose your children and their traits someday, under the confines of nature (not technology), then please, for the love of God, leave us non-supernatural people alone.
ONCE AGAIN, I agree you didn't have any control over your own birth. And I agree that God had a hand in it - but NOT GOD ALONE. Humans contributed in your development, even in small ways, thus your condition at birth was probably not ENTIRELY within God's will.

I have but one more thing to add to this discussion, but that will wait for my next post (or two).

[This message has been edited by Achtung Bubba (edited 03-06-2002).]
__________________
Achtung Bubba is offline  
Old 03-06-2002, 03:06 AM   #119
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 04:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon:
Angela, Bubba doesn't think that gays are born that way. They are, in fact, choosing to like the same sex in some manner or the other to him. Hence, he thinks we are all created equally, but homosexuals are going against their nature; when, in fact, I think that they are part of nature just like straight people, not to mention that this same belief is expoused by science and even the Catholic Church (how funny that they are still homophobic). Some people will never agree.

Melon

Melon, don't speak on my behalf.

EVER.


__________________
Achtung Bubba is offline  
Old 03-06-2002, 03:14 AM   #120
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 04:05 PM
Anthony:

Did you read my posts, or just melon's commentaries on them?

Just curious,
Bubba
__________________

__________________
Achtung Bubba is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com