Is America more accepting of gay men than gay women?

[Achtung Bubba]

I think I've mentioned this a LONG time ago, but it bears repeating now: there are different ways to be literal. As an example, let's take John 14:6.

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

Now, I see three ways you can take this verse literally:

1. You can take it as a literal description of what happened, that Christ actually said what is attributed to him.

2. You can take literally what Christ said, that He is the way - in other words, he is literally a paved road.

3. You can take the underlying meaning as being the literal Truth, a communication from God.

I believe, in this case, (2) is unreasonable; Christ liked to speak in metaphors, and this is clearly another instance of figurative language. But I DO believe (1) is reasonable - that Christ actually said "I am the way, etc." And I also believe that (3) is reasonable; one can believe, as I do, that Christ REALLY, TRULY is the only conduit to God.

(I'm not sure what that means for Buddhists. They too may have access to God, but I still believe it is through the sacrifice Christ made, a sacrifice that the Buddhists may not even explicitly acknowledge. But that is mere guesswork on my part.)

The distinction is relevant to your reply, and I will mention it as appropriate.

The "anti-gay" texts, though, I still maintain as flimsy. I do not believe that the Bible addresses homosexuality as we currently define it to be. Homosexuality, to us, involves a lifelong relationship. Or, at least, a same-sex counterpart to the way heterosexuality is practiced. Homosexuality, to the Biblical era, was, first and foremost, a pagan cult ritual. It happened during the Old Testament amongst their pagan neighbors that they were fighting against and amongst the Greeks during the New Testament. The idea, then, was that to partake in these temple orgies would bring you closer to the gods. However, these "male temple prostitutes" were not gay. They had sex with men and women.

You may be right that the verses that supposedly prohibit homosexuality are more likely concerned with pagan rituals. Either way, I still assert the idea that God's plan is strictly heterosexual, that following God's plan is a required demonstration of your love for Him, and thus anything outside that plan is a sin.

Again, I think His will is heterosexual monogamy or chastity, and that precludes a whole SLEW of thoughts and behaviors, not just homosexuality: spouse swapping, even consensually; pedophilia which moves the relationship from equal partners to predator and prey; and bestiality, which moves God's plan even out of the realm of the same species. Even if these practices aren't explicitly restricted, they probably still qualify as violations of God's will.

Hence, there's little actual dependence on proof so concrete that you can quote it, chapter and verse.

Most interestingly, the Christian Church maintained large libraries of Greco-Roman "homosexual" literature around the eighth and ninth centuries A.D. that everyone was encouraged to study. Funny how times have changed.

Interesting, yes. Proof that the behavior was approved by the Chruch, maybe. Proof that God also approved? NOT REALLY. I believe Fundamentalist Protestants are not the only ones capable of straying from the Bible's original intent. They defended slavery with mistranslated scripture; the Catholic Church could have made a similar mistake.

It was mostly done to prevent people from reading heretical texts (Gnostic and Arian texts specifically), and, even then, the last canon council (Council of Carthage) in A.D. 397 never fully agreed. Even after this, the Church continued to make pronouncements that would be considered against the literal text of the Bible. That is why I know that the Bible, at least to the creators of the New Testament canon, was only meant for guidance and uniformity against heretics.

However, the Church was still free to make new or different moral pronouncements as needed. Of course, like anything, religion could go too far, but that is why St. Thomas Aquinas came up with the then revolutionary idea of conscience being the ultimate moral guide, superceding even the Church, and to be followed even if it warranted excommunication.

I wonder what you mean by "creators of New Testament canon," whether you mean those who wrote the Gospels, epistles, etc., or those that organized them into the New Testament. I have trouble believing that the WRITERS didn't believe everything they said in the Gospels, etc.

And, even if the Church's pronouncements contradict a literal interpretation of the Bible, they could still fit with a more metaphorical interpretation on the assumption that they still believe it's literally the Word of God. ("Literally the Word of God," as opposed to "The Word of God is literal;" see above.)

And if the pronouncements are truly "new" or "different", to the point that they cannot be reconciled with the Bible itself, I personally side with the Bible.

All that said, Aquinas's idea of guidance by conscience wasn't all THAT novel:

"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you...

"These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." John 14:16-17, 25-26.

In time, you learn to discern what is essential and what is unessential. I think you know how to do this. When St. Paul made a pronouncement against women speaking up in church, I think we'd all agree that this is unessential for faith. In fact, if you want to know the bare essentials, look up the Nicene Creed, created in the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325, to combat against Arianism. http://www.makedisciples.com/nicene-c.html

This is considered the essentials for Christian faith. Not once does it say that the Bible has to be taken literally, nor does it say that homosexuals aren't allowed. However, we still have a lot of our own cultural biases against sex or anything pleasureful, as originated from St. Augustine and later stoics.

This is another time where "literal" can mean different things. Much of the Bible is to be taken literally, particularly the recounting of events from mid-Genesis to the end of Acts. But the entire Bible is to be taken as the literal message of God, save for the occasional, probably minor errors in translation, etc.

Again, the Bible may not say that homosexuality is specifically outlawed, but my assertion is that it need not be - all that needs to be shown is that God's plan precludes the possibility.

And, cultural biases against pleasure aside, my problems with homosexuality do not stem from any problems with pleasure. I believe that sex is SUPPOSED to be pleasurable (see the Song of Soloman), but it is to be enjoyed within the limits that God set. Strange as it is, I simultaneously look forward to making love with my girlfriend once we're married and have no qualms waiting until then; thankfully, I FEEL that following God's plan of waiting until marriage is truly the best plan.

So, really, it is no wonder the Reformation began. Unfortunately, the main originator of fundamentalism, John Calvin (the originator of most of America's Protestant religions), wasn't clean himself. He used fundamentalism as a power trip. As he escaped to Geneva, Switzerland to get away from the Papal Inquisition in France, he stormed his way in to create his own Inquisition, and a "theocratic" autocratic state of his own.

I'm not saying Protestants are perfect, neither is it necessary to say so. The perfect message can be divorced from its imperfect vessel.

Well, then you really aren't taking the Bible completely literally. You are making your own judgment calls. Not that I condemn that, because I think that is what we all have to do in regards to the Bible.

I believe I've addressed the differences of taking the Bible literally.

Returning to my metaphor, I said the following:

"Let's say a long-established order of cooks proclaim they have a recipe for pecan pie - a recipe handed to them by the legendary Master Chef, a chef that some people believe doesn't actually exist."

I meant to say that the cooks proclaimed that the recipe was handed to them by the Master Chef. I tried to intentionally leave ambiguous the actual existence of the Master Chef or the authenticity of the recipe. If I failed, I apologize, but that was my intent.

I believe the analogy was apropos in the description of the second amatuer. Compare:

I said the following:

The second amateur cook didn't believe in the Master Chef - or at least, didn't think the recipe was his handiwork. He believes that the order's recipe was never meant to be taken literally, that it was really just guidance for amateur cooks. He tried his hand at the recipe but altered it as he saw fit; he was smart enough not to use the eggshells, and he cooked the pie for 30 minutes at 250 degrees, rather than cooking it for 45 minutes at 350...

The second cook, the one who undercooked the pie, is analogous to those who take the position that the Bible is not meant for anything more than guidance (e.g., close to melon's position). The cook reasons his way through his existence and takes the entire Bible with a huge grain of salt. The results appear to be much better than that of the older fundamentalist.

You said:

The "Master Chef," to me are the writers of the Bible. I do not believe that God, specifically, wrote the Bible. Secondly, I don't think that the recipe is perfect ("the recipe" is a hypothetical one...not the same one you wrote). It tastes a little bland and some of the ingredients are a reflection of the times they were written. Where am I going to find pheasant? Pomegranates? That meat seems a little undercooked to be safe, knowing what we know now about food poisoning. However, it still is salvageable. I add a few different ingredients that are more applicable to today and the meal comes out perfect.

I would be lost without the original recipe, but it doesn't mean that I shouldn't be free to make changes, as I am not just simply an amateur chef who just learned how to cook. The amateur chef will have to resort to the original recipe, otherwise he is lost. However, I've been cooking for my entire life, so I know which ingredients are essential and which ones can easily be substituted. That is the difference.

I would like to emphasize that the entire argument for the third amateur cook HINGES ENTIRELY on the beliefs that God exists and willfully spoke to us through the Bible; again, a matter of faith.

And I would like end this post by asserting that we're ALL amateur cooks; the Master Chef's intentions are not to make us simply more competant amateurs, but perfect apprentices in His kitchen.

Glad to see you return to the discussion,
Bubba

[This message has been edited by Achtung Bubba (edited 03-01-2002).]

[Diamond The U2 Patriot]

Bubba and Melon-
You
guys
are
AMAZING.

When you both grow up you should become attorneys.

You both make me dizzy.
Iam now ducking for cover.

Diamond

[S|aney]

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:

I believe that Christ is the one and only Son of God, blameless, fully human, and fully man. I believe He was given by God to be killed for my sake (both personally and for mankind universally). I believe that He rose from the dead three days later and is now alive and well, residing in Heaven, preparing a place for all who take Him as both Savior and Lord - as both He who saved us from ourselves and He who leads us to God's intended plan for us.

If you "hold a completely different point of view" on this issue, you're not a Christian.

At what point did I refute the very foundation of Christianity? This is what this has come down to. You insulting my intelligence. If I had any doubts to the validity of the aforementioned quote, I would NOT claim to be a Christian.

My reference to having "a completely different point of view" was ONLY in regards to the topic of this forum. But, as usual, your tactics are to divert everyone's attention from the issue at hand.


[This message has been edited by S|aney (edited 03-01-2002).]

[Achtung Bubba]

Originally posted by S|aney:

It always amazes me how many excuses people come up with when you challenge them to research and examine a particular issue further, instead of varifying it for themselves. Instead, they want to give me a lesson on biblical scriptures relating to homosexuality, as if I had never read these verses and researched it extensively myself. They assume that it is impossible to be a Christian and hold a completely different point of view.

God and homosexuality are not the problem here. Bigotry and discrimination is. It's not the gay and lesbian community or even God's fault that mankind is so intolerant.

It's not an excuse - it's an assertion that the sum of our translations get more or less the gist of the original texts. Certainly, the more scholarly the approach, the better, but I don't think one needs to know Greek and Hebrew to more-or-less follow God's will.

If you read the rest of my posts, you would see two things: first, I'm not some ignorant lummox who spews out scripture without careful examination of context and other translations. Second, I do believe differences of opinion are possible; see my post on transubstantiation.

Honestly, I believe a Christian CAN believe homosexuality is not immoral, but - ultimately - one of us is wrong.

I will agree though, that "it is impossible to be a Christian and hold a completely different point of view" (my emphasis).

I believe that Christ is the one and only Son of God, blameless, fully human, and fully man. I believe He was given by God to be killed for my sake (both personally and for mankind universally). I believe that He rose from the dead three days later and is now alive and well, residing in Heaven, preparing a place for all who take Him as both Savior and Lord - as both He who saved us from ourselves and He who leads us to God's intended plan for us.

If you "hold a completely different point of view" on this issue, you're not a Christian.

And to say that homosexuality is morally wrong is not a sign of bigotry, any more than saying that other behaviors are morally wrong. It certainly becomes bigotry when you treat homosexuals differently, but that's a different matter altogether.

[Achtung Bubba]

<sigh>

You said, "They assume that it is impossible to be a Christian and hold a completely different point of view," and I believe you were talking about me.

It isn't the case in general, that I think it impossible a fellow Christian and I could disagree utterly on one issue - AS I POINTED OUT when I brought up transubstantiation.

But it's also not the case that a Christian and I can disagree on everything - and that is the ONLY reason I brought the basic tenets of Christianity. I didn't do it to insult your intelligence, and I didn't do it to "divert everyone's attention from the issue at hand."

(And I frankly find it insulting that you suggest that A) I intentionally divert everyone's attention and that B) it's a "usual" tactic of mine.)

Some issues (Transubstantiation) are highly contested within the faith, and rightly so; after all, both points of view can be scripturally supported. Some (like the fundamental tenets) are not subject to debate.

Where does homosexuality fall? Somewhere in between.

You have said in an earlier post, "we need to investigate this issue in it's entirety. Why is it wrong? I mean seriously. Why would God condemn it?"

I have throroughly investigated the issue. Perhaps it hasn't been examined FULLY, but I've been addressing the issue in almost every post since it came up.

To repeat myself for the umpteenth time, I believe God's will for man is either marriage (as defined as heterosexual monogamy) or chastity, and the Bible indicates this. Homosexuality is outside the will of God, and thus is wrong.

Ultimately, my evidence circles around the following aforementioned verses:

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." - Genesis 2:24.

"And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." - Matthew 19:4-6.

"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. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." - Mark 10:6-9.

"But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." - Matthew 19:11-12.

The first three verses explain that heterosexual, lifelong marriage IS God's plan. The last verse explains that chastity is an acceptable alternative. Nothing else is proscribed.

Those who disagree with me have brought up what they believe are possibly conflicting verses, and I have defended my position that those verses do not support homosexuality once they are seen in context.

Do I believe a Christian can believe homosexuality and still be a Christian? Ultimately, yes, I do.

But I think that such a position is not supported by Scripture - and that Scripture actually suggests that it is outside the will of God - at the least, by not offering it as an alternative to marriage or chastity.

Now, you've said that I've come up with excuses rather than futher examine the issue. You've implied that I'm merely demonstrating "bigotry and discrimination" and have claimed that my usual tactics are to change the subject.

And, at the same, you have offered NO actual evidence to suggest homosexuality is okay.

At what point are you going to stop hurling baseless accusations and actually engage in this discussion?

[melon]

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
I believe, in this case, (2) is unreasonable; Christ liked to speak in metaphors, and this is clearly another instance of figurative language. But I DO believe (1) is reasonable - that Christ actually said "I am the way, etc." And I also believe that (3) is reasonable; one can believe, as I do, that Christ REALLY, TRULY is the only conduit to God.

On matters of faith, I tend to agree with the more literal translations. Even at that, the gospel of John was written in A.D. 90-100, the last of the four gospels and written 60-70 years after the fact. In an era without mass communication or a printing press, this is likely more of an assessment of what Christians believed about Jesus, rather than the actual words of Jesus. Do I think that Jesus would have said something like this? Probably. I don't doubt that, so I don't dispute the knowledge in this verse. Do I believe that Jesus literally said those words? Up for debate.

I would like to emphasize that the entire argument for the third amateur cook HINGES ENTIRELY on the beliefs that God exists and willfully spoke to us through the Bible; again, a matter of faith.

Well, I could hinge an entire argument on the belief of creationism, but that doesn't mean it is necessarily correct.

And I would like end this post by asserting that we're ALL amateur cooks; the Master Chef's intentions are not to make us simply more competant amateurs, but perfect apprentices in His kitchen.

With this assertion, I disagree. Of course, none of us are the "Master Chef," but there are different levels of Christians in terms of knowledge. The "amateur chefs" are the converts or very young Christians. However, not to sound arrogant (so don't take it that way), but to put myself at the same level of that, with over 13 years of formal Christian education under my belt, would not be fair. Quite simply, some Christian denominations encourage questioning more than others.

You may be right that the verses that supposedly prohibit homosexuality are more likely concerned with pagan rituals. Either way, I still assert the idea that God's plan is strictly heterosexual, that following God's plan is a required demonstration of your love for Him, and thus anything outside that plan is a sin.

So, essentially, it is sinful by default?

This, of course, goes under a debate of what is "perfect" and "imperfect." Under the human definition, I'm apt to believe that we think that "perfect" is a very healthy Christian nuclear family with no diseases or afflictions that all live to a ripe, old age of 100 and die in their sleep. Hence, we think of everyone who deviates from that as "imperfect."

However, I tend to believe that whatever God creates is "perfect," and if that deviates from our human idea of "perfection," then so be it. I think that we are all perfect upon birth: we are exactly what God intends us to be. But, as we know, "birth" is a chaotic process with a fairly significant, but luckily not too common, rate of error. Most miscarriages, for instance, are due to severe chromosomal abnormalities; in fact, one miscarried fetus had three sets of chromosomes (we only have two). Despite their very short life, they are perfect.

But, you see, your argument on homosexuality hinges on that that it is a choice; that those who are homosexual somehow, one day, decided that they didn't like the opposite sex. Despite the various debates on this issue, whether genetic or not, one thing is for certain: no one chooses it. Who would choose societal ridicule? Likewise, look at yourself. Being straight, do you imagine yourself suddenly deciding today to have sex with someone of your same sex? Without knowing you at all, knowing what you've written, you are likely repulsed. Well, that same feeling of repulsion is exactly what homosexuals think of the opposite sex and always have.

(I question if a lot of the virulently homophobic ministers have bisexual feelings they have hidden from the public, and, since they do have choice on their feelings, they think that everyone who is gay is this way.)

What is unfortunate, to me, is that the Christian Church ceased writing and discussing the Biblical canon after A.D. 397. Luckily, Judaism never stopped writing scripture, and, even though we are not Jewish, we still believe in the same God, and they have some very interesting writings that apply to this subject. The Talmud, written during the Middle Ages, teaches that one who repeatedly violates a particular commandment out of inner compulsion rather than to flout the tradition is to be considered a functioning member of the community. Rambam [Maimonides] accepts this (Hilkhot Teshuva 3:9) by excluding such violaters from his list of apostates.

Due to this idea of "inner compulsion," violators of the law are not morally culpable. St. Thomas Aquinas speaks on this subject briefly with his idea of conscience. To break or violate the law, one must have a reasonable choice alternative and then choose to break it anyway. You could probably state that a true bisexual would be subject to law, since they have feelings for both men and women. And don't say celibacy is a viable choice. Even St. Paul, who advocated that all Christians should be celibate like him (just like Jesus), had to acknowledge that it was not meant for everyone.

As such, in reform and reconstructionist Judaism (and to a degree, conservative Judaism), homosexuals are not only accepted, they are encouraged to find lifelong relationships and adopt children to satisfy the "be fruitful and multiply" aspect. Modern Israel has no anti-gay legislation and allows openly gay men to serve in the military.

(An interesting sidenote, Conservative Judaism even recognizes that the "abominations" (toevah) of Leviticus refer to ritual practices, and, as such, Sabbath breakers are on equal footing with homosexuals.)

So the world is not perfect in the eyes of humanity. Now must the "imperfect" languish in misery because of it?

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

[Achtung Bubba]

Originally posted by melon:
On matters of faith, I tend to agree with the more literal translations. Even at that, the gospel of John was written in A.D. 90-100, the last of the four gospels and written 60-70 years after the fact. In an era without mass communication or a printing press, this is likely more of an assessment of what Christians believed about Jesus, rather than the actual words of Jesus. Do I think that Jesus would have said something like this? Probably. I don't doubt that, so I don't dispute the knowledge in this verse. Do I believe that Jesus literally said those words? Up for debate.

Well, yours is a reasonable position. However, as far as I know, those dates for the Gospels' creation are simply the earliest we can verify their existence - that we don't know for certain that they did not exist beforehand and thus, more temporally closer to the Ascension. Even if that isn't the case, one could believe that the Gospel writers (whether they be the Apostles, their followers, or someone else) were divinely guided.

...which makes me wonder, what role - if any - do you believe God (the actual Supreme Being) played in the Bible? If one accepts, at the very least, the divinity of Christ, surely it's possible that those surviving works that both predicted His arrival and detailed His life on earth were guided by His heavenly father.

Well, I could hinge an entire argument on the belief of creationism, but that doesn't mean it is necessarily correct.

Of course not. It's one thing to say that most correct theological ideas can find a Biblical basis; it's quite another to say that most ideas based on the Bible are correct.

All "A" are "B". But not all "B" are "A."

With this assertion, I disagree. Of course, none of us are the "Master Chef," but there are different levels of Christians in terms of knowledge. The "amateur chefs" are the converts or very young Christians. However, not to sound arrogant (so don't take it that way), but to put myself at the same level of that, with over 13 years of formal Christian education under my belt, would not be fair. Quite simply, some Christian denominations encourage questioning more than others.

Well, some cooks are more amateurish than others. What I mean is, some better understand the Master Chef's teachings than others, but none are masterful enough to start making things up as they go along. Those who come to closer to the truth are, I believe, guided by Scripture and/or the Holy Spirit. To do otherwise is to stray from God Himself.

On the issue of whether someone chooses to be homosexual...

(As an aside, I'm surprised this hasn't come up sooner in this thread.)

I'm actually not all sure that humans are created exactly as God intended. At very least, man can interfere. Scientists believe that pregnant woman abusing drugs (alcohol, tobacco, etc.) can cause birth defects in her child. It may be possible that God allows imperfections to allow free will.

The idea of allowed imperfections may account for those who seem to be born with tendancies for alcohol or gambling. Even so, they are born "perfect" in that they have yet to sin, tendencies notwithstanding.

I would say that those who have no choice about who they find sexually desirable have not sinned until they have indulging those immoral desire.

As a quick heterosexual example, I may find a woman sexually desirable, but to have sex with her out of marriage would be wrong - as would be lusting after her (taking the attitude that "I would if I could," morality be damned). The desire I can't help, whether I give into that desire - even only in my heart - is my decision and my responsibility.

In this case I would agree with the Talmud insofar as one can't help his inner compusions, but I disagree in that one CAN determine whether to act on them; and I would say that Aquinas' idea of conscience is insufficient - that conscience MUST be informed by the Holy Spirit.

And celibacy is STILL a viable choice. It's not for everyone (as Paul acknowledged), but that may simply mean that the plan is either marriage or celibacy.

I know that what I'm suggesting isn't the easiest thing in the world, but look at those who seem to be naturally predisposed to a quick temper or alcoholism. Acknowledging that disposition is a wise thing to do, but - with the rare exception of the genuinely mentally ill - it shouldn't be used to excues those who give in to immoral dispositions.

[melon]

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
...which makes me wonder, what role - if any - do you believe God (the actual Supreme Being) played in the Bible?

Honestly? I don't believe God did play much of a role at all in the Bible. I believe it to be the creation of humans, who believed that this was what God wanted. I think the much of the Mosaic Law was written by post-exilic Jewish rabbis, who were clamoring to regain the power over their own people that they had lost when the Assyrians and Babylonians had conquered Israel and spread them out amongst present-day Iraq. Then Persia comes in, and permits them to return home. Of course, they thought that they were speaking for God Himself, so they just left out a few crucial details, and just cut to the chase, and said that God Himself commanded this.

Genesis was a print version of the creation myths, which most world cultures have, more or less. They are a great insight into how ancient people believed their world to be, but I don't think it is correct in the slightest, aside from the fact that I do believe that God created the heavens and the earth--but through an evolutionary device.

The gospels I do believe contain the truths about Jesus Christ, but not all of them, and even the gospels are not immune to human biases. Mark is the "parent gospel" that Matthew and Luke took their most important details from. John is the only separate gospel, but loses much of its credibility over the time it was written. What is against them is the fact that printing presses didn't exist, and these are all likely "copies" of texts, along with the specific author's ad hominem included. My task is to discover the words of Jesus and to figure out what is the "ad hominem." Luckily, the Catholic Church is somewhat helpful in that respect.

In Marian apparitions, if they are real and true, it was revealed that no religion has ever uncovered what God really is, but that the Catholic Church was closest. Considering that Mary always appears according to what the local tradition says she looks like (she's black in Africa, white in America, etc.), I'm apt to believe that the true God chose to reveal Himself through Judeo-Christian beliefs, but that their beliefs are not fixed. Our beliefs are just as valid about God, if done with the right intention.

But I don't know. I don't have fixed beliefs on the nature of God. I believe in God. I believe in Christ. But the specifics beyond that change. I treat my Christian beliefs much like science. I am always learning and discovering more that makes me change my mind about the specifics.

Those who come to closer to the truth are, I believe, guided by Scripture and/or the Holy Spirit. To do otherwise is to stray from God Himself.

Well, not to sound arrogant again, I believe myself to be guided by the Holy Spirit. Of course, I also have the same personality temperament as "healers" or "prophets." I feel the presence of God almost constantly, and I feel that I have been given the gift of part of His wisdom, not so unlike Solomon. Perhaps that is why I feel like I "know" the nature of the Bible and of God. But, no, I don't plan on being so arrogant as to create my own religion and get others to follow me. Of course, I cannot prove any of the above. This is a matter of faith on my part.

At the very least, I do believe that my beliefs, while different, are formulated with plenty of conscience to pass the test.

On the issue of whether someone chooses to be homosexual...

(As an aside, I'm surprised this hasn't come up sooner in this thread.)

As am I.

I'm actually not all sure that humans are created exactly as God intended. At very least, man can interfere. Scientists believe that pregnant woman abusing drugs (alcohol, tobacco, etc.) can cause birth defects in her child. It may be possible that God allows imperfections to allow free will.

Of course, you are referring to mutations, but mutations are so "natural" that we all have an average of 8 at birth. However, most mutations occur in the benign "junk DNA," so that is why, most of the time, we do not notice. So, don't put all the blame on parents. "Mutations" are part of God's design, which is a mystery of life itself.

As for the birth defects above, there is no evidence whatsoever to point that there are causes like that for homosexuality. Hence, I don't want you to beat yourself up someday if one of your own children end up gay someday.

The idea of allowed imperfections may account for those who seem to be born with tendancies for alcohol or gambling. Even so, they are born "perfect" in that they have yet to sin, tendencies notwithstanding.

Addictions have a cause, and that is with a specific region in the brain that is lacking in the brain chemical, dopamine. You can get addicted to anything, as the "rush" causes a brief flow of dopamine to the area. Hence, your brain becomes dependent on that activity to satisfy that chemical urge. Again, however, there are treatments for addictions that restore the dopamine balance, and none of them have cured homosexuality.

I would say that those who have no choice about who they find sexually desirable have not sinned until they have indulging those immoral desire.

This reeks Augustinian philosophy. "Desire," itself, was a sickness in all forms to him, and that included sexual feelings that a husband had towards his wife. Women were never to have orgasms...that would mean she's an uncontrollable lush having impure thoughts. Hence, she was sick. Henceforth also came the belief that men were never to feel emotions, and that idea of the "stoic" strong male arose.

I find such beliefs to be ridiculous, reducing humanity to the status of animals.

As a quick heterosexual example, I may find a woman sexually desirable, but to have sex with her out of marriage would be wrong - as would be lusting after her (taking the attitude that "I would if I could," morality be damned). The desire I can't help, whether I give into that desire - even only in my heart - is my decision and my responsibility.

Well, who is to say that homosexuals cannot be held to the same criteria, hence waiting for sex until they find that life partner? Objectively speaking, I think "premarital" sex is sinful, because of how much we value it. Hence, we tend to get hurt easily when a relationship doesn't work out, especially when it turned sexual. Likewise, forcing homosexuals to celibacy is equally hurtful, because it denies them the human urge to form a lifelong, lasting relationship with another human being.

It is a funny thing about marriage. Early Christianity didn't put much store in it, until the Catholic Church made it a sacrament around A.D. 1100. To be "married" was to make a promise to one another. Since God is everywhere, He knew the truth.

In this case I would agree with the Talmud insofar as one can't help his inner compusions, but I disagree in that one CAN determine whether to act on them; and I would say that Aquinas' idea of conscience is insufficient - that conscience MUST be informed by the Holy Spirit.

Well, reform, reconstructionist, and to a degree, conservative Judaism would disagree with you. And who is to say that my opinion is not informed by the Holy Spirit? I've certainly studied enough religion to know that I'm not just some slacker Christian looking for excuses to break the rules.

And celibacy is STILL a viable choice. It's not for everyone (as Paul acknowledged), but that may simply mean that the plan is either marriage or celibacy.

Celibacy should never be forced upon people. Some are called to it, gay or straight, but not all. I certainly believe that many gays are called to lifelong relationships or "marriage." Unfortunately, civil society is denying them their right.

I know that what I'm suggesting isn't the easiest thing in the world, but look at those who seem to be naturally predisposed to a quick temper or alcoholism. Acknowledging that disposition is a wise thing to do, but - with the rare exception of the genuinely mentally ill - it shouldn't be used to excues those who give in to immoral dispositions.

But, you see, you see it as a sickness. To me, a sickness is anything that prevents you from living a normal life functioning in society. I believe it is just as natural as heterosexuality. However, for argument's sake, let us say that this is an "illness." We don't put the terminally ill at the same level of accountability as the healthy. At the same level, I don't think that homosexuals should be held accountable for the "sin" (I don't believe it to be a sin, though) that they come natural to. It would be a sin, to me, if homosexuals married someone of the opposite sex, knowing full well what comes natural to them.

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]

In essence, this argument boils down to what is essential for faith as a Christian. I don't believe it means to follow the Bible to the letter, and don't think that everyone else hasn't made value calls either. We did have a debate on St. Paul once, and I did once bring up his issues on women and slaves, not to mention circumcision:

"Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law." -- Galatians 5:2

It's funny how most Christians are still circumcised, despite this very harsh pronouncement against it.

"I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing�if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety." -- 1 Timothy 2:9

How funny is that, for centuries, a woman who did not dress well in church was bad. And, yet, St. Paul makes a pronouncement against dressing well.

And look at all the female teachers we have in this country. In fact, we even have female ministers now. But St. Paul makes it very clear that women are not to have any authority over men.

Then, of course, the killer: how women are the originators of evil and how they are "saved through childbearing." Apparently, his pronouncement for celibacy only applied to men.

"Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them." -- Titus 2:9

So, I guess, when we had slaves escape their masters during the Underground Railroad, that they were all sinners for doing so?

Also, Remember that passage in Acts?

"It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God, but tell them by letter to avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood." -- Acts 15:19-20

But wait...St. Paul makes his own pronouncement:

"Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that we all possess knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. But the man who loves God is known by God. So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. But not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do." -- 1 Corintians 8:1-13

If I remember right, you rightfully called all of this stuff "cultural bias," and discarded it. However, why should pronouncements against homosexuals be any different?

"Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife�s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband�s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife." -- 1 Corinthians 7:1-11

If that isn't reason enough why homosexuals should be allowed in lifelong relationships, I do not know what else. In an ideal world, to St. Paul, none of us would ever have desires. But it is better to have them fulfilled in a proper channel (lifelong relationship) than to have them burn inside of us unfulfilled and have them consume us whole, for we will be no good to the Lord in that state.

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

[Anthony]

No, I don't think America, or any other country for that matter, is accepting enough of Gays or Lesbians. If they were we wouldn't be having this eternally long thread right now.

I don't wish to confine my arguments to the Bible, because ultimately they can not be applied to all; one may use it as the Defender of Gay Rights, or one may use it as the Lawful Condemnation as such; both have been the case here. The day a fundamental or Conservative christian wakes up from a homoerotic dream and starts having doubts about himself, he will no doubt alter his interpretation of the Bible slightly.

My point concerning the Bible is this; there is a wide spectrum of opinions and interpretations one could write an entire Bible on it, where is one to draw the line? One could argue this and one could argue that, but the fact that it is so controversial leads me to believe that the Bible is so artful its writings are evidently SO ambiguous people are still arguing over them now. A conclusion has to be made in my mind, and the Bible can not suffice. I don't believe it was written by God, the same way I don't believe the Koran was written by God and the same way I don't believe that the Jews are the 'Chosen Race'. Apparently, there are lots of Gods who did a lot of writing. Not to mention a lot of choosing.

The Bible is a book, first and foremost. And its a book that was written milleniums ago, now, isn't that a tad out of date? Of course, for those of you who believe that it WAS God who wrote it (tell that to the Muslims) you will therefore find refuge in the logical argument that Truth doesn't change, and it doesn't. However, the one fundamental Truth that is harvested from the Bible, is the truth that LOVE will take us to God, self-less and pure love as much as it is possible for human beings to love purely and seflessly. Everything else is just semantics, complications and irrelevant discussions forged by the minds of men.

I believe that Love is divine, that proper love in any form is God incarnated; to love someone is surely to look into the eyes of God. Homosexual love, for me, has always been a part of that love and will always be such, why shouldn't it? Why should it be condemned as a vile and filthy thing, when it has created such beauty in its process. People (or certain fundamental Catholics) who talk of Homosexuality in a filthy manner forget that Michaelangelo, the Artist behind your beloved Sixteenth Chapel, was as gay as they come. The Pope at the time didn't mind, apparently.

It is both cliched and stupid to talk about the 'greatness that honosexuality is', as it is cliched and supit to talk about the 'greatness that love is'. I equate them both. How one can write homosexuality and beastiality in the same sentence is beyond me, as if the soul can be shared with an animal in terms emotional and physical.

What is horrendous and abhorrent to me is the abuse of sex, aimless sex and destructive relationships where people are only in it for self-interest. Infidelity and mendacity are the scourge of true love, and they reside relationships homosexual and heterosexual.

However, most people know this. And most people I think are ready to think of homosexuality as something normal, but there is one thing to accept it intellectualy and accepting wholeheartedly, we still have a long way to go for most of us. That is for the next generations to live to see, I don't think we ever will see an age where homosexuality is no longer an issue worthy of controversy.

I will now concern myself with those who poison their own minds with thinking it to be wrong, and pray for them that God should never ever grant them a Gay son or a Lesbian daughter; it will be quite painful for both parties.

Ant.

[This message has been edited by Anthony (edited 03-03-2002).]

[Achtung Bubba]

Originally posted by melon:
Honestly? I don't believe God did play much of a role at all in the Bible. I believe it to be the creation of humans, who believed that this was what God wanted. I think the much of the Mosaic Law was written by post-exilic Jewish rabbis, who were clamoring to regain the power over their own people that they had lost when the Assyrians and Babylonians had conquered Israel and spread them out amongst present-day Iraq. Then Persia comes in, and permits them to return home. Of course, they thought that they were speaking for God Himself, so they just left out a few crucial details, and just cut to the chase, and said that God Himself commanded this.

...

Well, not to sound arrogant again, I believe myself to be guided by the Holy Spirit. Of course, I also have the same personality temperament as "healers" or "prophets." I feel the presence of God almost constantly, and I feel that I have been given the gift of part of His wisdom, not so unlike Solomon. Perhaps that is why I feel like I "know" the nature of the Bible and of God. But, no, I don't plan on being so arrogant as to create my own religion and get others to follow me. Of course, I cannot prove any of the above. This is a matter of faith on my part.

For the momentary sake of argument - and for that reason only - I'll concede that perhaps the books of Moses were not actually written by Moses - that they may have been written by Jewish rabbi's many centuries later. I'll also concede that the gospels may have been written decades after the deaths of the attributed authors - that their followers may have written the books. That still doesn't address whether you think God had a hand in the work and why you reached that conclusion.

As I said, "one could believe that the Gospel writers (whether they be the Apostles, their followers, or someone else) were divinely guided."

My question is, if you believe that you can be led by God's spirit, why is it not the case that the writers of the Bible were also led? That they were at LEAST as in tune with the will of God, and perhaps MORE in tune with His will?

On the issue of mutations...

Of course, you are referring to mutations, but mutations are so "natural" that we all have an average of 8 at birth. However, most mutations occur in the benign "junk DNA," so that is why, most of the time, we do not notice. So, don't put all the blame on parents. "Mutations" are part of God's design, which is a mystery of life itself.

I think you miss my point, simply because I used an instance where it's not entirely clear that the mother actually caused the birth defect.

(And I never meant to imply homosexuality was a birth defect, per se, much less a defect caused by human hands; I'm just trying to refute the theory that all births are what God wanted them to be by presenting ONE counterexample.)

Let's take a more extreme, hypothetical example. Let's say a mad scientist wanted to make as deformed a human as possible. He takes a donated egg and donated sperm, allow them to join, and - before performing in vitro fertilzation - exposes the zygote to massive, NEARLY lethal doses of radiation to mutate its genes. (In fact, genetic testing pre-radiation and post-radiation reveal that the genetic makeup of the zygote has been changed significantly.) The woman miscarriages, or the child is born and quickly passes away; either way, the random mutations went horribly awry.

By what you suggest, I take it that you would think that what transpired is the will of God: "I think that we are all perfect upon birth: we are exactly what God intends us to be."

I see only two ways that your belief could fit: either we have no effect on the universe around us (which clearly doesn't seem to be the case), or the mad scientist was merely a tool of God's perfect will (which eliminates free will from the picture).

I'm obviously not happy with either choice, so I believe that, while God's will is perfect, He does not (yet) fully exert that will on the universe. Hence, babies can be born with terrible birth defects, those defects weren't part of God's plan, but they had to be allowed to allow free will.

So being born homosexual - whatever that means, either through genetics, development in the womb, or whatever - doesn't necessarily mean that the condition was approved by God.

This reeks Augustinian philosophy. "Desire," itself, was a sickness in all forms to him, and that included sexual feelings that a husband had towards his wife. Women were never to have orgasms...that would mean she's an uncontrollable lush having impure thoughts. Hence, she was sick. Henceforth also came the belief that men were never to feel emotions, and that idea of the "stoic" strong male arose.

I find such beliefs to be ridiculous, reducing humanity to the status of animals.

I didn't think I implied that all desire was bad; and I certainly didn't mean to imply it. Desire is what it is, an instinctual, animal urging to do something. Sometimes it's appropriate and moral, sometimes it isn't.

I believe sexual desire is appropriate under the conditions of marriage - and that desire should definitely be embraced fully (as the Song of Solomon indicates). Otherwise, in instances that would lead to adultery, homosexuality, or incest, the desire is to be denied.

Well, who is to say that homosexuals cannot be held to the same criteria, hence waiting for sex until they find that life partner? Objectively speaking, I think "premarital" sex is sinful, because of how much we value it. Hence, we tend to get hurt easily when a relationship doesn't work out, especially when it turned sexual. Likewise, forcing homosexuals to celibacy is equally hurtful, because it denies them the human urge to form a lifelong, lasting relationship with another human being.

Now, I wonder another deep question: how do you define sin? You say premarital sex is sin, "because of how much we value it." Shouldn't the criterion be, "because God says so"?

Celibacy should never be forced upon people. Some are called to it, gay or straight, but not all. I certainly believe that many gays are called to lifelong relationships or "marriage." Unfortunately, civil society is denying them their right.

I'm not saying that celibacy should be forced on them by laws of man, but it does seem to me that it's the only option to live within the laws of God.

And you say that they are "called" to such a relationship. Called by what, or by whom?

At any rate, I have work to do today, and I will hold off on addressing Paul's works until I know whether you think they can be divinely inspired.

But first, two quick comments for Anthony:

Orignally posted by Anthony:
The Bible is a book, first and foremost. And its a book that was written milleniums ago, now, isn't that a tad out of date?

How so? In what ways has man substantively changed? Are our thoughts, concerns, desires, and weaknesses REALLY that different?

I believe that Love is divine, that proper love in any form is God incarnated; to love someone is surely to look into the eyes of God. Homosexual love, for me, has always been a part of that love and will always be such, why shouldn't it? Why should it be condemned as a vile and filthy thing, when it has created such beauty in its process. People (or certain fundamental Catholics) who talk of Homosexuality in a filthy manner forget that Michaelangelo, the Artist behind your beloved Sixteenth Chapel, was as gay as they come. The Pope at the time didn't mind, apparently.

It is both cliched and stupid to talk about the 'greatness that honosexuality is', as it is cliched and supit to talk about the 'greatness that love is'. I equate them both. How one can write homosexuality and beastiality in the same sentence is beyond me, as if the soul can be shared with an animal in terms emotional and physical.

Not to nit-pick, but "God incarnated" means "God in physical form," and that would be Jesus Christ.

That said, perhaps homosexuality and bestiality aren't precisely comparable - they do both seem to be inappropriate expressions of the human desire for sexual pleasure, but as you said, it's not "as if the soul can be shared with an animal in terms emotional and physical."

That begs the question: if homosexuality is good - because, as you say, it's an expression of love - why not incest? WHY NOT PEDOPHILIA?

[Anthony]

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
That begs the question: if homosexuality is good - because, as you say, it's an expression of love - why not incest? WHY NOT PEDOPHILIA?

A good question worthy of a good answer, I will attempt one.

Primarily, I never said homosexuality is 'good', I said that homosexuality isn't bad, which is not mutually exclusive. Notice there is a distinction, I am not encouraging everyone to be homosexuals. I am not standing outside with a banner saying 'YES, LET'S ALL BE GAY!' the same way I don't have a microphone to scream out 'HETEROSEXUALITY IS THE WAY!' I think it is both arrogant and wrong to attach morality to someone's sexuality when speaking of matters such as homosexuality and heterosexuality. If a man loves a woman, you don't say that its an immoral love, that it is wrong for him to love her. Yes, it may be wrong if they are both married and they engage in an affair, however, the act of loving someone can not be wrong.

However, you can not say that true love applies to the pedophile; how can you? How can a love that is true cause pain and suffering? How can you compare homosexuality to sexual abuse, rape, physical manipulation and psychological torment? That is NOT love. Therein lies the difference.

An elderly man of forty does not share his soul with a young girl of eight, especially when he lies to her, manipulates her and then sexually abuses her - that is NOT love. Now, you tell me, when does homosexuality involve the suffering of one of the parties? When?

And as for incest, that is a complicated matter worthy of someone who can see it for what it is; I don't think it is morally wrong as long as they do not reproduce, then it involves an innocent third party who can suffer at the hands of their actions and THAT is immoral. Morality and immorality come into the equation when suffering is created, that is all.

As for incest, I never much agreed with it until I read the 'God of Small Things'. You tell me; if a brother and a sister loved each other more than anyone else in the planet, and therefore loved blindly without the ability to define what they feel, a love that went beyond 'sisterhood' and 'brotherhood', why should it be deemed wrong? Such a love is more truthful and more beautiful than the heterosexual marriage that goes wrong at the hand of infidelity, alcoholism and physical abuse. Not to mention the destruction of the human Spirit.

As for Jesus being the holy incarnation, I don't believe he was or is the only one. However, that is a question of faith, and your faith is not the same as mine.

Ant.

[This message has been edited by Anthony (edited 03-03-2002).]

[melon]

Hmm...I really hate replying to your posts, only because, for some reason, all of your message before the last "QUOTE" is truncated. I wish I knew why....cut and paste time!

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
That still doesn't address whether you think God had a hand in the work and why you reached that conclusion.

Yes and no. On one hand, if it weren't for the Old Testament, He would likely have been forgotten. On the other hand, these books singe with so much judgmentalism, hatred, and executions, I don't think God had any hand in any of these parts. What it was, to me, was humanity using the name of God to inspire hatred, not so much different than Osama bin Laden evoking the name of "Allah" to declare war against America. These Jewish rabbis had so much power that they very easily changed the scriptures to suit their will. "Their will" is not God's will.

Secondly, on the issue of Jesus, I believe He was both 100% human and divine, and, due to His humanity, He did not know everything, unlike God the Father, who knows everything. Hence, Jesus knew enough to know which laws to overturn, but was not privileged to the nature of how those books were written in the first place. Besides, assuming that Jesus did know everything, can you imagine that anyone would have believed Him if he had stated that the Old Testament was a lie? Seeing the reactions here tends to seem that would have been disastrous, and He would have been very ill-received.

However, with the New Testament, I believe it to be divinely inspired, but not "divinely written." Imagine, now, if you went to class and heard a lecture from your professor. Then, imagine that this lecture was spread around by word-to-mouth around the entire campus. Would it be fully correct? Then, amplify that by 40 years down the road, whereas this is the first time that this famous lecture was written down. It would likely be accurate in terms of the main points, but missing in the minute details and full of errors and misconceptions, along with details that never even happened.

My question is, if you believe that you can be led by God's spirit, why is it not the case that the writers of the Bible were also led? That they were at LEAST as in tune with the will of God, and perhaps MORE in tune with His will?

And who is to say that I'm not MORE in tune? Just because I was not living 2000 years ago and had my personal writings canonized in the New Testament does not mean that my beliefs are less valid.

I do not believe that God ceased to change things after A.D. 397.

Let's take a more extreme, hypothetical example. Let's say a mad scientist wanted to make as deformed a human as possible. He takes a donated egg and donated sperm, allow them to join, and - before performing in vitro fertilzation - exposes the zygote to massive, NEARLY lethal doses of radiation to mutate its genes. (In fact, genetic testing pre-radiation and post-radiation reveal that the genetic makeup of the zygote has been changed significantly.) The woman miscarriages, or the child is born and quickly passes away; either way, the random mutations went horribly awry.

This is so hypothetical that it doesn't even happen in real life.

Assuming it could happen, the sin would not be on the child that was mutated. He/She was changed without any choice in the matter.

By what you suggest, I take it that you would think that what transpired is the will of God: "I think that we are all perfect upon birth: we are exactly what God intends us to be."

Aside from tales worthy of L. Ron Hubbard's science fiction books, like the one above, I think we are all created under the will of God. As it stands, no one does anything to make their child gay in the womb.

I see only two ways that your belief could fit: either we have no effect on the universe around us (which clearly doesn't seem to be the case), or the mad scientist was merely a tool of God's perfect will (which eliminates free will from the picture).

So, assuming now that you think that fetuses have free will, why don't they fight when some are being aborted?

Mutations are part of nature. A species that does not mutate goes under so much genetic strain that it goes extinct. With every great potential for good, there is equal potential for evil. For example, the same element that gives us life, oxygen, kills us slowly, as our cells oxidize from it. Shall we now cease to breathe, due to this knowledge?

So being born homosexual - whatever that means, either through genetics, development in the womb, or whatever - doesn't necessarily mean that the condition was approved by God.

Oh this argument reeks of latent stoic philosophy. The belief was that all fetuses were inherently male and that, due to the interference of Satan, some fetuses were made female.

Regardless of Satanic influence, females were still able to be saved as females. They didn't have to go through some "cure" to become male.

How funny is that all fetuses are inherently intersexed, but without the presence of a handful of hormones, they will become female by default--hence XY females. Or, if a hormone is missing or a gene is mutated to lack a receptor for that hormone, the process can be rendered incomplete, hence resulting in "intersexed" individuals, who remain both male and female.

I know this idea must boggle your mind, but I think that the intersexed, along with homosexuals, Down's Syndrome individuals, Siamese twins, those afflicted with genetic protein diseases (Nieman-Pick Disease, Huntington's Disease, etc.), and any other condition imaginable, are normal and worthy of God.

Otherwise, if they are the result of some mistake out of the influence of God, then why don't we do genetic tests to find these Satanic spawns and abort them?

I find such a notion to be preposterous. God has created us all in His image and all perfect. If that conflicts with the superficial definition of "perfect" that humanity has, then I'm sorry. You'll have to deal with it.

That said, perhaps homosexuality and bestiality aren't precisely comparable - they do both seem to be inappropriate expressions of the human desire for sexual pleasure, but as you said, it's not "as if the soul can be shared with an animal in terms emotional and physical."

I find the fact that you tried to compare the two to be revolting. But I have heard it from other sources before. It is almost interesting what crap "Christian" ministers indoctrinate into people.

That begs the question: if homosexuality is good - because, as you say, it's an expression of love - why not incest? WHY NOT PEDOPHILIA?

Because, CHILDREN CANNOT CONSENT TO SUCH BEHAVIOR. I'm surprised that this is such a shock to you. Pedophiles rape children. It is certainly reprehensible under every circumstance. Rape under any fashion, whether it be with children, with animals, straight, or gay, is reprehensible. Yes, that is why you cannot compare even bestiality to homosexuality. Last I heard, sheep could not consent to sex, nor enter into any legal contract. The same is with children.

And, in fact, I'm surprised you even mention "incest." Consensual "incest" amongst first cousins is quite legal in many states, and is legal in some Christian faiths. In fact, that's the small town joke about how they all marry their cousins. However, incest, under normal circumstances, is wrong due to lack of consent! If a father has sex with his daughter, I can honestly say 10/10 that the daughter will not like it, not to mention that it is adultery, which is hurtful to the spouse.

Alas, I'm starting to see that this argument is starting to go in circles, with very little new material.

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

[This message has been edited by melon (edited 03-03-2002).]

[80sU2isBest]

I only have one thing to say in this thread. It's addressing melon, when he asks "why don't fetuses try to fight when tehy're being aborted?"

The answer is that after a certain age, fetuses do indeed try to move away from the instrument of abortion. I've seen it on video. They also try to emit a scream, and this is commonly known as "the silent scream".

[Achtung Bubba]

Ant:

Thanks for your reply - even though I disagree with much of what you say, it was quite well thought out, worthy of being part the discussion melon and I have been advancing.

If a man loves a woman, you don't say that its an immoral love, that it is wrong for him to love her. Yes, it may be wrong if they are both married and they engage in an affair, however, the act of loving someone can not be wrong.

Honestly, I think one of the weaknesses of the English language is its many uses of the word "love."

We can "love" others by showing a concern for their needs that is at least as great as our own concer: feeding them when they're hungry, clothing them when they're cold, etc. Historically, this form of love is called "charity."

We can "love" others as close friends, brothers and sisters in every way but geneology. For lack of a better word, let's call that "filia", or "brotherly love."

And, we can "love" others in a sexual way, feeling a desire, an erotic attraction, towards another. Again, for lack of a better word, let's call that "eros", or erotic love.

Now, being charitable to all is not only morally permissable, it's Biblically demanded.

Exhibiting filia, brotherly love, towards friends is certainly morally permissable.

(And let me state the obvious: brotherly love is not necessarily sexual, and in many cases it's not sexual at all. A close same-sex friendship, like the one I have with my old roommate, isn't a homosexual relationship - just as my close friendships with girls throughout the years haven't been heterosexual. The "-sexual" label simply doesn't have to apply.)

Finally, eros is, I believe, restricted by the will of God; that he intentionally created the two sexes so that a man and a woman would join together in a permanent bond of love, intellect, emotion, spirituality, and sexuality. Every other expression of eros seems to be out of bounds.

(And, as I've said before, feeling these desires is not a sin; embracing immoral desires is.)

However, you can not say that true love applies to the pedophile; how can you? How can a love that is true cause pain and suffering? How can you compare homosexuality to sexual abuse, rape, physical manipulation and psychological torment? That is NOT love. Therein lies the difference.

An elderly man of forty does not share his soul with a young girl of eight, especially when he lies to her, manipulates her and then sexually abuses her - that is NOT love. Now, you tell me, when does homosexuality involve the suffering of one of the parties? When?

And as for incest, that is a complicated matter worthy of someone who can see it for what it is; I don't think it is morally wrong as long as they do not reproduce, then it involves an innocent third party who can suffer at the hands of their actions and THAT is immoral. Morality and immorality come into the equation when suffering is created, that is all.

As for incest, I never much agreed with it until I read the 'God of Small Things'. You tell me; if a brother and a sister loved each other more than anyone else in the planet, and therefore loved blindly without the ability to define what they feel, a love that went beyond 'sisterhood' and 'brotherhood', why should it be deemed wrong? Such a love is more truthful and more beautiful than the heterosexual marriage that goes wrong at the hand of infidelity, alcoholism and physical abuse. Not to mention the destruction of the human Spirit.

To play the Devil's Advocate, I'm not at all sure every pedophilial relationship involves manipulation on the elder (remembering that it's not always a older man that preys on a young girl). As the younger party gets closer to adolesense, it may be possible that the younger party becomes closer to understanding the nature of the relationship (and feeling reciprocal sexual desires). Just to say that the vast majority of cases of pedophilia are abusive and manipulative, it doesn't mean that there couldn't a rare exception where the two people share in a beautiful relationship.

To further play the Devil's Advocate, if suffering prevents incestual relationships from bearing offspring, wouldn't reproduction through "normal" relationships also be morally impermissible. After all, every human being suffers, and bringing a child into the world (under any circumstances) causes suffering. Further, aren't you denying the incestuous relationship the ultimate end of procreation?

Ultimately, I don't believe suffering is a proper yardstick to judge whether an action is moral. Some actions that cause suffering (punishing your child for doing wrong) may in fact be the RIGHT thing to do, as such suffering would improve the person. And some actions that end suffering or prevent potential suffering (an excuse that could be used to abort a child with indentifiable birth defects) could be very, VERY WRONG.

Finally, on the question of the "incarnation", your beliefs notwithstanding, "God incarnate" refers to God in a physical form. To say that "love is God incarnated" is like saying "I literally died on stage on last night."

(If you LITERALLY died, then we've just seen a miracle.)

It was a nit-pick on grammar, not belief.

[Achtung Bubba]

Originally posted by melon:
Yes and no. On one hand, if it weren't for the Old Testament, He would likely have been forgotten. On the other hand, these books singe with so much judgmentalism, hatred, and executions, I don't think God had any hand in any of these parts. What it was, to me, was humanity using the name of God to inspire hatred, not so much different than Osama bin Laden evoking the name of "Allah" to declare war against America. These Jewish rabbis had so much power that they very easily changed the scriptures to suit their will. "Their will" is not God's will.

I've heard the revisionist theory on the Old Testament, and one glaring thing stands out: it seems far too damning to be propaganda. If Israel's leadership crafted the books to fit their own wills, they probably would have followed in the pattern of the rest of the world, skewing the past to their favor.

Instead, their greatest leaders are murderers (Moses, David); their people CONSTANTLY rebel, including at the foot of God's mountain in Exodus; and the nation is being regularly punished for its transgressions. It's not putting the Jewish historical figures, the Jewish people, and the Jewish leadership ITSELF in a good light.

Further, in order to reject the judgmentalism and hatred of the Old Testament, you have to further reject the specific instances where Christ is judgmental:

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven" Matthew 7:21

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." - Matthew 10:24

"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and F15 Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city." - Mark 6:11

"John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable." Luke 3:16-17

"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

"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not." - John 8:44-45.

(Note that I found fairly judgmental, angry verses in all four Gospels, not just mean old Matthew.)

THEN, you'd have to throw out Revelation, since it has God ultimately judging all of mankind.

Secondly, on the issue of Jesus, I believe He was both 100% human and divine, and, due to His humanity, He did not know everything, unlike God the Father, who knows everything. Hence, Jesus knew enough to know which laws to overturn, but was not privileged to the nature of how those books were written in the first place. Besides, assuming that Jesus did know everything, can you imagine that anyone would have believed Him if he had stated that the Old Testament was a lie? Seeing the reactions here tends to seem that would have been disastrous, and He would have been very ill-received.

On the idea that Christ either didn't know about the falsehood of the Old Testament - or that he knew and didn't say anything:

"And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes." - Matthew 7:28-29

"And they went into Capernaum; and straightway on the sabbath day he entered into the synagogue, and taught. And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes." - Mark 1:21-22

He spoke as if He KNEW what He was talking about, and yet He confirmed the validity of the Old Testament by quoting it ALL THE TIME.

With the "He didn't know" theory, you're basically asserting that you know more about the nature of the Bible than Jesus Christ Himself. With the "He knew and withheld" theory, the implication is that he basically lied about the validity of Scripture. Obviously, I reject both theories.

However, with the New Testament, I believe it to be divinely inspired, but not "divinely written." Imagine, now, if you went to class and heard a lecture from your professor. Then, imagine that this lecture was spread around by word-to-mouth around the entire campus. Would it be fully correct? Then, amplify that by 40 years down the road, whereas this is the first time that this famous lecture was written down. It would likely be accurate in terms of the main points, but missing in the minute details and full of errors and misconceptions, along with details that never even happened.

You miss my meaning.

Let's take your example and say, forty years after the original lecture, you're attempting to summarize it, and the ORIGINAL professor (a man with a photographic memory or an audio/video tape of his lecture) comes by and helps you out. THAT what's I mean by divine inspiration - not that the author was inspired by thinking about God, not that God wrote the work in that the scrolls magically appeared, but that the author was actually assisted in the writing.

I believe it possible that the writers of the Gospels (whoever the writers may be) may have been guided by the Holy Spirit in what to write. What's so impossible about that theory?

This is so hypothetical that it doesn't even happen in real life.

Assuming it could happen, the sin would not be on the child that was mutated. He/She was changed without any choice in the matter.

I believe I've been misunderstood.

(Amusing: the first example was too realistic, thus it wasn't clear that the mother caused the birth defect. This example's too hypothetical, thus it somehow doesn't apply to reality. Though, it seems gene therapy will soon make it very possible a mother could have altered the genes of her unborn child.)

On the idea that "the sin would not be on the child that was mutated," I didn't suggest that the mutation is a sin, per se.

Yes, I've defined a sin as an action outside of the will of God, but it seems to me that action has to be deliberate - and thus what happened to an unborn child (and what a child does in the first few years of life) wouldn't fall under sin.

I'm suggesting that, while God does influence the universe in many subtle ways, He CANNOT force the universe to His will and keep humanity's free will intact. That idea DOES allow for birth defects that aren't his specific will, and it would further allow for human tendancies (the tendancy to alcoholism, homosexuality, and even the urge to procreate with as many humans as possible) to be outside His will.

The alternative reduces the state of man to "I have this desire, the desire must be okay because God made me this way, thus I'm allowed to indulge this desire." That's not morality; that's hedonism.

Aside from tales worthy of L. Ron Hubbard's science fiction books, like the one above, I think we are all created under the will of God. As it stands, no one does anything to make their child gay in the womb.

Certainly, no one does anything to make their child gay in the womb. BUT, the ability to alter a child in the womb implies that children in the womb aren't ENTIRELY within the will of God, regardless of how people become homosexual.

Oh this argument reeks of latent stoic philosophy. The belief was that all fetuses were inherently male and that, due to the interference of Satan, some fetuses were made female.

Regardless of Satanic influence, females were still able to be saved as females. They didn't have to go through some "cure" to become male.

How funny is that all fetuses are inherently intersexed, but without the presence of a handful of hormones, they will become female by default--hence XY females. Or, if a hormone is missing or a gene is mutated to lack a receptor for that hormone, the process can be rendered incomplete, hence resulting in "intersexed" individuals, who remain both male and female.

I know this idea must boggle your mind, but I think that the intersexed, along with homosexuals, Down's Syndrome individuals, Siamese twins, those afflicted with genetic protein diseases (Nieman-Pick Disease, Huntington's Disease, etc.), and any other condition imaginable, are normal and worthy of God.

Otherwise, if they are the result of some mistake out of the influence of God, then why don't we do genetic tests to find these Satanic spawns and abort them?

I find such a notion to be preposterous. God has created us all in His image and all perfect. If that conflicts with the superficial definition of "perfect" that humanity has, then I'm sorry. You'll have to deal with it.

...and your arguments remind me of the idiotic philosopher in Candide who thought that we're in the best of all possible states.

I'm NOT suggesting that humans are born with Satanic genes or some such silliness. ALL I'm suggesting is that we're not born perfect. We are born INNOCENT, in that we have all yet to commit sin, but none of us are born PERFECT.

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.

THAT is the crux of my argument, something I haven't seen you seriously address.

I believe I have addressed pedophilia and incest in my post above - it only remains for me to emphasize that everything I can think of that defends homosexuality (short of my defense of heterosexuality; i.e., it's the will of God) can also be used to defend exceptional cases of pedophilia and incest.

To play Devil's Advocate once again, you say, "If a father has sex with his daughter, I can honestly say 10/10 that the daughter will not like it, not to mention that it is adultery, which is hurtful to the spouse." What if the daughter is a consenting adult and the father a widow? Hmmm?

It does indeed seem we're going around in circles. But it also seems that you're avoiding or misunderstanding the central points of my arguments - which is what's compelling me to repeat myself.

[melon]

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:
I only have one thing to say in this thread. It's addressing melon, when he asks "why don't fetuses try to fight when tehy're being aborted?"

The answer is that after a certain age, fetuses do indeed try to move away from the instrument of abortion. I've seen it on video. They also try to emit a scream, and this is commonly known as "the silent scream".

Well, this was more of a tongue-in-cheek response. Fetuses do react, I will agree with that, because I've seen similar video before. However, they cannot stop the abortion. That was my main point of argument, which was on the basis of "free will." "Free will" does have its points, but there is an obvious limit as to what we can control around us. A person's sexual orientation is not one of those things.

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

[Achtung Bubba]

Originally posted by melon:
Well, this was more of a tongue-in-cheek response. Fetuses do react, I will agree with that, because I've seen similar video before. However, they cannot stop the abortion. That was my main point of argument, which was on the basis of "free will." "Free will" does have its points, but there is an obvious limit as to what we can control around us. A person's sexual orientation is not one of those things.

Melon

I've been searching in my mind for an example more clear-cut than the pregnant woman drinking her way to birth defects in her child, and more realistic than the hypothetical mad scientist, and I *believe* I have it.

What I'm trying to do is disprove the suggestion that all humans are born precisely as God intended. Or, as Melon put it:

"I think that we are all perfect upon birth: we are exactly what God intends us to be."

"God has created us all in His image and all perfect. If that conflicts with the superficial definition of 'perfect' that humanity has, then I'm sorry. You'll have to deal with it."

If we are all born the way God intended us, then the fetuses that didn't make it to birth were also part of God's perfect plan: they didn't survive to their birth because THAT was in God's plan.

Well, then.

WHAT ABOUT ABORTIONS?

CONSERVATIVE estimates suggest that over twenty million unborn children have died due to legal U.S. abortions (that is, those after Roe v. Wade).

Regardless of whether you think the fetus is human, regardless of whether you think abortion is murder or a Constitutionally protected right, can you HONESTLY suggest that THAT was part of God's perfect plan?

Honestly, you can suggest that, but then SURELY there are only two logical conclusions: either the human actions had nothing to do with the death of the fetus, that God just happened to make the fetus die at the same time the doctor did his work. OR the doctors committing the abortions and the women choosing to have them are mere automatons doing PRECISELY what God wanted them to do.

THAT's the loss of free will I'm talking about; either human actions are irrelevant (God would have caused a miscarriage anyway) or they don't REALLY have any real choice in the matter.

[melon]

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
I've heard the revisionist theory on the Old Testament, and one glaring thing stands out: it seems far too damning to be propaganda. If Israel's leadership crafted the books to fit their own wills, they probably would have followed in the pattern of the rest of the world, skewing the past to their favor.

Are you sure? A nation under a constant state of siege is easier to control. 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?

Then, in fact, with such a state of siege, you will always have "heroes" to liberate the people, and, if you notice, the "Mosaic Law" (supposedly created by Moses, one of those "heroes") is full of control measures. If people tried to create a movement to overthrow these laws, the elders would have called it "blasphemy." Likewise, in America, if you criticize the war policies of Bush, you are a "terrorist sympathizer."

Kindness and peace, thus, are not often most advantageous for those in power. Machiavelli's "The Prince" would be a good read for you.

Further, in order to reject the judgmentalism and hatred of the Old Testament, you have to further reject the specific instances where Christ is judgmental:

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven" Matthew 7:21

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." - Matthew 10:24

Well, I see that you've quoted Matthew again. The first quote is a parable on faith and good works. Obviously, the moral is that faith without good works is dead. This was in sharp contrast to the Pharisees, who believed themselves to be saved just as who they are. Funny how many "Christians" act just like Pharisees now. I see no problem with this passage.

The second passage is seen as one of the instances in which the author likely inserted his own commentary, rather than the actual words of Jesus Himself. What is wholly apparent is that it is full of Jewish Christian bias:

"Do not go into pagan territory or enter a Samaritan town. Go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." -- Matthew 10:5-6

Despite the very bombastic language of Matthew 10, the point is that the Lord should be the most important part of your life. Not possessions. Not family. However, this chapter is so fully un-Jesus like that I question its authenticity.

"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city." - Mark 6:11

Well, I spot another, what I like to call, "KJV hyperbole"--basically, a passage that is amplified beyond its original translation to be more severe than intended. This is Mark 6:10-11 in my Bible:

"He said to them, 'Wherever you enter a house, stay there until you leave from there. Whatever place does not welcome you or listen to you, leave there and shake the dust off your feet in testimony against them.'" -- Mark 6:10-11

The "hyperboles" originated from King James' own translators, who had their own biases in translation, and were found guilty of this and some were executed. Unfortunately, at the same time, these "hyperboles" were never removed. I never trust a Protestant Bible for this reason (amongst others).

This was likely exaggerated over Matthew 10:14-15, which is similar:

"Whoever will not receive you or listen to your words--go outside that house or town and shake the dust from your feet. Amen, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town." -- Matthew 10:14-15

And I'm glad you brought this passage up. This is the only time Jesus brings up Sodom and Gomorrah, and it is done in the context of hospitality violations, not sexual acts.

"John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable." Luke 3:16-17

Ah...how I love Catholic Bibles. Here is the official footnote on this passage:

"He will baptize you with the holy Spirit and fire: in contrast to John's baptism with water, Jesus is said to baptize with the holy Spirit and with fire. From the point of view of the early Christian community, the Spirit and fire must have been understood in the light of the fire symbolism of the pouring out of the Spirit at Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4); but as part of John's preaching, the Spirit and fire should be related to their purifying and refining characteristics (Ezekiel 36:25-27; Malachi 3:2-3). See the note on Matthew 3:11."

This is not meant to be a scary passage, but one of purity. As water can purify, so can fire, as, to purify precious metals like gold, you have to use fire. I have no problem with this passage.

"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

Remember your recipe analogy? Taking this passage literally is analogous to throwing in the eggshells. Footnote in Catholic Bible:

"Hating his father . . . : cf the similar saying in Matthew 10:37. The disciple's family must take second place to the absolute dedication involved in following Jesus (see also Luke 9:59-62)."

"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not." - John 8:44-45.

A passage taken greatly out of context. If you notice, though, the Pharisees are challenging Jesus on the fact that He contradicts the Bible.

"They [the Pharisees] said to him, 'Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in the law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?'" -- John 8:4-5

Jesus makes the famous "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone" line that many Christians seem to ignore.

Jesus then gets angry at the Pharisees, who, despite the fact that He has told them repeatedly the opposite, continue to ignore Him in favor of what is literally written in the Bible. I don't blame Jesus at all...remember my little outburst in this thread for the same reason?

THEN, you'd have to throw out Revelation, since it has God ultimately judging all of mankind.

Revelation was greatly disputed as being part of the New Testament canon, and wasn't latched on until near the end of the canon councils.

Regardless, I think it is a book of symbolism during a time of Christian persecution, where literal texts would have been seized and destroyed. The original audience knew the symbolism. We do not.

And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes." - Matthew 7:28-29

"And they went into Capernaum; and straightway on the sabbath day he entered into the synagogue, and taught. And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes." - Mark 1:21-22

I love how you quote cross passages from gospels. You are showing much of the evidence as to why Matthew is not an original gospel in many aspects, but copied text directly from Mark, the oldest gospel.

Regardless, these texts do not even support your argument. In these passages, Jesus casts aside the Old Testament and makes His own teachings. So, essentially, He knew it to be false. "[He] had authority, and not...the scribes [Old Testament writers]." That is what it means. Hence, Jesus did know, and cast it aside.

Let's take your example and say, forty years after the original lecture, you're attempting to summarize it, and the ORIGINAL professor (a man with a photographic memory or an audio/video tape of his lecture) comes by and helps you out. THAT what's I mean by divine inspiration - not that the author was inspired by thinking about God, not that God wrote the work in that the scrolls magically appeared, but that the author was actually assisted in the writing.

How silly, particularly since writing analysis links Matthew and Luke to have taken much directly from Mark, but makes their own details surrounding the tales. I'm sorry...you may think of it as divinely inspired in that fashion, but I think you are wrong. Each gospel was written to evangelize to a particular audience that appeals to their sensibilities and biases, nothing more and nothing less.

I'm suggesting that, while God does influence the universe in many subtle ways, He CANNOT force the universe to His will and keep humanity's free will intact. That idea DOES allow for birth defects that aren't his specific will, and it would further allow for human tendancies (the tendancy to alcoholism, homosexuality, and even the urge to procreate with as many humans as possible) to be outside His will.

So you are now limiting God? How faithful of you.

I think that difference is within God's plan. What a dreadfully boring world it would be without homosexuals, nor black people, Asians, women, etc. Some American Indian tribes once taught, in not so many words, that the presence of homosexuals were here from the gods to teach heterosexuals a lesson, and were, thus, divine.

Just because Christianity has cast them aside as "useless" doesn't mean that they are useless to everyone else. I bet over half of your clothes were designed by homosexuals, for instance. You would dread a world without homosexuals, because, for some reason or another, they fill a void in the world that would otherwise be unfilled. LOVE is a basic human element. An unloved child will be more likely to die young.

The alternative reduces the state of man to "I have this desire, the desire must be okay because God made me this way, thus I'm allowed to indulge this desire." That's not morality; that's hedonism.

And I love how you think that homosexuals are automatically "hedonistic," as if they are incapable of having a monogamous relationship, but, I guess, hedonism is in the eye of the beholder. The Catholic Church thinks that any sex unopen to procreation is "hedonistic." If you ever use birth control someday, including condoms, you'll join the ranks of the hedonistic yourself.

...and your arguments remind me of the idiotic philosopher in Candide who thought that we're in the best of all possible states.

You know, suffering serves a purpose. It reminds me of "The Matrix," where they stated that the original Matrix was paradise, where everyone's desires and dreams were fulfilled, but people kept on waking up from it.

The world God created is perfect, and I still believe it. The design of Earth and all the universe, along with the intricacies of humanity, are all perfect. If it weren't for "mutations," Earth would still be reduced to nothing but single-cell bacteria.

I'm NOT suggesting that humans are born with Satanic genes or some such silliness. ALL I'm suggesting is that we're not born perfect. We are born INNOCENT, in that we have all yet to commit sin, but none of us are born PERFECT.

I believe that the design of life is perfect.

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 see you have still missed my point:

Let's take someone who is left-handed. Aside from that left-handedness, they are otherwise perfect. However, it was believed that left-handed people were deviant, and most schools tried to force them to write with their right hand.

Eventually, we abandoned such foolishness. If right-handedness is "perfection" and left-handedness is "imperfection," we don't expect the left-handed to be something that they are not. We certainly don't force them to stop writing completely, because they cannot conform to the right-handed. However, those who are right-handed who try to write with their left are punished, because they are going against their own nature.

Homosexuals are like the "left-handed." They are no more different than any heterosexual, aside from whom they love. In the most ideal of stoic fantasies, no one would ever love. No one would ever have sex. We'd all bury ourselves in constant prayer, suffering and waiting for death to free us from that punishment we call "life." However, that is, to me, wasting the talents that God gave us.

Regardless, I think that these pronouncements against homosexuality are just as ludicrous as any of the Mosaic Law.

"So the Pharisees and scribes questioned him, 'Why do your disciples not follow the tradition of the elders, but instead eat a meal with unclean hands?' He responded, 'Well did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written: 'This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines human precepts.' You disregard God's commandment but cling to human tradition.' He went on to say, 'How well you have set aside the commandment of God in order to uphold your tradition!'" -- Mark 7:5-9

As I think you will simply not get my point from this passage, let me rewrite it to accent my point:

"So Bubba questioned melon, 'Why do you not follow the tradition of the Bible, but instead support homosexuals?' He responded, 'Well did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written: 'This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines human precepts.' You disregard God's commandment but cling to human tradition.' He went on to say, 'How well you have set aside the commandment of God in order to uphold your tradition!'"

The crux of my argument is that, by obsessing over this issue, it detracts from faith. Many homosexuals, in fact, have found a greater relationship and faith in God through having a committed relationship with someone of the same sex. The misery and emptiness of being alone brought on only resentment and hatred of God.

You sit on your ivory tower making Draconian pronouncements on others who are not you, but, if you were on the other side of the fence as gay and had to deal with this ultimatum: "Love women or spend the rest of your life alone," I have a feeling you would be questioning the validity of this pronouncement on whether it was essential for practicing faith in God or not.

You quote Bible passages, but most you have quoted are dreadfully out of context. Jesus' points on marriage are liberating messages. While Judaism cast on the yoke of marriage as a requirement for being a true believer, He upheld the sanctity that could be found in single life. But leave Christianity to cast on another yoke of celibacy, completely missing the point: remove obstacles to your faith. If money is preventing you from loving God, give away all your money. If marriage is preventing you from loving God, don't get married. Thus, if celibacy is preventing you from loving God, find love. I could become celibate, but, after the embitterness and ensuing agnosticism I endured believing that was what I had to be, I had to cast off the yoke of this legalistic remark.

If religion, tomorrow, took away the woman you loved and told you that you could never love again, what would you do? I doubt that your faith would be stronger. Some men, indeed, find greater faith in celibacy, but not all men will find the same solace in it.

THAT is the crux of my argument, something I haven't seen you seriously address.

Well, enjoy the above.

I believe I have addressed pedophilia and incest in my post above - it only remains for me to emphasize that everything I can think of that defends homosexuality (short of my defense of heterosexuality; i.e., it's the will of God) can also be used to defend exceptional cases of pedophilia and incest.

Then you have fully missed the point.

To play Devil's Advocate once again, you say, "If a father has sex with his daughter, I can honestly say 10/10 that the daughter will not like it, not to mention that it is adultery, which is hurtful to the spouse." What if the daughter is a consenting adult and the father a widow? Hmmm?

And what if the sky is purple and it rains chocolate syrup? Hmmm? Only God knows the status of their hearts, regardless. Besides your example is not comparable. I don't know of any person who just is attracted to just one person. Condemnation of homosexuals effectively eliminates all potential sources of love, regardless of legal age or family status.

It does indeed seem we're going around in circles. But it also seems that you're avoiding or misunderstanding the central points of my arguments - which is what's compelling me to repeat myself.

Likewise, you're misunderstanding mine. I, simply, disagree with the central points of your arguments.

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]

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
Well, then. WHAT ABOUT ABORTIONS?

I think that they are wrong and murder, because I believe in the sanctity and importance of all life, perfect or imperfect, right or left-handed, straight or gay. But, of course, under the conservative model, the unborn are to be defended, but, once born, people are evil.

Regardless of whether you think the fetus is human, regardless of whether you think abortion is murder or a Constitutionally protected right, can you HONESTLY suggest that THAT was part of God's perfect plan?

You miss my point. You can choose to have sex to create a child, but you have no hand in deciding what that child will be. I cannot have a child and decide mentally that it will look exactly like Tom Cruise. You get what you are intended to get from God, whether that child is blonde-haired, blue-eyed future model that everyone will drool over or a grotesque "Whortense" that is one of two Siamese Twins that everyone gawks at and pities. Now, tell me, which one is more worthy of love and God?

Under your model, it is as if the parents cause their children to be perfect or as Siamese Twins, when, in fact, they have no choice over the matter.

Unfortunately, as usual, my point is missed completely under a flood of side rhetoric.

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