Homestar Runner Wiki Forum :: View topic

Well, Kef, I don't really acknowledge any such burden of proof. When you get right down to it, God is the judge, and we are (or will be) in his court. You and I don't get to determine the rules of litigation in that court. Only the Lawgiver gets to make that determination.

However, I do not think that my interpretation of that law is incorrect.

I have looked at those passages in their original languages. I've even cited scholarly works on the lexicography of the terms in the original languages (particularly Bauer-Danker Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian LIterature and Brown Driver Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon). If I understand your argument, you are basically claiming that language is in no way a reliable means of communicating ideas.

So, Kef, my response is essentially this: (1) God is the one who determines what is right and wrong, and (2) he has actually said that homosexuality is wrong. Now you have a choice of strategies: (1) prove that God does not have that right, or (2) prove that what he said, he didn't mean (read President Clinton, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"). There are, of course, other options, but most of those are covered on other threads.

Of course God has the right to determine right and wrong... if he exists. If I don't believe he exists, then I believe I shouldn't be governed by his law. I believe I should be governed by law, certainly, but not laws that don't apply to me.

Of course God has the right to determine right and wrong... if he exists. If he doesn't exist, then I believe I shouldn't be governed by his law. I believe I should be governed by law, certainly, but not laws that don't apply to me.

evin290: if I follow your love argument to its ultimate conclusion, then adultery is also okay. It doesn't matter what is good, right, or beneficial, only that I get what I want. And yes, I have felt the kind of love you describe. It turned out to be the worst relationship I ever had in my life. Now, I'm not a cynic about love, but I can testify from personal experience that wanting to be with someone, no matter how badly, does not make the relationship right or good. But now you are touching on some very painful memories, and I do not wish to elaborate on them anymore. But there is one more thing: divine love is indeed the highest sort of love. In fact, all human intimacy, even in its deepest forms, is but a mere shadow of the kind of love God has in store for us. So if the Bible tells me that a certain woman is not right for me, then I have an obligation to myself to pay attention. The key question is whether I trust my Father to provide what is best for me.

No, but they do choose to act on their sexual impulses, and that in itself is what makes it a moral question. I am a heterosexual, and I have a choice: I could run around and try to have sex with every girl I meet, or I could live a devout and chaste life. Considering my particular vocation, you might be able to guess which one I've chosen.

I contend that there is at least this similarity: they are both human dysfunctions. I will take the "victimless crime" part under consideration, but for the time I remain unconvinced that homosexuality is anything but a human dysfunction.

Even if they were, I'll take it a step further and claim that promiscuity itself is not always morally wrong. As long as they're not harming anyone.

I suppose all disabled people are going to Hell, then...?

If God gives us something that we believe in with an enormous amount of conviction, but it goes agaisnt the bible, then what?

I do think that people in general should act the way the please (to a certain extent) and love who they love as long as they haven't been comitted to someone else.

I don't think he'd create people that are homosexual just so that they can live an life that's unapproved of by "normal" people.

I can't speak for God

What would you do if there was some kind of proof that the bible was fake and didn't illustrate the word of God?

Upsilon wrote:

Even if they were, I'll take it a step further and claim that promiscuity itself is not always morally wrong. As long as they're not harming anyone.

Yes it is. Just because our modern hedonistic instant gratification culture doesn't seem to have a problem with it does not make it any less immoral. Just ask any woman whose husband has cheated on her.

Quote:

I do think that people in general should act the way the please (to a certain extent) and love who they love as long as they haven't been comitted to someone else.

But God expects people to live in ways that please him. That's been my point all along.

I don't think he'd create people that are homosexual just so that they can live an life that's unapproved of by "normal" people.

When you get into the mindset where there's a 100% chance you're right and cannot possibly be wrong, I think that's dangerous. I'm not criticizing your devotion to your God or the principles you believe he laid out. But when you fail, indeed refuse, to acknowledge other possibilities completely, I find that scary.

And the only reason I can really see for having a conviction that strong about it is that it's what you believed in the first place, and what you see written there only serves to reinforce it.

And of course we could argue that God did create people to be homosexuals because they are apparently born that way, all over again... again I'll observe that homosexuality (in a broad sense), has been observed in animals, so it's not like a brain can't be hard-wired to be that way.

It's okay I guess, as long as you don't mind going to-....yeahh. :rolleyes:

Quote:

Well, Kef, there are lots of people on this forum who are not willing to acknowledge that they could be wrong. That's the whole point of debate really is to convince people that you are right. The fact that you even counter me demonstrates that you think you are right. But here's the question for you and everyone else: what if you are wrong? Are you willing to factor that possibility into your thinking?

Quote:

And the only reason I can really see for having a conviction that strong about it is that it's what you believed in the first place, and what you see written there only serves to reinforce it.

If you honestly believe that, Kef, then you do not know me at all. You do not know the struggles of faith I have endured for the past year, part of which came from working with two gay chaplains at my last assignment. I think they have a much better understanding because they actually got to know me.

But here's why I maintain what I understand the Scriptures to say: if I follow your argument to its conclusion, then the Bible makes no more sense than "Gorbachev sings tractors, turnip buttocks." It's basically Bill Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" all over again. The essense of the argument is that language itself is not a reliable means to communicate ideas. Interestingly enough, you and I have been using words to communicate these ideas in this thread.

Quote:

But then you are also open to saying that Hitler was created by God to be a megamaniacal tyrant destined to kill millions of people. We Christians believe in this thing called "sin", which, to use an analogy, is gunk that's clogging up the way the world is supposed to work. God did not create people to be murderers or thieves or homocidal maniacs or adulterers.

I would also argue that he did not create people to be ADHD or have MS or Diabetes or any of that stuff either. The plain and simple truth is that the world does not work the way is was supposed to. God created the world, and men broke it. According to Scripture (specifically Romans 1), homosexuality is just one more part of that broken, messed up world that God did not intend to be there.

Even if animals exibit homosexual tendencies, keep in mind they also eat their young, attack other animals, etc. Just because animals exhibit certain behaviors does not mean that human beings should emulate their behavior.

Sure. I've readily acknowledged the possibility that I'm wrong more than once. But what good does it do me? Am I supposed to follow the principle of Pascal's Wager? I believe it was Douglas Adams who remarked that if God were willing to accept the reasoning behind Pascal's Wager, he wouldn't want to believe in him anyway.

I don't really see reason to believe a brain would be hard-wired to commit particular sins like stealing, murder, or whatnot. But I have reason to believe a brain may be hard-wired to be attracted to members of the same sex. Maybe not well-founded reason, but reason nonetheless.

I'm always confused as to how a perfect god would create world where things are not the way he intended, if he were omnipotent and omniscient. Even the power of free will does not cause things like ADHD or diabetes. I'm sure this has been discussed before, so go ahead and point me to the thread.

There's very little in the Bible when I studied it where God make up some rule and when you question it, the only logical answer is "Because I said so!" Yet, that's the case here. Why? Why's he say so?

If you’re less familiar with all the intricacies of gambling, then, well of course it doesn’t make as much sense.

evin wrote:

If God gives us something that we believe in with an enormous amount of conviction, but it goes agaisnt the bible, then what?

Your argumentation is faulty. God would not give me anything that contradicts his word or my faith in him. Nice try, but worst prize.

Quote:

I do think that people in general should act the way the please (to a certain extent) and love who they love as long as they haven't been comitted to someone else.

But God expects people to live in ways that please him. That's been my point all along.

Quote:

I don't think he'd create people that are homosexual just so that they can live an life that's unapproved of by "normal" people.

He did not create men or women to be homosexual. Otherwise, he would not have forbidden it.

Quote:

I can't speak for God

That's why he sent prophets and apostles to speak for him. Men like Moses and St. Paul. For that reason, I trust their words.

Quote:

What would you do if there was some kind of proof that the bible was fake and didn't illustrate the word of God?

Such proof has not materialized within the past 1940 years or so, and I do not expect to materialize anytime soon. As for why I'm convince the Bible is correct, well, I'll refer you to some of the other threads in this section that better cover that topic. Buz has done a fine job of addressing those concerns.

The simple fact is, because of the sin of the human ancestors (which we Christians contend was an act of free will), we human beings no longer live in the Garden. We live in the world of thorns of briars, where we must live by the sweat of our brow. Our parents were evicted from Paradise, and so we must wander the Samsara.

So, you see, even though I contest that homosexuality is wrong, I also believe it is not unforgivable.

I am against same-sex marriages but i am for Civil Unions. but anyways what people want to do is up to them it is none of mine or for that fact anybody's business.

Let me take your suggestion one further; remove ALL legalities from marriage. Marriage will no longer be a legally binding contract, all that stuff will be in the form of a civil union. Marriage will be completely up to the church/synagogue/mosque/whatever. All the ceremonial aspects will be conducted by the clergy, and if they so choose to wed two members of the same sex, so be it. Civil unions will be available to all, but will be obtained like it's a fishing license. If a couple wants their union to be "special", they can get married. Simple as that.

But you've said that God controls all (including the way people think.) Therefore, my question was "Why would God give ANYBODY thoughts that contradict his own?"

But my point is that because he "controls" the way people live, why would he control them to disobey?

But why would modern day prophets be treated like crap? If someone NOW says they've talked to God, they're put into the crazy bin. Why aren't Moses and St. Paul also considered crazy according to modern-day logic?

That's another part of the whole thing that makes me a little bit sketchy about the bible. Why the heck should we suffer for our parents sins?

That's the exact reasoning for slavery! "You're parents are black and were slaves, so now you are too!" I certainly don't believe that God would use that sort of logic.

Anyway, Didymus, I still don't agree with you that homosexuality is immoral, but I'm glad you've taken into consideration that homosexuals have feelings to instead of taking the "THERE ALL GOIN 2 HELL!!!!!11!!" approach.

furrykef wrote:

Discount Brick wrote:
It's okay I guess, as long as you don't mind going to-....yeahh.

Groan. Just another mindless post in this thread. Please make a relevant point if you're going to post here.

WTF!Just because you don't share the same beliefs doesn't mean my posts are pointless, what I was saying is that I'm strongly againest gay marriges!

I'm saying that the more oeople who are gay, the more people that go to hell

The bible is storngly againest gay relationships, so, so am I!

Author:	Didymus [ Fri Feb 18, 2005 4:32 am ]
Post subject:
Well, Kef, I don't really acknowledge any such burden of proof. When you get right down to it, God is the judge, and we are (or will be) in his court. You and I don't get to determine the rules of litigation in that court. Only the Lawgiver gets to make that determination. However, I do not think that my interpretation of that law is incorrect. I have looked at those passages in their original languages. I've even cited scholarly works on the lexicography of the terms in the original languages (particularly Bauer-Danker Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian LIterature and Brown Driver Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon). If I understand your argument, you are basically claiming that language is in no way a reliable means of communicating ideas. So, Kef, my response is essentially this: (1) God is the one who determines what is right and wrong, and (2) he has actually said that homosexuality is wrong. Now you have a choice of strategies: (1) prove that God does not have that right, or (2) prove that what he said, he didn't mean (read President Clinton, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"). There are, of course, other options, but most of those are covered on other threads. evin290: if I follow your love argument to its ultimate conclusion, then adultery is also okay. It doesn't matter what is good, right, or beneficial, only that I get what I want. And yes, I have felt the kind of love you describe. It turned out to be the worst relationship I ever had in my life. Now, I'm not a cynic about love, but I can testify from personal experience that wanting to be with someone, no matter how badly, does not make the relationship right or good. But now you are touching on some very painful memories, and I do not wish to elaborate on them anymore. But there is one more thing: divine love is indeed the highest sort of love. In fact, all human intimacy, even in its deepest forms, is but a mere shadow of the kind of love God has in store for us. So if the Bible tells me that a certain woman is not right for me, then I have an obligation to myself to pay attention. The key question is whether I trust my Father to provide what is best for me.

Author:	InterruptorJones [ Fri Feb 18, 2005 4:47 am ]
Post subject:
Didymus wrote: Well, Kef, I don't really acknowledge any such burden of proof. When you get right down to it, God is the judge, and we are (or will be) in his court. You and I don't get to determine the rules of litigation in that court. Only the Lawgiver gets to make that determination. I hate to say it, but this is essentially just passing the blame. "I'm not prejudiced; I'm just enforcing the prejudices I believe my creator to have." (I'm going to trust you not to get sidetracked by my misuse of the word "prejudice" in reference to an infallible Lord; I'm on my way to bed and am too tired to thesauri.)

Author:	furrykef [ Fri Feb 18, 2005 5:08 am ]
Post subject:
Didymus wrote: Well, Kef, I don't really acknowledge any such burden of proof. When you get right down to it, God is the judge, and we are (or will be) in his court. You and I don't get to determine the rules of litigation in that court. Only the Lawgiver gets to make that determination. Hmm! The problem I have with this statement is that, again, it makes an assumption: that the Biblical God exists. Of course, the uncertainty of God's existence (at least, one cannot objectively be certain of God's existence) makes this troublesome. You believe in this God, of course, and I don't. And of course I think my rejection of God as the judge is as valid and well-reasoned as your acceptance of God as the judge. For all I know it's not God's court at all, it might be the court of Zeus, or of Fate, or of nobody at all. Quote: However, I do not think that my interpretation of that law is incorrect. Well, of course you don't! It would take a strange person to hold onto an interpretation he believes is incorrect. But do you have to commit 100% to that interpretation? Is it so black and white? Quote: I have looked at those passages in their original languages. I've even cited scholarly works on the lexicography of the terms in the original languages (particularly Bauer-Danker Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian LIterature and Brown Driver Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon). If I understand your argument, you are basically claiming that language is in no way a reliable means of communicating ideas. Ding! Well, at least, I feel it's in no way a reliable means of communicating ideas to people who were born thousands of years after you're dead. Yes, you're more qualified than I am as for the passages in question, though I think you still hadn't really answered all my questions, but let's not drag that point out any further. I was clearly trying to stay away from it, since we'll be stuck in the same deadlock with all my second-guessing and whatnot. Quote: So, Kef, my response is essentially this: (1) God is the one who determines what is right and wrong, and (2) he has actually said that homosexuality is wrong. Now you have a choice of strategies: (1) prove that God does not have that right, or (2) prove that what he said, he didn't mean (read President Clinton, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"). There are, of course, other options, but most of those are covered on other threads. Unfortunately, I don't read most of the other threads here. I can only be in so many places on the Internet at once, and I tend to spread myself mighty thin. I'm only still on this thread because I've subscribed to it! Of course God has the right to determine right and wrong... if he exists. If I don't believe he exists, then I believe I shouldn't be governed by his law. I believe I should be governed by law, certainly, but not laws that don't apply to me. Yes, I know the old argument that God's law applies to all people whether or not they're Christians/Jews/whatever. But obviously we can't have everybody following all the laws of all religions, or everybody's mind would burst in a sufficiently gory fashion from trying to process all the paradoxes involved. So that's certainly an unsatisfactory criterion for determining whether or not same-sex marriages should be legal, which as you'll recall, is the title of this thread. All this about what the Bible says is sort of a long digression that we have trouble pulling ourselves from. Yes, I know I'm not addressing your point here. I'm tired and I may address it when I'm more clearheaded, but I think it's really not necessary. Suffice it to say I'd likely choose one of the "other options". I'm too sleepy to really argue further, so I'll just cut this off abruptly for now. Sorry. - Kef

Author:	racerx_is_alive [ Fri Feb 18, 2005 4:38 pm ]
Post subject:
furrykef wrote: Of course God has the right to determine right and wrong... if he exists. If I don't believe he exists, then I believe I shouldn't be governed by his law. I believe I should be governed by law, certainly, but not laws that don't apply to me. Perhaps a more accurate statement would be: Quote: Of course God has the right to determine right and wrong... if he exists. If he doesn't exist, then I believe I shouldn't be governed by his law. I believe I should be governed by law, certainly, but not laws that don't apply to me. Whether you believe he exists or not has no relationship to his right and ability to rule over you. If he exists, he has that right, whether you believe him or not. If he doesn't exist, then of course he has no right to do such a thing.

Author:	furrykef [ Fri Feb 18, 2005 4:42 pm ]
Post subject:
Yeah, thanks. That helps get the point across more clearly. Yet another reason not to argue when you're too sleepy...

Homestar Runner Wiki Forum http://forum.hrwiki.org/

Same-Sex Marriages http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=647	Page 13 of 23

Author:	Evin290 [ Sat Feb 19, 2005 3:10 am ]
Post subject:
Didymus wrote: evin290: if I follow your love argument to its ultimate conclusion, then adultery is also okay. It doesn't matter what is good, right, or beneficial, only that I get what I want. And yes, I have felt the kind of love you describe. It turned out to be the worst relationship I ever had in my life. Now, I'm not a cynic about love, but I can testify from personal experience that wanting to be with someone, no matter how badly, does not make the relationship right or good. But now you are touching on some very painful memories, and I do not wish to elaborate on them anymore. But there is one more thing: divine love is indeed the highest sort of love. In fact, all human intimacy, even in its deepest forms, is but a mere shadow of the kind of love God has in store for us. So if the Bible tells me that a certain woman is not right for me, then I have an obligation to myself to pay attention. The key question is whether I trust my Father to provide what is best for me. There is of course a specific reason WHY adultery is not okay. Because you promised to stay with your wife until death. Now, did a gay person make any promise not to be gay that must be inforced by law and by church? No. That's what I mean. I'm sorry your relationship didn't turned out as you planned, but I'm sure that there's someone out there for you. Now, as for the "certain woman" approach, what if you find the love of your life, and she loves you back with all of her heart and you trust her more than anything, but the bible does not approve. Would you give her up? What if God was planning her for you as a final test? Would you act on the bible or the feelings that God himself gave you? No one can be certain that the bible is a literal translation of God's thoughts, but we do know that we are created in God's image. If God gives us something that we believe in with an enormous amount of conviction, but it goes agaisnt the bible, then what? Do we give it up because of the bible or do we go with it because it is what God gave us to believe? It is a puzzling question, but based on my religious beliefs, I'd go with the former. And this is why the question of same-sex marriages will never end in a clear result. People have different theological beliefs and that is why no conclusion will be found. There is no right or wrong answer. You believe that the bible is the answer to all problems. Dr. Zaius beliefs that the bible is a hunk of bologna, and those are two opinions. What if there's some proof that the bible is 100% correct? Would Dr. Z. atone or would he still stick to his beliefs? What would you do if there was some kind of proof that the bible was fake and didn't illustrate the word of God? In cases like this, there's no way to tell and if someone solely acts on their beliefs then no one can truly be objective. My belief is that even though I personally am not homosexual, nor do I really think that it is natural or "right," I do think that people in general should act the way the please (to a certain extent) and love who they love as long as they haven't been comitted to someone else. If all men are equal under the eyes of God and under the eyes of the law, why shouldn't people who want to do something differently than it is normal done be condemned as immoral? I can't speak for God, but I don't think he'd create people that are homosexual just so that they can live an life that's unapproved of by "normal" people. I just don't think that God would ever (pardon the expression) "play games" with people. If God loves us with all of his heart, then he loves all of us the same. Why would God pick favorites? Well, that's the end of my spiel. Sorry about that... length...

Author:	Upsilon [ Sat Feb 19, 2005 12:18 pm ]
Post subject:
Left behind as usual. There's a couple of things from a little while ago that I want to address... Didymus wrote: No, but they do choose to act on their sexual impulses, and that in itself is what makes it a moral question. I am a heterosexual, and I have a choice: I could run around and try to have sex with every girl I meet, or I could live a devout and chaste life. Considering my particular vocation, you might be able to guess which one I've chosen. Dr Zaius was spot-on about your equivocation of homosexuality with frequent homoerotic activities. Not all gays are sexually promiscuous. Even if they were, I'll take it a step further and claim that promiscuity itself is not always morally wrong. As long as they're not harming anyone. Quote: I contend that there is at least this similarity: they are both human dysfunctions. I will take the "victimless crime" part under consideration, but for the time I remain unconvinced that homosexuality is anything but a human dysfunction. I suppose all disabled people are going to Hell, then...?

Author:	Didymus [ Mon Feb 21, 2005 4:20 am ]
Post subject:
Upsilon wrote: Even if they were, I'll take it a step further and claim that promiscuity itself is not always morally wrong. As long as they're not harming anyone. Yes it is. Just because our modern hedonistic instant gratification culture doesn't seem to have a problem with it does not make it any less immoral. Just ask any woman whose husband has cheated on her. Quote: I suppose all disabled people are going to Hell, then...? My dad's wife is disabled. She lost her leg in an accident about three years ago. Furthermore, as you would know if you'd been paying attention to some of my other posts, I work with disabled people, specifically elderly people, many of whom live in wheelchairs, and some of whom suffer from various forms of dementia. I would suggest you not try this type of argumentation again. You might also pay attention to things I did not say: I never said anyone was going to hell (although I believe hell is a real place). I am specifically addressing whether homosexual behavior is within the bounds of what God considers good, right, and wholesome behavior from human beings. evin wrote: If God gives us something that we believe in with an enormous amount of conviction, but it goes agaisnt the bible, then what? Your argumentation is faulty. God would not give me anything that contradicts his word or my faith in him. Nice try, but worst prize. Quote: I do think that people in general should act the way the please (to a certain extent) and love who they love as long as they haven't been comitted to someone else. But God expects people to live in ways that please him. That's been my point all along. Quote: I don't think he'd create people that are homosexual just so that they can live an life that's unapproved of by "normal" people. He did not create men or women to be homosexual. Otherwise, he would not have forbidden it. Quote: I can't speak for God That's why he sent prophets and apostles to speak for him. Men like Moses and St. Paul. For that reason, I trust their words. Quote: What would you do if there was some kind of proof that the bible was fake and didn't illustrate the word of God? Such proof has not materialized within the past 1940 years or so, and I do not expect to materialize anytime soon. As for why I'm convince the Bible is correct, well, I'll refer you to some of the other threads in this section that better cover that topic. Buz has done a fine job of addressing those concerns.

Author:	furrykef [ Mon Feb 21, 2005 4:44 am ]
Post subject:
Didymus wrote: Upsilon wrote: Even if they were, I'll take it a step further and claim that promiscuity itself is not always morally wrong. As long as they're not harming anyone. Yes it is. Just because our modern hedonistic instant gratification culture doesn't seem to have a problem with it does not make it any less immoral. Just ask any woman whose husband has cheated on her. Counterargument: the problem there is the husband broke a vow he made. Other women don't feel the same way; for example, there are couples who "swing". Both are promiscuous and are honest to each other about it, and neither they nor the other parties involved get hurt (unless those third parties are married to unknowing fourth parties...). If you're dishonest about it, then there's obviously a moral dilemma. Quote: Quote: I do think that people in general should act the way the please (to a certain extent) and love who they love as long as they haven't been comitted to someone else. But God expects people to live in ways that please him. That's been my point all along. So God wants me to be his slave? Nuts to him. (Just kidding.) Quote: I don't think he'd create people that are homosexual just so that they can live an life that's unapproved of by "normal" people. He did not create men or women to be homosexual. Otherwise, he would not have forbidden it.[/quote] When you get into the mindset where there's a 100% chance you're right and cannot possibly be wrong, I think that's dangerous. I'm not criticizing your devotion to your God or the principles you believe he laid out. But when you fail, indeed refuse, to acknowledge other possibilities completely, I find that scary. I mean, that we had an extensive dispute over the wording in the Bible certainly suggest to me that there's some degree of uncertainty, no matter how small it may be, yet you act like your opinion is obviously the truth (as seen in your assertion that God forbids it and that's the end of the story) and other possibilities are entirely unimportant. And the only reason I can really see for having a conviction that strong about it is that it's what you believed in the first place, and what you see written there only serves to reinforce it. I mean, you may be well qualified to hold your point of view, but it's still your point of view. And of course we could argue that God did create people to be homosexuals because they are apparently born that way, all over again... again I'll observe that homosexuality (in a broad sense), has been observed in animals, so it's not like a brain can't be hard-wired to be that way. - Kef

Author:	Discount Brick [ Mon Feb 21, 2005 4:49 am ]
Post subject:
It's okay I guess, as long as you don't mind going to-....yeahh.

Author:	Didymus [ Mon Feb 21, 2005 5:07 am ]
Post subject:
Quote: When you get into the mindset where there's a 100% chance you're right and cannot possibly be wrong, I think that's dangerous. I'm not criticizing your devotion to your God or the principles you believe he laid out. But when you fail, indeed refuse, to acknowledge other possibilities completely, I find that scary. Well, Kef, there are lots of people on this forum who are not willing to acknowledge that they could be wrong. That's the whole point of debate really is to convince people that you are right. The fact that you even counter me demonstrates that you think you are right. But here's the question for you and everyone else: what if you are wrong? Are you willing to factor that possibility into your thinking? Quote: And the only reason I can really see for having a conviction that strong about it is that it's what you believed in the first place, and what you see written there only serves to reinforce it. If you honestly believe that, Kef, then you do not know me at all. You do not know the struggles of faith I have endured for the past year, part of which came from working with two gay chaplains at my last assignment. I think they have a much better understanding because they actually got to know me. But here's why I maintain what I understand the Scriptures to say: if I follow your argument to its conclusion, then the Bible makes no more sense than "Gorbachev sings tractors, turnip buttocks." It's basically Bill Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" all over again. The essense of the argument is that language itself is not a reliable means to communicate ideas. Interestingly enough, you and I have been using words to communicate these ideas in this thread. In other words, I know what the Scriptures say, and I do not believe that creative word-redefinition is what is necessary to understand them. Quote: And of course we could argue that God did create people to be homosexuals because they are apparently born that way, all over again... again I'll observe that homosexuality (in a broad sense), has been observed in animals, so it's not like a brain can't be hard-wired to be that way. But then you are also open to saying that Hitler was created by God to be a megamaniacal tyrant destined to kill millions of people. We Christians believe in this thing called "sin", which, to use an analogy, is gunk that's clogging up the way the world is supposed to work. God did not create people to be murderers or thieves or homocidal maniacs or adulterers. None of these things are what he had in mind for us. I would also argue that he did not create people to be ADHD or have MS or Diabetes or any of that stuff either. The plain and simple truth is that the world does not work the way is was supposed to. God created the world, and men broke it. According to Scripture (specifically Romans 1), homosexuality is just one more part of that broken, messed up world that God did not intend to be there. Even if animals exibit homosexual tendencies, keep in mind they also eat their young, attack other animals, etc. Just because animals exhibit certain behaviors does not mean that human beings should emulate their behavior.

Author:	furrykef [ Mon Feb 21, 2005 5:08 am ]
Post subject:
Discount Brick wrote: It's okay I guess, as long as you don't mind going to-....yeahh. Groan. Just another mindless post in this thread. Please make a relevant point if you're going to post here.

Author:	furrykef [ Mon Feb 21, 2005 5:28 am ]
Post subject:
Didymus wrote: Quote: When you get into the mindset where there's a 100% chance you're right and cannot possibly be wrong, I think that's dangerous. I'm not criticizing your devotion to your God or the principles you believe he laid out. But when you fail, indeed refuse, to acknowledge other possibilities completely, I find that scary. Well, Kef, there are lots of people on this forum who are not willing to acknowledge that they could be wrong. That's the whole point of debate really is to convince people that you are right. The fact that you even counter me demonstrates that you think you are right. But here's the question for you and everyone else: what if you are wrong? Are you willing to factor that possibility into your thinking? Sure. I've readily acknowledged the possibility that I'm wrong more than once. But what good does it do me? Am I supposed to follow the principle of Pascal's Wager? I believe it was Douglas Adams who remarked that if God were willing to accept the reasoning behind Pascal's Wager, he wouldn't want to believe in him anyway. So let me put it to you this way: yeah, I might be wrong. So what if I am? Quote: Quote: And the only reason I can really see for having a conviction that strong about it is that it's what you believed in the first place, and what you see written there only serves to reinforce it. If you honestly believe that, Kef, then you do not know me at all. You do not know the struggles of faith I have endured for the past year, part of which came from working with two gay chaplains at my last assignment. I think they have a much better understanding because they actually got to know me. Not saying that's how you actually feel, it's just the only reason I can see. Doesn't mean there aren't more possibilities. (Also, I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky...) Quote: But here's why I maintain what I understand the Scriptures to say: if I follow your argument to its conclusion, then the Bible makes no more sense than "Gorbachev sings tractors, turnip buttocks." It's basically Bill Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" all over again. The essense of the argument is that language itself is not a reliable means to communicate ideas. Interestingly enough, you and I have been using words to communicate these ideas in this thread. I believe that I countered that words are effective to communicate ideas -- but not necessarily over thousands of years. Especially when those words were written in a poetic style in a now otherwise-arcane language. (Yes, I do realize that's a big "otherwise", but I think the point still stands.) I still disagree, too, that my interpretation was produced by distorting the wording to fit my argument in the first place, so that is not necessarily the logical conclusion of my argument... but I'll have to take a look at the situation, and do some more research, before going back into this stuff again. Quote: Quote: And of course we could argue that God did create people to be homosexuals because they are apparently born that way, all over again... again I'll observe that homosexuality (in a broad sense), has been observed in animals, so it's not like a brain can't be hard-wired to be that way. But then you are also open to saying that Hitler was created by God to be a megamaniacal tyrant destined to kill millions of people. We Christians believe in this thing called "sin", which, to use an analogy, is gunk that's clogging up the way the world is supposed to work. God did not create people to be murderers or thieves or homocidal maniacs or adulterers. I don't really see reason to believe a brain would be hard-wired to commit particular sins like stealing, murder, or whatnot. But I have reason to believe a brain may be hard-wired to be attracted to members of the same sex. Maybe not well-founded reason, but reason nonetheless. Quote: I would also argue that he did not create people to be ADHD or have MS or Diabetes or any of that stuff either. The plain and simple truth is that the world does not work the way is was supposed to. God created the world, and men broke it. According to Scripture (specifically Romans 1), homosexuality is just one more part of that broken, messed up world that God did not intend to be there. I'm always confused as to how a perfect god would create world where things are not the way he intended, if he were omnipotent and omniscient. Even the power of free will does not cause things like ADHD or diabetes. I'm sure this has been discussed before, so go ahead and point me to the thread. Quote: Even if animals exibit homosexual tendencies, keep in mind they also eat their young, attack other animals, etc. Just because animals exhibit certain behaviors does not mean that human beings should emulate their behavior. Is it a problem when a bug eats its young? Nah, not really. Is it a problem when a human does? Obviously. Is it a problem when two animals engage in homosexual activies? Nah, not really. Is it a problem when two humans do? Nah. I already know what you're going to think here: yes, it is, because it contradicts the Word of God. I think that's an abstract argument (especially considering we disagree on what the Word actually says). There's very little in the Bible when I studied it where God make up some rule and when you question it, the only logical answer is "Because I said so!" Yet, that's the case here. Why? Why's he say so? - Kef

Author:	Didymus [ Mon Feb 21, 2005 6:29 am ]
Post subject:
Quote: Sure. I've readily acknowledged the possibility that I'm wrong more than once. But what good does it do me? Am I supposed to follow the principle of Pascal's Wager? I believe it was Douglas Adams who remarked that if God were willing to accept the reasoning behind Pascal's Wager, he wouldn't want to believe in him anyway. I think that most people who appeal to Pascal’s Wager do not fully understand it. There’s actually a very complex mathematical formula behind it, incorporating probabilities, investments, projected returns, etc. Thomas Morris wrote an excellent book on Pascal’s philosophy called Making Sense Of It All. I’m not sure Douglas Adams truly understood the argument, either. (And I’m pretty sure I don’t understand Adam’s argument myself). What’s more, Pascal’s Wager was not intended to be any sort of proof, but essentially to get Pascal’s gambling buddies (who would have been more familiar with his system) to consider whether the Christian religion might be for them. If you’re less familiar with all the intricacies of gambling, then, well of course it doesn’t make as much sense. But that aside, I think you already know Pascal’s answer to the “So what?” question. I don’t think I need to elaborate more. Quote: I don't really see reason to believe a brain would be hard-wired to commit particular sins like stealing, murder, or whatnot. But I have reason to believe a brain may be hard-wired to be attracted to members of the same sex. Maybe not well-founded reason, but reason nonetheless. Well, at least you recognize that. Actually, I’m not so sure that criminal behaviors cannot hardwired into us, nor am I sure that homosexual behavior is. It’s back to that whole Nature vs. Nurture thing again. How much of our behaviors/desires are built into us, and how much of them are programmed into us by our environments? Quote: I'm always confused as to how a perfect god would create world where things are not the way he intended, if he were omnipotent and omniscient. Even the power of free will does not cause things like ADHD or diabetes. I'm sure this has been discussed before, so go ahead and point me to the thread. I can understand that. But in my own understanding, it went down something like this: mankind turned his back on God, so God (at least temporarily) turned his back on mankind. When he created mankind, he put them in charge of the world. So when mankind messed up, the world was messed up at the same time. In other words, because man rejecte him, God allowed man to experience a world without his constant grace and mercy (though not entirely devoid of it—God did on occasion try to reconcile that relationship). The temptation for us has always been to associate specific wrongdoings with specific sins. In some cases, it can be. For example, heavy smokers are likely to get cancer, and people who eat too much sugar are likely to develop Type 2 diabetes. However, this does not explain why my cousin died of leukemia, or why one of my fellow chaplains suffers from Type 1 diabetes. The simple fact is, because of the sin of the human ancestors (which we Christians contend was an act of free will), we human beings no longer live in the Garden. We live in the world of thorns of briars, where we must live by the sweat of our brow. Our parents were evicted from Paradise, and so we must wander the Samsara. But, like I said before, God did not completely abandon the world. In fact, he entered into this world and endured for himself the weakness, the uncertainty, and the finitude of the human condition. He suffered heartbreak, alienation, and rejection, and ultimately betrayal and death. Why? So that he might give some sign for us human beings that, yes, he really does understand our struggles and he really does care. Why doesn’t he simply fix all the evil in the world? I’m not sure, but he seemed to think that the better solution was to take that evil into himself and suffer all its consequences first. The thread that much of this is covered on is the Can a Christian God Be? thread. But Upsilon and Buz have been at it for like centuries now, so you might have to dig to find the posts that covered the whole Problem of Evil argument. Quote: There's very little in the Bible when I studied it where God make up some rule and when you question it, the only logical answer is "Because I said so!" Yet, that's the case here. Why? Why's he say so? Actually, he did give a reason: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). This was the purpose he intended for mankind: two different genders brought together for the mutual benefit of both. As for what the Word says: "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality" (1 Corinthians 6:9). Incidentally, the word for "those who practice homosexuality" is αρσενοκοιται (YAY! A GREEK FONT!), a term that means essentially "a man who beds other men." Unless you can cite me a resource that better explains this term to mean something else, then I have to go with Bauer-Danker on this one. Actually, Danker gives a fairly detailed description of his own research on this term's usage in the ancient world (p. 135). But I will also refer you to 1 Cor 6:11 as well: "And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." So, you see, even though I contest that homosexuality is wrong, I also believe it is not unforgivable.

Page 13 of 23	All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	furrykef [ Mon Feb 21, 2005 6:37 am ]
Post subject:
Didymus wrote: If you’re less familiar with all the intricacies of gambling, then, well of course it doesn’t make as much sense. Not to stray from the discussion, but I think it's funny you said this just as I sat down to play an online game of Omaha Eight-or-better (a form of poker). With real money, no less. Though as for what Pascal says to the "So what?" question, we go back to the old dilemma that, from the point of view of an outsider anyway, it's very probable that both sides are wrong, considering all the other religions out there. And you can't just join 'em all. If we're going to be talking about gambling, odds are very, very good that I'm wrong, whatever beliefs I hold, regardless of what they actually are. Therefore, betting that I'm wrong is likely a good wager.

Author:	Didymus [ Mon Feb 21, 2005 6:45 am ]
Post subject:
That's a good insight. For myself, I have reached my own conclusions at the end of a fairly long journey. There's not only my seminary studies, but also my own struggle with God. All of this leads me to think that I'm betting with pretty good odds. But then again, I can't expect people to know all the ins and outs of my own spirituality, so I suppose I can forgive if someone disagrees with me.

Author:	Beyond the Grave [ Mon Feb 21, 2005 2:30 pm ]
Post subject:
I am against same-sex marriages but i am for Civil Unions. but anyways what people want to do is up to them it is none of mine or for that fact anybody's business.

Author:	Evin290 [ Mon Feb 21, 2005 2:41 pm ]
Post subject:
Didymus wrote: evin wrote: If God gives us something that we believe in with an enormous amount of conviction, but it goes agaisnt the bible, then what? Your argumentation is faulty. God would not give me anything that contradicts his word or my faith in him. Nice try, but worst prize. I'm not talking about you, because clearly God only gives YOU his point of view. (Cynicism was inteded there, but it's hard to be sarcastic online.) But you've said that God controls all (including the way people think.) Therefore, my question was "Why would God give ANYBODY thoughts that contradict his own?" So if you still believe that God controls thoughts, then God also controls the thoughts of homosexual people. Why would he do this if he believes that homosexuality is immoral. Didymus wrote: Quote: I do think that people in general should act the way the please (to a certain extent) and love who they love as long as they haven't been comitted to someone else. But God expects people to live in ways that please him. That's been my point all along. But my point is that because he "controls" the way people live, why would he control them to disobey? Didymus wrote: Quote: I don't think he'd create people that are homosexual just so that they can live an life that's unapproved of by "normal" people. He did not create men or women to be homosexual. Otherwise, he would not have forbidden it. This part, I'm going to say, again, that I meant that if he controls them, I don't think he'd want others to disapprove. Technically, God creates all people, right? Didymus wrote: Quote: I can't speak for God That's why he sent prophets and apostles to speak for him. Men like Moses and St. Paul. For that reason, I trust their words. But why would modern day prophets be treated like crap? If someone NOW says they've talked to God, they're put into the crazy bin. Why aren't Moses and St. Paul also considered crazy according to modern-day logic? (Oh, and also - - - you can't necessarily speak for God either) Didymus wrote: Quote: What would you do if there was some kind of proof that the bible was fake and didn't illustrate the word of God? Such proof has not materialized within the past 1940 years or so, and I do not expect to materialize anytime soon. As for why I'm convince the Bible is correct, well, I'll refer you to some of the other threads in this section that better cover that topic. Buz has done a fine job of addressing those concerns. I didn't mean that there actually was proof that the bible is incorrect. I just meant if there was such proof, what would you do? Oh and just because there isn't proof that something isn't incorrect, that doesn't automatically make it correct. There's no proof that I am not really an 80 year old right-wing Texan pretending to be an outspoken 14 yearold liberal just to make fun of people like that. But that doesn't make it true, does it? The're just as much proof supporting the fact that the bible is 100% the word of God as there is that it is 0% the word of God. And that amount of proof: nothing It's all about having faith in something, not about having facts for it. Didymus wrote: The simple fact is, because of the sin of the human ancestors (which we Christians contend was an act of free will), we human beings no longer live in the Garden. We live in the world of thorns of briars, where we must live by the sweat of our brow. Our parents were evicted from Paradise, and so we must wander the Samsara. That's another part of the whole thing that makes me a little bit sketchy about the bible. Why the heck should we suffer for our parents sins? That's the exact reasoning for slavery! "You're parents are black and were slaves, so now you are too!" I certainly don't believe that God would use that sort of logic. Didymus wrote: So, you see, even though I contest that homosexuality is wrong, I also believe it is not unforgivable. See, that's why I like these religious debates. Even though we try and try to find something wrong with each others' statements and we search and search for something to say to try and convince others of our point of view, there's always the final conclusion. And I think that the final conclusion of this one is forgiveness. Whether we believe that homosexuality is wrong or okay, nobody here is heartless enough not to forgive. If somebody here said "anyone who ever engaged in homosexual activites ever or has ever thought a homosexual thought is going to hell indifinitely" I would probably puke my pants! Anyway, Didymus, I still don't agree with you that homosexuality is immoral, but I'm glad you've taken into consideration that homosexuals have feelings to instead of taking the "THERE ALL GOIN 2 HELL!!!!!11!!" approach.

Author:	furrykef [ Mon Feb 21, 2005 5:04 pm ]
Post subject:
StrongZysk wrote: I am against same-sex marriages but i am for Civil Unions. but anyways what people want to do is up to them it is none of mine or for that fact anybody's business. There's a point that Interruptor Jones raised here, that this is a sort of "separate but equal" doctrine. And remember, the Supreme Court ruled that separate is never equal. (It may seem extreme to compare this to racial segregation, but I'm just trying to make the point. And I'm sure the people who wish to have such marriages/unions won't feel it's such an extreme analogy.) So in order to keep people happy, Jones said it would be better to refer to all forms of marriage as "civil unions". I'm in favor of this, since marriage in the U.S., and much of the Western world, has its roots in religion, yet we have separation of church and state. Religion belongs outside of government. (Please, nobody twist my words into "God belongs outside of government"...) - Kef

Author:	Dr. Zaius [ Mon Feb 21, 2005 6:50 pm ]
Post subject:
Let me take your suggestion one further; remove ALL legalities from marriage. Marriage will no longer be a legally binding contract, all that stuff will be in the form of a civil union. Marriage will be completely up to the church/synagogue/mosque/whatever. All the ceremonial aspects will be conducted by the clergy, and if they so choose to wed two members of the same sex, so be it. Civil unions will be available to all, but will be obtained like it's a fishing license. If a couple wants their union to be "special", they can get married. Simple as that.

Author:	Evin290 [ Mon Feb 21, 2005 9:36 pm ]
Post subject:
Dr. Zaius wrote: Let me take your suggestion one further; remove ALL legalities from marriage. Marriage will no longer be a legally binding contract, all that stuff will be in the form of a civil union. Marriage will be completely up to the church/synagogue/mosque/whatever. All the ceremonial aspects will be conducted by the clergy, and if they so choose to wed two members of the same sex, so be it. Civil unions will be available to all, but will be obtained like it's a fishing license. If a couple wants their union to be "special", they can get married. Simple as that. This is an interesting idea. The only complications are getting people to agree...

Author:	Didymus [ Tue Feb 22, 2005 12:24 am ]
Post subject:
Quote: But you've said that God controls all (including the way people think.) Therefore, my question was "Why would God give ANYBODY thoughts that contradict his own?" I don't remember ever saying that God controls the way people think, Evin. If I ever hinted anything of the sort, then I would like to be reminded of the context. I do not believe that God WILLS people to sin, but God can (and does) will people to reconciliation. I know it might sound like a hair-split, but there is that paradox: God is not responsible for people's sins, and people are not responsible (or at least cannot achieve on their own) their own salvation. Quote: But my point is that because he "controls" the way people live, why would he control them to disobey? Again, I am not convinced he controls people in this way. Quote: But why would modern day prophets be treated like crap? If someone NOW says they've talked to God, they're put into the crazy bin. Why aren't Moses and St. Paul also considered crazy according to modern-day logic? You're asking the wrong person that question. I'm not the one who established modern mental health standards. I'm not the one who puts them into crazy bins. Those are modern secular doctors who begin with the presupposition that God is not real, and therefore anyone who experiences him must be insane. Of course, there are some people who are, but inevitably other personality disorders would betray them as such. Now the Bible does command us to test the spirits to see if they are from God, i.e., we are to scrutinize the messages of those who claim to be prophets to see if they truly testify to God. St. John tells us that the true test of a true prophet is if his message is that Jesus Christ is indeed God in the flesh. Quote: That's another part of the whole thing that makes me a little bit sketchy about the bible. Why the heck should we suffer for our parents sins? Because there are lasting consequences for wrongdoing. To use a modern example, if two parents squander their mortgage money gambling, then their children will suffer when they are evicted from their home. While this is not the children's fault, they end up suffering the consequences of their parents' mismanagement. It's not as if God is out there hurling lightning bolts at kids when their parents commit sins, but sometimes those sins have lasting consequences for those children. Here's a personal example: my parents divorced when I was about 12. Now, I hadn't done anything wrong, but in my therapy, I am discovering that I still have all sorts of personal problems that stem from that tremendously difficult time of my life. Believe me, I suffer for the sins of my parents; and I don't like it. Quote: That's the exact reasoning for slavery! "You're parents are black and were slaves, so now you are too!" I certainly don't believe that God would use that sort of logic. God doesn't. But human beings do. And that's usually where most of these messes come from. Actually, I wrote a very intriguing essay on the nature of slavery in the Bible. Did you know that, according to the Bible, slaves must be given the opportunity to go free after 6 years of service? And if the master mistreats them, he must immediately set them free and pay them for their service rendered? What's more, women slaves were supposed to be treated with equal respect as wives or daughters. In fact, the only biblically acceptible reasons for slavery are: (1) if a family is unable to provide for itself and must seek food, shelter, and other basic necessities from other people, and (2) if a man is caught stealing and cannot repay his debt. Capturing people and selling them is strictly forbidden. Even POWs were to receive rights and privileges. As Rabbi Mamonedes once said, "He who buys a slave, buys himself instead a master." But this is not what happened in 19th century America. People were essentially abused and treated like animals, for no other reason than that they were of a different color. But who came up with that system? People--Not God! Anyway, that's my rant on slavery. Back to the main topic. Quote: Anyway, Didymus, I still don't agree with you that homosexuality is immoral, but I'm glad you've taken into consideration that homosexuals have feelings to instead of taking the "THERE ALL GOIN 2 HELL!!!!!11!!" approach. Thanks, Evin. As I mentioned to Kef earlier, I worked with a couple of gay chaplains out at the VA Medical Center this past summer. While it didn't change my mind about the morality of the issue, it gave me a new perspective on how people feel about it. What's more, one of the chaplains I work with now has a brother who is gay. I do not believe that homosexuality is the cardinal sin. As it stands, all humanity has at some point sinned; we've all made mistakes of some sort. But God's mercy is such that he is willing to overlook those mistakes (actually, to be more precise, he is willing to suffer their consequences on our behalf). If God did not show mercy, we'd all be in big trouble. All of us. I've said numerous times on this thread that I have little patience for that "God hates fags" attitude. I do not believe it is true, and what's more, it's no way to convince people of our message (forgiveness of sins in Christ). There have been some on this thread who have said, "Love the sinner, hate the sin." That's a nice thing to say, but how do you actually do that? It's a lot harder to do than it is to say. By that I mean that showing someone you care about them means accepting them, faults and all. And that's been the real struggle for me. I wonder how many of those who say, "Love the sinner, hate the sin," have actually tried doing it. Anyway, I've had a very long day, and that after a very long weekend. It was good, all of it in its own way, but I am very fatigued now. Maybe I'll post some news on another thread.

Author:	Evin290 [ Tue Feb 22, 2005 12:49 am ]
Post subject:
Furrykef: So, then, you're God's little automaton? Didymus: So are you, but you just don't realize it. I thought that's what you meant when you said it...

Author:	Didymus [ Tue Feb 22, 2005 1:01 am ]
Post subject:
That was more or less a joke and not meant to be taken as a theological treatise on the nature of human will.

Author:	Evin290 [ Tue Feb 22, 2005 1:08 am ]
Post subject:
Oh... Now I feel really stupid... Anywhoots, my point was that people don't just spontaneously decide "hm... I'ma be gay." My point was that if it's not necessarily a choice, how can it be deemed immoral or even frowned upon?

Author:	Discount Brick [ Tue Feb 22, 2005 1:21 am ]
Post subject:
furrykef wrote: Discount Brick wrote: It's okay I guess, as long as you don't mind going to-....yeahh. Groan. Just another mindless post in this thread. Please make a relevant point if you're going to post here. WTF!Just because you don't share the same beliefs doesn't mean my posts are pointless, what I was saying is that I'm strongly againest gay marriges!

Author:	furrykef [ Tue Feb 22, 2005 1:32 am ]
Post subject:
Discount Brick wrote: furrykef wrote: Discount Brick wrote: It's okay I guess, as long as you don't mind going to-....yeahh. Groan. Just another mindless post in this thread. Please make a relevant point if you're going to post here. WTF!Just because you don't share the same beliefs doesn't mean my posts are pointless, what I was saying is that I'm strongly againest gay marriges! Please write [ quote ] and [ /quote ] (without the spaces) around quoted text. It makes it easier to read. (EDIT: Also, when replying to a single post, just press the "quote" button on that post, instead of the reply button. It'll do that for you.) Your post was pointless because it contributed absolutely nothing to the discussion. Try reading through this thread and see how many posts like that there are, and how we answer them. You don't explain your reasoning at all, you tell us we're going to Hell (as though it were obvious, at that), you've ignored everything we've said over the past twelve pages... what on Earth are you doing to add to the discussion? I'm not saying you can't participate, but that was a pointless post and I'd prefer not to see any more. So, please, tell me why you're against them? Why you're against restricting other people's civil liberties? Is it inconceivable that that might be wrong, too? - Kef P.S. My response had nothing to do with the beliefs I held. If you said, "I strongly believe in gay marriage and everybody else can go to Hell", I'd have reacted exactly the same way.

Author:	furrykef [ Tue Feb 22, 2005 1:43 am ]
Post subject:
Discount Brick wrote: I'm saying that the more oeople who are gay, the more people that go to hell There you go again! Do you know people don't like being told they'll go to Hell? Do you know why they don't? Because they believe they won't, that's why. Once they hear that, they won't care. You just get on their nerves, annoying them. How many people have you converted by telling them they'll go to Hell? Tell me now: how many? Quote: The bible is storngly againest gay relationships, so, so am I! And again you've completely ignored the entire argument we had over the mere point of whether or not it does, let alone the implications. It's not so clear-cut as it seems. By the way, are you aware that not everybody is a Christian? Why should laws based upon Christianity apply to me, an atheist? Separation of church and state, you know. Another point I raised time and again and you ignore it entirely. Please, approach this with an open mind, not with a "you're all going to Hell so I'm going to have to save you" state of mind. - Kef EDIT: I'd like to point out that according to the Bible (more or less), everybody is a sinner. Are you going to Hell, too?