|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,307
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,307 |
Originally posted by SVTNupe:
You're comparing the Bible to Greek mythology?! It's not even in the same league as far as how it came about. Just the fact that several differnt men over several hundreds years wrote testaments that don't contradict each other should say enough about its chances of becoming myth.
I beg to differ. The Greeks tried to explain what was going on around them. They were trying to create a moral code to live by. Seems pretty similar to me. The only difference is the fact that the Greeks believed there were more than one god.
Several different men over several different years wrote testaments that don't contradict each other? If I really wanted to, I'm sure I could pull dozens of inconcistencies, at least, out of the Gospels alone.
The Bible was written at a time where there was VERY little "global" knowledge. There was little to no science, there was little to no "proof" of anything. As far as they were concerned, everything was just... put there, by someone.
I firmly believe it's only a matter of time before someone does come along and change the popular opinion of the Bible to being that of mythology. To me, personally, it's all mythology. I see a group of people who believe in one God the way the Greeks and Romans were polytheists, the way that modern day "pagans" believe in their beliefs. I don't believe that ANYbody has gotten it right. I don't believe in the same god that you believe in. I don't believe that a set of moral "standards" should exist for hundreds of years. Hell, even our own government has changed its ideas of morality in its very young history. Can you say Prohibition, anyone?
To bring this back... you ARE passing judgement on anyone who is homosexual. You're just doing it in a passive way. You're not going to walk up to a gay man or woman and say "Hey, you shouldn't be gay, you know, it isn't right," but you WILL say "I'm merely stating what I believe the scriptures say on it. Again, if that's what a person wants to do with their life, it's on them. It's God they have to answer to, not me. We all have choices in this world." You still foolishly believe that it IS a choice!
To open your narrow view a bit, what kind of woman do YOU find attractive? Does it mirror mine? Does it mirror everyone's on this board? Maybe, maybe not. But, why do you find a certain type appealing? Can you explain it? No. Neither can I. Neither can science, nor this god that you put so much blind faith in. Same damn thing. Anyone who is gay finds those of the same sex attractive. It's NOT a choice. They really can't help what they find attractive.
"It doesn't matter what the orientation of the animal kingdom is. We're strictly speaking on the human animal and no other." Of COURSE it matters! Take off the blinders, and stop hiding behind your scriptures. I can show you a perfectly good example of creatures that have NO religion. That have no moral beliefs. The simplest of creatures on this rock. And, guess what, they do in fact have same-sex relations. You can't dodge that fact, no matter how hard you try. The major difference between humans and other, "lesser" creatures, is the fact that we can reason, think, create on our own. We can make choices that affect our lives, right? Then how the hell is it a CHOICE for the animals that DO have same-sex relations?!?!?!?!?
1998 SVT Contour Silver Frost for sale in Classifieds.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Originally posted by SVTNupe:
Jato,
Yes, in some instances Paul can be difficult to understand and one of the reasons why he said to some of the Christians of that day they weren't ready for solid food.
Totally agreed.
Originally posted by SVTNupe:
I never said orgies didn't take place. I wrote whether they were acceptable or not.
I simply find it just too convienent that the morality of this was never touched upon in regards to Solomon, David or any other of the Hewbrew leaders of that day. If it wasn't acceptable, then why was it practiced by biblical leaders back then and not punished by God? Why does the Bible NOT touch this point if it's so blatantly wrong, as you suggest? Again, this is pretty much one of the points behind a harem...
I'm sensing a double-standard here...
Originally posted by SVTNupe:
There are a lot "options" that God has taken from those who believe. The choice is whether you want to obey or not. Don't confuse the two.
Depends on your interpretation of what qualifies as obeying. I won't even go into what "obeying" and "not obeying" did for the native populations of certain countries during the Inquisition and the Crusades...
...all in the name of God and his options.
Originally posted by SVTNupe:
I can't speak on the whole hemophridite subject. I openly admitted that because I don't know anything about it. I don't know how one is even born like that nor what the conditions are. Until I can better understand the condition, that's the best I can speak on it.
No problem.
Originally posted by SVTNupe:
You need to look at the kind of slavery they had at the time. It was a far cry from the kind of slavery we had in the good USofA. Not the same parallel.
In many cases it was far worse in terms of living conditions and environment during biblical times. Those slaves that were caputured in times of war or of certain ethnic or religious backgrounds were particularly abused; many were given tasks by the State or their owners that were rather dangerous, oppressive and lethal.
Check out passages in Exodus that condones the beating of slaves. Also check out in Deuteronomy where Israelites during times of war could take captive women and make slave-wifes of them, regardless whether they were willing or not...
Not the same parallel? The economic, religious and political differences surrounding slaves are almost nil between that 2000 year difference.
Roman, Greek, Spainish, Portugese, Vatican histories and finally the Bible all confirm what I'm paraphrasing here, so I'm not pulling this out of thin air. I'll shoot you a list of references if you'd like to check them out.
Originally posted by SVTNupe:
Also, there is no blatant omission on slavery. Think about how a Christian is suppose to treat anyone in this world and explain to me how that doesn't address the kind of slavery we use to have?
There is in regards to the morality of the practice. In fact, there's a TOTAL omission on this aspect of slavery. Even during New Testament times and onwards, Old Testament rules regarding slavery were still common in practice among Christians. Further more, What I find absolutely side-splitting is that the passages that do mention slavery in the Bible, do so only in passing or to dictate law and rule over them (the slaves). NOTHING on morality of the practice...
Originally posted by SVTNupe:
I take you last comment as a bit of sarcasm. My point to it was, why even create woman? Why not just make another man? Why the many scriptures about a husband and wife, the relationship between man and woman, becoming one flesh, how the two are to love each other, etc.? I'm sorry JaTo, you argument just doesn't hold enough water for me to swing to other side of the fence.
I've no clue. I have NO idea why certain people are predisposed towards same-sex relations; in some cases it could be a choice, in others it may be a biological difference. I've no clue as to why I'm barking mad over Spanish and Italian women in spite of any other flavor. I'm not questioning why humans have been created as they are; I'm questioning the moral reasoning behind treating them unequally.
Originally posted by SVTNupe:
We are to use scriptures to intepret scriptures. It's when man tries to do his own intepration based on what he believes should be the truth that scripture becomes perverted.
Then in that case, tear out Revelations, Psalms, the Song of Solomon, Proverbs and certain passages in the New Testament out of your Bible. History HAS to come into effect to further understand and refine what the Bible has to say about certain things. Biblical scholars have recognized this throughout the centuries.
Religion isn't as static as many are spoon-fed to believe. Serious research outside of Sunday sermons and a Bible Study will bring this to light. It took me more than just a few years to figure this out myself...
I'll not try to blind you, either. I don't have answers on this for the most part. I just think I have some blazingly valid questions that often go unanswered or glassed over by many. This isn't the first time I've had this discussion.
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 278
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 278 |
JaTo, you go back and forth too much for me. You all over the place with your explanations comparing OT to NT, simplest creatures to the most complex, etc.
You obviously have some problems with the Bible. Personally, I think you miss some very simple points illustrated by the writer, Paul in this case, was trying to convey. You're like most people I've run in to who don't want to take the text of the scriptures at face value. I agree that at times you need to understand the context of the situation to correctly understand the scriptures but in other instances its meaning is clear without it. Why doesn't it touch on certain themes? Don't know, perhaps it's not important.
ALso, I don't need the Bible to hide behind in regards to this subject. It was brought in to play by you. And I guess the only reason why it was, was so that you could shoot down the many religious groups who don't believe in folks being gay based on the scriptures. Like I stated earlier, I don't believe it to be natural and I don't care if a damn male frog humps another. If it was natural and by some chance the whole human race became gay, how the hell would we reproduce? I've heard of several females in a species who kill the male after sex. Since that is a natural process in the animal world, I guess it'd be okay if women started killing us men because we always get off before they do?! I guess petifiles (sp?) would qualifiy in this context too? They can't help being attracted to children, right? Please explain the difference if there is one.
This is not passing judgement in my context which would be to condem that person for their lifestyle. If they want to live like that, it's on them. Just don't try to tell me it's natural. That's all I'm saying.
Curtis
3L 'Oval Port' 98 Black SVT
180.5HP/178lbft
'03 Black Sport Trac
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,307
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,307 |
Originally posted by SVTNupe:
Like I stated earlier, I don't believe it to be natural and I don't care if a damn male frog humps another. If it was natural and by some chance the whole human race became gay, how the hell would we reproduce? I've heard of several females in a species who kill the male after sex. Since that is a natural process in the animal world, I guess it'd be okay if women started killing us men because we always get off before they do?! I guess petifiles (sp?) would qualifiy in this context too? They can't help being attracted to children, right? Please explain the difference if there is one.
This is not passing judgement in my context which would be to condem that person for their lifestyle. If they want to live like that, it's on them. Just don't try to tell me it's natural. That's all I'm saying.
Of course you don't give a damn if a male frog humps another, because it proves the point that it DOES exist in nature, hence, it's NATURAL! You don't give a damn about that fact because it shoots holes in the doctrine that you put so much faith in. If humans, as a whole, were homosexual by nature, then we would have developed other ways to reproduce. Hell, we already do. It's called sperm donation, or had you forgotten about that? Oh, wait... that just sparked the idea in your head about same sex parents teaching their kid the wonders and benefits of being gay, and that somehow, that will influence the child into somehow becoming gay, like it was a choice. 
Would it be ok if women started killing men after sex? It depends upon if that was what nature had intended for us to do. If men served no other purpose than to impregnate women, then, yes, it would be fine! But, considering that where we can make a decision to kill or not, it is not right. But, again, that's a situation where there is a CHOICE.
And, comparing homosexuality to pedophilia is just pathetic. Sex between consenting adults, who are of an age to reason for themselves and make their own decisions is one thing. Duping a child into something is just wrong. Yes, there are people who cannot help being attracted to children. Yes, it is natural, despite the fact that it's disgusting to a majority of the population. But, where it's forced on children who do not know any better, there is a LOT more harm involved. Let's not get into the ones who do it just for a power trip. I'd like to see them all dragged into a field and raped by some sort of large machinery.
For the life of me, I still can't understand how you could possibly think that being gay is a CHOICE. Can you somehow prove that one to me? How many gays have you gone up to and asked when they knew they were, in fact, gay. Guess what? 90% of them will say "I just knew from an early age..." But, I guess that must be some kind of subconcious brainwashing by their parents, right? Well, what about the ones who are born to straight parents? Blows your theory out of the water, doesn't it? And, what happens when, and I sincerely hope it DOES happen to you, your son or daughter comes out of the closet at 20, and tells you they always felt that way?!!? Surely somehow, you must have told them how right it is to be gay, right? Or what, they were influenced by some friends at school. No... it HAD to be the media. I guess they spent their nights watching Will and Grace, instead of doing their homework, and suddenly realized that being gay was cool or something. Oh, wait... maybe they went to a Broadway show and were influenced by one of them! 
My GOD how blind are you?
Oh... and you do pass judgement, despite your "context." You look at a gay couple and just KNOW they're going to hell because of their unnatural choice. You think that they're an aberration. THAT IS passing judgement.
Good day.
1998 SVT Contour Silver Frost for sale in Classifieds.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 660
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 660 |
^^ Speaking of violently judgemental. (Here's one of those for you)
I make no claims to be a Biblical scholar or an authority on the subject, but don't you think with all the great minds that have come and gone since Jesus, the world would be a little closer to seeing the scripture as the myth that you see it as?
And as I read further, I was dumbfounded by your stupidly high opinion of yourself:
Quote:
If I really wanted to, I'm sure I could pull dozens of inconcistencies, at least, out of the Gospels alone.
Wow, just like that huh? People have been trying to do this unsuccessfully for thousands of years and all it took was for The Great Wisdom of bishop375 to come along.
Hey Tubs, I just lost my jengajam.
Your ghetto pass has been revoked. You're no longer an honorary brother.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 165
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 165 |
"Civilization, society, and marriage have evolved, and it has been determined that marriage between a man and a woman is the best way to create a family, and raise children."
-I think that quote by Rush sum it up well.
Mystique LS
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Originally posted by SVTNupe:
JaTo, you go back and forth too much for me. You all over the place with your explanations comparing OT to NT, simplest creatures to the most complex, etc.
I beg to differ. I've never made comparisons here with OT vs. NT. Reread my posts on this. I said that a number of religious groups used and followed OT laws in terms of justifying slavery up until recent centuries. No comparisons here between the different books. Try again.
My comparisons with animal vs. human behavior aren't all over the board either. They are pretty direct and easy to understand in that pretty much the same percentage of studied animals exhibit the statistical estimate of homosexual activity among humans in very much the same fashion.
I'm merely counterpointing your statements here. I do tend to pull thoughts and concepts from different directions in places, but I've been rather careful to keep them into direct perspective here.
Let me clarify anything I've been "muddy" on. Please.
Originally posted by SVTNupe:
You obviously have some problems with the Bible.
With literal translations of certain passages and taking a document at face-value that was written in a time, culture and environment almost alien as compared with todays?
Absolutely. Especially ones that are used to wholesale castigate an entire group of people for a particular type of behavior that is massively stereotyped.
With the core messages of the Bible? Absolutely not.
Originally posted by SVTNupe:
Personally, I think you miss some very simple points illustrated by the writer, Paul in this case, was trying to convey. You're like most people I've run in to who don't want to take the text of the scriptures at face value.
I believe I understand his simple points for the most part...
You really want to run down this path with me? The REASON behind the segmentation of the Christian religion into different groups of belief (Baptist, Methodist, C. of Christ, various flavors of Catholicism, etc., etc.) is due ENTIRELY because people CAN'T take half of the Bible at face-value. Different interpretations of what is permissible and what isn't exist across all religious to one degree or another.
Guess what? They ALL stem from the same scripture! I challenge you to tell me this isn't true!
In that, I'm no different than any other Christian.
Originally posted by SVTNupe:
I agree that at times you need to understand the context of the situation to correctly understand the scriptures but in other instances its meaning is clear without it.
I fully agree this statement.
Originally posted by SVTNupe:
Why doesn't it touch on certain themes? Don't know, perhaps it's not important.
Ok, now I'm getting agitated here with that last bit.
Allow me to make a comparison of you as you did of me. Pardon the label, but you seem to be like most Bible-Nazis I know in that any challenging topic that that scripture can't or doesn't directly address is one of little importance in their lives. Once controversy comes out, on go the bliders to keep one's concept and ideas of faith and belief intact and unchallenged!
THAT IS FLAT-OUT WRONG!
Do you know what polarizing moral topics you've just dismissed out of hand? For starters, the one's we've been going over: Slavery, Homosexuality, hermaphrodites. There are others as well; my mind's not in gear to address them this morning, however.
How can you so easily do this?
Originally posted by SVTNupe:
ALso, I don't need the Bible to hide behind in regards to this subject. It was brought in to play by you. And I guess the only reason why it was, was so that you could shoot down the many religious groups who don't believe in folks being gay based on the scriptures.
Yes, it was brought up by me as misunderstood references in the Bible have been the cornerstone of persecution and bigotry in the agruments against homosexuals. There's been little else that has fueled the flames of castigation and hatred for this group of humans...
Originally posted by SVTNupe:
Like I stated earlier, I don't believe it to be natural and I don't care if a damn male frog humps another.
Sorry, it is natural as it occurs in nature. FACT. Is it normal? No, as it only occurs in a small percentage of the population as I've said ad naseum here.
Originally posted by SVTNupe:
If it was natural and by some chance the whole human race became gay, how the hell would we reproduce?
Of course, that argument doesn't take reality into consideration. I think you are getting "natural" and "normal" mixed up here.
Again, given a human's biological urges at the basest of levels, this will NEVER happen.
Originally posted by SVTNupe:
I've heard of several females in a species who kill the male after sex. Since that is a natural process in the animal world, I guess it'd be okay if women started killing us men because we always get off before they do?! I guess petifiles (sp?) would qualifiy in this context too? They can't help being attracted to children, right? Please explain the difference if there is one.
Gladly and I'll do it first using Biblical rule/reasoning and won't even touch the framework of secular law here:
1) Murder - The morality of this act isn't in question in the Bible at all. OT, NT; the rule is the same. If a women would kill a man after sex just for the hell of it, it's not killing in self-defence, nor killing in a time of war, it's murder!
In short, the Bible specifically forbids this type of activity (murder) and there's no controversy surrounding it, either.
2) Pedophilia - Classified as sex outside/before marriage and EVERYONE knows what the Bible says about that. in Biblical terms, that's wrong, period: heterosexual or homosexual. With the above-example, you're bordering on a psychological dysfunction in terms of self-control issues. Homosexuality at it's base is NEITHER of these.
Originally posted by SVTNupe:
This is not passing judgement in my context which would be to condem that person for their lifestyle. If they want to live like that, it's on them. Just don't try to tell me it's natural. That's all I'm saying.
Fair enough, though it IS natural in that it's found in nature though it ISN'T normal.
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220 |
Quote:
"Civilization, society, and marriage have evolved, and it has been determined that marriage between a man and a woman is the best way to create a family, and raise children."
The best way? Maybe.
THe only way? Of course not.
It would be best if all people creating a family and raising children were loving, caring, successful parents, that could provide everything their child needs and wants. But guess what? Not many people fit into that category.
Are you going to say that 95% of the population can't create a family or raise kids because they wouldn't be the best parents?
And of course that's just on the subject of children. Even if you believe what Rush said, that doesn't say a thing about 2 consenting adults who just want to live together the rest of their lives under the bond of marriage.
Last edited by sigma; 07/02/03 03:06 PM.
2003 Mazda6s 3.0L MTX
Webpage
2004 Mazda3s 2.3L ATX
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 278
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 278 |
You missed my whole point in both cases. The first point was I'm not a frog. The second point wasn't about two consenting adults but rather about what we're attracted to. You have grown adults attracted to children and of course that's a problem. Like I wrote, the point was about the attraction since that was the argument used for homosexuals. We can find all kinds of things in nature to justify our actions because that's all we're doing here. If you don't believe in the scriptures and the fact that we were created in God's image than fine, compare the human race to anything you want in nature.
Also, I didn't say anything about the choice of being gay. My point, again, was about the choice of acting on it. The same as someone who is attracted to children. They have a choice as to whether they want to act on those feelings just as I have a choice as to whether I want to act on the feelings I have for a woman. That's the choice I'm talking about.
Curtis
3L 'Oval Port' 98 Black SVT
180.5HP/178lbft
'03 Black Sport Trac
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220 |
Quote:
Also, I didn't say anything about the choice of being gay. My point, again, was about the choice of acting on it. The same as someone who is attracted to children. They have a choice as to whether they want to act on those feelings just as I have a choice as to whether I want to act on the feelings I have for a woman. That's the choice I'm talking about.
But you think your "choice of women" is natural, and a gay males "choice of men" is not.
If God could make me find white women unattractive and asian women absolutely gorgeous, he could just as easily make me like big hairy gay men. Or is it just that God wouldn't want me to have sex that didn't result in reproduction... because if that's the case I'm totally screwed because I don't want to have sex that results in a child. I guess I'm going against Gods desires every time I have sex then... Whoops
As for the pedophilia, it is a natural thing, as you say, and the only problem with acting upon it is what we as a society claim to be immoral (and illegal) behavior.
In many societies, what we would consider pedophilia is a totally acceptable practice. That includes those societies in the Bible, a time when it was perfectly acceptable (and "normal") to take an incredibly young (by our standards) wife.
Quote:
You missed my whole point in both cases. The first point was I'm not a frog.
But you are a Creation of God, are you not?
And the last time I checked, a frog was.
So, why would God create homosexual frogs?
Or are you going to claim that frogs possess the ability to make choices about their sexual behavior?
Quote:
We can find all kinds of things in nature to justify our actions because that's all we're doing here. If you don't believe in the scriptures and the fact that we were created in God's image than fine, compare the human race to anything you want in nature.
Ohhh... I get it.
If you admit that God created homosexuals, and you agree that God created us in his image, then you are claiming that God has a little taste for man-cock.
I can see why that would be hard for you to admit.
2003 Mazda6s 3.0L MTX
Webpage
2004 Mazda3s 2.3L ATX
|
|
|
|
|
