religon yes or no

Savia · Post by **Savia** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 10:05 am

MinnieMoose wrote:A: Aids didn't start by a freak into beastiality, that's what's called a "Urban Myth" like crocodiles in the sewer, Batman, and Janet Reno

B: The first cases of aids related symtoms started in gay communities, condoms or not, gee, i wonder why something "natural" sprung up a life-threatening disease.

C: The Bible doesn't have flaws, but special folk LOVE to take it outta context in to make themselves feel special that they've "outsmarted" somebody's beliefs

D: I forgot!

E: In a study, the scientific community IN MOST PART agrees that it is a case of environment instead of genetic imbalances. How can something that would prevent life from furthering be deemed "natural"?

F: The bible doesn't cover homosexual relationships because it says that it's wrong, period, so it felt it didn't need to cover it any more. Like when the bible covered incest, they figured people would get the point instead of having to explain that it would result in genetic defects.

G: The bible mentions homosexuality is wrong in multiple parts. So you're saying that the ENTIRE book of God is wrong? Or just those parts? Or what?

H: "I'm kidding. I'm really insane. However, I'll take insane and knowing the truth over sanity and self-delusion any day"

I would ask if you actually read kthulu's post. In case you didn't, here it is again, in a slightly abridge form:

kthulu wrote:2. Homosexuality occurs all throughout the animal kingdom. Giraffes, monkeys, apes (especially the species most closely related to us, the bonobo), cephalopods (octopus), and many other species - all have been recorded to engage in same sex encounters.

3. Homosexuality can be triggered by enviromental factors, such as overcrowding, unbalanced gender ratios, things of that nature - it may be nature's way of gently trying to reduce human population.

4. Homosexuality may be caused by hormone problems during pregnancy - there seems to be a high number who have (older, younger? I forget) siblings. Giving birth multiple times may change the hormone levels, and hence the internal hardwiring of the fetus.

^That's a very cold view of it, but it gets the point across perfectly.

We know that AIDS started first in the gay community. What's your point? It could well have started in any community not using contraceptive and disease-preventative devices. If you're so big on natural versus unnatural, then you shouldn't be advocating condoms anyway, which would have lead to AIDS infection being an awful lot worse than it is now.

MinnieMoose wrote:C: The Bible doesn't have flaws, but special folk LOVE to take it outta context in to make themselves feel special that they've "outsmarted" somebody's beliefs.

If the Bible is flawless, why are there different versions of it with different opinions on some issues? I really seriously think that you need to take Bible study more seriously before making a claim like this. I also think that you should stop relying on the 'out of context' line and seriously consider the flaws as a way to better your understanding of the nature of Man versus that of God. Ultimately, I am a believer, but I think that it is never a good idea to blindly accept from a text that was written by the hand of man, whether or not from the dictations of God.

WarpedElements · Post by **WarpedElements** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 10:19 am

A: I was never advocating condoms

B: There are no "homosexual" relationships in the animal kingdom, There are occasions like for dolphins and dogs to hump one another but it's for sex and that's about it. They don't have "life mates". That's a load.

C: There are different versions but they don't have radically different points of view. It's just different wording.

D: The bible is only flawed if you take it outta context and believe that those "different versions" are radically different. It's not like they added in extra verses or chapters. It's changing the wording from Thee Thou Art and the like.

Savia · Post by **Savia** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 10:39 am

MinnieMoose wrote:A: I was never advocating condoms

My misunderstanding; I apologise. What side of the fence do you stand on on this issue, anyway?

MinnieMoose wrote:B: There are no "homosexual" relationships in the animal kingdom, There are occasions like for dolphins and dogs to hump one another but it's for sex and that's about it. They don't have "life mates". That's a load.

Some dolphins do have life mates. They're a lot more advanced than you give them credit for.

So it's ok for people to have homosexual intercourse if it's just for fun? I'm confused. You seem to be saying that if it's just about the sex, that's ok, but if it's a lifelong labour of true love, that's not.

"God is Love".

MinnieMoose wrote:C: There are different versions but they don't have radically different points of view. It's just different wording.

Incorrect. I know at least 5 philosopher who are better than I am at all this, two Oxford/Cambridge level Philosophy students, and one who has read the original text in its original Hebrew, and the King James and other popular versions are significantly different.

MinnieMoose wrote:D: The bible is only flawed if you take it outta context and believe that those "different versions" are radically different. It's not like they added in extra verses or chapters. It's changing the wording from Thee Thou Art and the like.

Again with the 'out of context'. I do not believe that I have actually seen anyone doing this yet; no amount of context covers the fact that the Bible is supposed to be a mortal interpretation of immortal thinking.

I would also ask again what your view on celibate homosexual relationships are.

WarpedElements · Post by **WarpedElements** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 10:43 am

Sigh...the dolphins are advanced for mammels yes, but they don't have "life mate" homosexual relationships. They have intercourse. I'm not saying it's ok. I'm saying that that's all it is. The notion of "love" in a homosexual relationship is laughable.

For out of context stuff, check out earlier this thread, the whole no tears in heaven, murder and death by God.

And i would LOVE to see the backdrop you got for the way different versions. They're differing by wording, but not by meaning. It's nothing radical like Jesus being female or Moses getting fed up with his family and friends and killing them all with rocks. It's wording gal, and that's about it.

Savia · Post by **Savia** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 10:51 am

MinnieMoose wrote:Sigh...the dolphins are advanced for mammels yes, but they don't have "life mate" homosexual relationships. They have intercourse. I'm not saying it's ok. I'm saying that that's all it is. The notion of "love" in a homosexual relationship is laughable.

I'm not laughing. That statement is not opinion; it is incorrect.

MinnieMoose wrote:For out of context stuff, check out earlier this thread, the whole no tears in heaven, murder and death by God.

I read that; I don't see how context changes it, but I'm soory if I'm missing something obvious.

MinnieMoose wrote:And i would LOVE to see the backdrop you got for the way different versions. They're differing by wording, but not by meaning. It's nothing radical like Jesus being female or Moses getting fed up with his family and friends and killing them all with rocks. It's wording gal, and that's about it.

Oh, apologies, I didn't mean to imply that they are radically different, just that some sections in the King James and other contemporary versions amy have been 'tweaked' to support the political views of the churches at the time. I'll speak to my friend as soon as I can to find out what the kind of changes were.

WarpedElements · Post by **WarpedElements** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 11:02 am

The "opinion" isn't incorrect. It's true since there is no "love" in the sense of people falling into it. There is attraction and that's about it. Either way, dolphins and other animals don't have homosexual life mates. If and when they have gay sexual encounters, that's all it is is sex, not love or anything like that.

Well PM me if you wanna continue the talk about what was changed because i'm semi-interested in that.

I'm going in for a 12 hour shift in about 30 minutes and since i've smited and know how pretty much everyone here thinks, the thread is becoming more and more not fun since i'm having to repeat myself. The time has come the walrus said, to go to work and have a good laugh about it later. It wasen't a complete waste of time, but it's good to know that those who still doubt God still have no argument against it that'll hold up accept in their own head. Of course if they're right and they die, they'll never know they're right. And if i'm right, it'll be sad to imagine you guys in hell, but hey, you chose how you wanted to get there.

The bottem line is, you can't prove it and apparently neither can I, and we'll all find out after death. That's how you can tell who'll get the proverbiail last laugh. Of course, everything from "holes" in the bible to tab's constant inability to get jewish history and bible cronicaled stuff correct is quite funny.

Savia · Post by **Savia** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 11:25 am

MinnieMoose wrote:The "opinion" isn't incorrect. It's true since there is no "love" in the sense of people falling into it. There is attraction and that's about it. Either way, dolphins and other animals don't have homosexual life mates. If and when they have gay sexual encounters, that's all it is is sex, not love or anything like that.

I think that you have been mislead about the nature of homosexual relationships. I know of same-sex couples who have been together for years, through thick and thin, and have sacrificed a lot for each other- more than some heterosexual couples would. I know of a celibate homosexual couple. I do not think that any relationship driven entirely on lust could last out celibacy for over twenty years.

MinnieMoose wrote:Well PM me if you wanna continue the talk about what was changed because i'm semi-interested in that.

Will do.

MinnieMoose wrote:I'm going in for a 12 hour shift in about 30 minutes and since i've smited and know how pretty much everyone here thinks, the thread is becoming more and more not fun since i'm having to repeat myself. The time has come the walrus said, to go to work and have a good laugh about it later. It wasen't a complete waste of time, but it's good to know that those who still doubt God still have no argument against it that'll hold up except in their own head. Of course if they're right and they die, they'll never know they're right. And if i'm right, it'll be sad to imagine you guys in hell, but hey, you chose how you wanted to get there.

You are not necesarrily right. I have said several times now: I believe in God. I just think that the way you approach your faith is not what He would want you to. He created you to be able to question faith via giving you free will. You don't have to do everything He says, because of that gift. Use that gift. The arguments others have given are just as valid as yours, and until you see that, you can't really count yourself as having passed this 'test of fate', if you would, and you can't improve in your belief.

MinnieMoose wrote:The bottem line is, you can't prove it and apparently neither can I, and we'll all find out after death. That's how you can tell who'll get the proverbiail last laugh. Of course, everything from "holes" in the bible to tab's constant inability to get jewish history and bible cronicaled stuff correct is quite funny.

Tab's historical accuracy has very little to do with this, and I think you have no business laughing at what we have managed to keep a serious discussion. I'm glad that all the people who have tried to put thought into all this haven't completely wasted your time. I would like to be able to think that you haven't wasted ours.

WarpedElements · Post by **WarpedElements** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 11:34 am

It wasen't a COMPLETE waste of time, it was humerous. But see, I know for a fact I'm right. But there's some people who would right off religious experiences as hallucinations and that's about it. It's not about what's just written in the bible. It's a factor of a buncha things.

Free will yes, to decide what's good for you, but God gave us his words through man in the bible in which is what he expects of it. You don't follow his rules, and how he specifically wants you to get into heaven, you burn. No half assed attempts here.

Basically, it's "I'm right, you're wrong". It is saddening that there's so many non-believers, but hey, that is their free will.

Toecutter · Post by **Toecutter** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 11:51 am

Trident wrote:

Me? I'm a Christian who is highly active in Intervarsity Christian Fellowship, a national student movement.

I know that organization all too well. That's the one which likes to brainwash and sodomize non-believers to get them in. I guess I'll really have to invest in a Mossberg 500 now.

Lyrs · Post by **Lyrs** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 12:44 pm

MinnieMoose wrote:I know for a fact I'm right.