Discussion in 'Off-topic Zone' started by Preacher, Aug 4, 2003.
Any man who has nukes has a damned good right to tell me what the fuck to do.
I don't exactly see you lining up to be ass-raped by our Glorious Leader Kim Jong-Il.
are you being sarcastic because if you are please hit me in the face scary just scary talk
That's alright; just don't do it again.
-- And obviously you dont know very much about religion (the Christian faith, anyway) either...let me put in simple terms for you, son: There is no room for hatred against any human in the Christian's heart. SIN, yes; sinNERS, no...
Seriously, man, I appreciate some of your viewpoints, but am baffled by your tone. You cite God & the Bible, which implies your views on homosexuality are derived from same.
...And yet, you do no credit to God (if that's your goal), your viewpoint, or yourself to come across as angry & cutting as you do.
Inflammatory rhetoric like yer giving here makes you look like an ass, and is the express ticket to getting threads shut down, or yourself banned, or both.
A word of advice: Lose the 'tude, dude...
Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
"To put things in perspective, it brings things into focus to remember that your example spoke of the French, fer cryin' out loud. "
Perhaps my statement was flawed; I don't strictly believe people are 100% hetero or homo. I think that some people are more oriented towards parts of the scale as others, close enough as to be considered one or the other. The hound in question may have simply been a confused near-heterosexual; in this case, the therapy was able to restore his outlook. That's an anomaly, though; it would be just as foolish to say that if one dog is purebred, all dogs are purebred. That's what pisses me off, and what I was trying to get across; the idea that ALL people are100% gay or ALL people are 100% straight. That's simply not true.
LEGAL abortions, LEGAL alchohol sales. Bootleggers don't exactly like to cooperate with censuses
I HAVE looked it up, and I've pointed out how your logic is not only flawed in that respect, but also exhibits a twisted (though sadly common) view of history.
The point is that "success rates" are relative ... they're measured by how many times a person has gay sex, not how many time he or she is attracted to another man or woman. Much of the logic over reperative therapy seems to follow the idea that they're misguided heterosexuals - but unless you're willing to say you're attracted to males on a daily basis, I think we can discount that. Someone can choose to be celibate - they CAN'T choose their basic, hormonal urges.
When I say "sexual orientation", I'm referring to the urges, not the sex. That's all I'm trying to say here.
Furthermore, I never CLAIMED it was a genetic trait ... I even said I DIDN'T THINK it was one. I simply said that the record of converting homosexual has, for the most part, been a dismal failure. The supporter sees this as proof that "we need to try harder". The way I've seen it, you've been trying for two thousand years. Give up already
That's all fine and well. It's just that my point of view unless all homosexual impulses are erased the treatment simply DOES NOT WORK AS ADVERTISED. I also personally believe it is unhealthy and dishonest to the individual. Quothe Shunryu Suzuki:
When you are fooled by
something else, the damage
will not be so big. But when
you are fooled by yourself, it
is fatal. No more medicine.
No prob. Basically, with the completion of the canon of NT scripture (sequentially, if not chronologically, the book of Revelation), God's general revelations to mankind have completed. The Book is closed, so to speak, on any further such revelations from God. The entirety of Scripture as it has existed for the last x hundreds of years/millenia are viewed as being complete. Indeed, Paul specifically sez this:
"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!"
By these criteria (?sp), the gay bishop thing is refuted as being any sort of "policy shift" on God's part. As an added bonus - no extra charge - both Mormonism and the Jehovah's Witnesses fail and are proved to not be "false gospels": The Mormons have a completley different second book they use (the "Book of Mormon", natch), and they view it as being superior to the Bible. The JWs, well, their own (corrupted) version of the Scriptures even contains the above passage. Ironic how they can overlook that passage, since their version of the Bible is rife with a host of corruptions.
Anyway, that ain't to say that God can't make specific PERSONAL revelations to *individuals* from time to time ("I felt God was telling me to not get on that plane, and I later found out that it crashed, with no survivors!"...), but the Bible isn't personal revelation, its *general* revelation - applicable to all mankind. The test of whether such an individuals "revelation" is truly from God is this:
(1) Does it line up with Scriptural teaching?...
(2) Is it something which contradicts Scripture in any way?...
The answer to the first can be "no" (as in the example I gave), but if the answer to the second is "yes", then any personal revelations you may get AIN'T from God...
-- You've yet to prove that the French are a "race"
-- Well, so long as yer not trying to say that there aren't SOME (heck, prolly MOST) folks that are "100%" one way or the other, as I know I am...
-- So?... your original statement was "...I don't believe that legalizing an institution is necessarily a step to promoting it". Them examples I gave said otherwise: Once the thing was legalized, the instance of people using/utilizing it increased. Hence, legalization DID serve to "promote" the thing in question.
-- On that point, you ain't successfully pointed out or exhibited squat. I'd be interested in seeing you try, though. The fact is, if you do a survey of all the great world Empires of the past (those from which we have sufficient information extant, that is), you'll see that more often than not, their downfall came as a result of corruption from within, rather than a superior enemy from without. And said corruption could be traced back, in large part, to the breakdown of the family unit and the resulting breakdown of morality of that culture.
So basically what you're telling me is that the concensus among religious denominations determined what would be in the Bible and NT (which no one would ever refute, and I actually said), yes? Ok, so by that theory so long as the concensus is that if people want-to-be/are gay then it's ok.
And the Greek Orthodox Church has a few less NT books/letters than the RC one. And yes we are all using different versions, since most of them are different translations, changing not only words but meaning.
The RCC has actually reconsidered (multiple times) adding some more texts. They not to be put in for various reasons (completion of the text, contradicting other texts, fear of the catholics not accepting them...)
"Not so, and if it IS what you're trying to say, I'd like to know how they (or better, YOU) intend on going about proving that hypothesis... "
An unfair statement because you can't prove the "writers own beliefs only entered the texts in that they believed that what they were writing was true." The only proof I would have is that it's happened with every other religious text anywhere near the age of the NT.
"If one can't use the sacred texts of THAT very religion to back one's argument for/against a doctrinal point of the same religion, then what, pray tell, is one SUPPOSED to use?... "
First off, you miss my point. You're using them to back your argument against homosexuality then discounting your source by saying it has been wrong before.
2 Timothy 3:16 - the real keyword there is "inspired."
"Um, so?...You can put in the last paragraph at the end of the sentence on the bottom of the page for all the difference it makes. The RCC clearly chose their name for a reason. Duh. I was pointing out that "catholic" refers to the concept, and "Catholic" tends to refer to the proper name of the specific denomination."
So you were pointing out something not being disputed (and that was already implied) in my sentence? Ok. Glad you can see the obvious things guy.
" It ain't about the thoughts, it's about the actions." - Jesus says we can sin in thought also. Sorry pal.
"What parts of the Bible are to be taken literally and which are not is a question that has largely been settled for most of the body of the biblical text." - BIG disagreement here. If that were true we wouldn't be having this conversation. The existence of Creationists and separate denominations (among other groups) also refutes that.
You may want to steer clear of Revelations for any of your arguments. It's prefaced by the author who claims it is no more than an account of what he saw, not what God told him to write. In truth, you may even want to visit a Catholic website (those dealing with the Catholic Church, not just any "universal" websites ), since you don't seem to know as much about Catholicism and the RCC as you think you do.
"Real life is not Star Wars."
Be weird if it was. Wonder what they think of homosexuality in Star Wars, or if it even exists there? Difficult this question is, meditate on it I must.
To be honest, I don't know if it's right. I know my gut wrenches when I think about him doing that. But it's not the first time a US prez has used his religious beliefs to dictate policy or American culture. So not exactly surprising either. It's hard to separate your religious beliefs from your beliefs about what's good for a society. I would even argue it's impossible since most religious beliefs dictate what you think about what's good for a society. (kinda wordy, but it works i think)
Fun yoda action and a good respose that I clearly can agree with
Spluh, I'm worn out from the week and don't feel like responding in the near future ... let's just agree for now that generalizations are generally bad
So true, so true, and here we have discovered the root of all evil. Mankinds inability to accept its past mistakes so it will continue making them claiming everything they have done before was correct.
And for bloody hells sake stop saying gays shouldn't be married to eachother, that they should turn around get married with women and have kids, we're overpopulated enough as it is, I want kids one day and damnit they'd have a better life if there weren't so many of them out there. Also in what twisted world is it good for a child to be raised in a union where there IS NO LOVE.
As for British TV its open, honest and accepting of other people (ok fine so theres as many viewers of here 24 as in the US probably in no small part due to it showing the US in a poor light a lot of the time ). I don't like reality TV, I think the truman show was saying "look how bad things can become" and we thought "great idea for a show!" but we're not the only ones with Big Brother unfortunatley.
Now for something to be morally wrong it has to cause more harm to the world overall, including even the person performing the act than it causes good. Now lets take gays, they get to fufill their romantic desires like everyone human on the planet wants to (and IMO deserves to). Now lets take you, for seemingly no reason based in this world you like to seperate the world in holy and evil sinners, hence hurting people, causing rifts, so forgetting about God you fall under the category of evil, remembering God we remember he doesn't need anything.
By the way a parent sets rules and guidlines, they don't say "love me despite the fact I may not exisit or roast on the eternal fires of hell" infact my parents probably wouldn't even simply turn me out to find my own place if a rift came between us, I guess that makes them more forgiving than your all loving creator. And personally I'd be more likley to put up someone I couldn't stand in my house who made a mess all round the kitchen than someone who had murdered somebody completley unrelated to me, surely God should be a little more concerned too.
I mean imagine a good honest human woman who happened to believe in god her whole life, despite everything that happened to her. She and mother were raped and her mother killed by the same man, her father hung by racists, her best friend who died of cancer having spent her whole life having helped others, her rape councellor died protecting her from a repeat attack.... she gets to heaven...
No mother, she was an atheist, no father, he had doubts at the last second, no friend because she was a lesbian, no rape councellor she was of a different religion....
there she finds her mothers killer and rapist who repented, the mob of people who killed her father as they believed they were doing gods work. By my definition that poor girl is in HELL NOT HEAVEN!
Yeah, this whole thread is really kinda moot since he's a bishop now anyway. Sure we could all sit here and discuss where or not we like it, but it's done and it probably won't be undone so oh well.
Ignoring the issue of whether or not gay marriage is moral for the moment, I would say that Bush is overstepping his bounds because he is violating the constitutional separation of government and religion.
well gay marriage does sort of defeat the purpose of marrige as a means of creating life and spuring on the worlds population, but then i am not a homo hate i belive every one who si gay has a right to be that way.....unless they choose to be in which case they dont have any right to do so, if it has been predetermaned that the child is to be gay at birth fair enough that cant be helped.......but in all rights ITS NOT NATURAL.
homosexuality while i accept it as part of society is just really not natural.....bush may be pushing his belifes into making the desision about homosexuals but by all rights they shouldnt be allowed to marry, it defies the point of it, which is a union of love and commitment and to spur the human race forward with the gift of life.
but then if they love each other i dont see anything really wrong....unless they decide to have children in which case i do belive there is a great deal wrong there, at most u have a greater liklyhood of the child turning gay and at worst the child will cop alot of abbuse as a kid imagine a kid going "my daddy, sleeps with my other daddy" its not right, its not moral and it shouldnt be iligal.
but then thats just my oppinion
Fair enough. Having established that - pray tell, exactly where do the scriptures talk about how bishops should be appointed and who is elegible for such positions? How about marriage - where do the scriptures talk about who is elegible to be married... indeed, where do they talk about who is elegible to conduct marriages? I haven't read much of the Bible, so partially I ask this out of curiosity... however, I'm also pretty sure that the answer to at least some of the above questions is 'nowhere'.
Consider, from Adam and Eve to The Flood = @2000 years.
Flood to Birth of Jesus Christ @2000 years.
Birth to present @2000 years.
What is a few thousand years to a God who made the universe and can transcend time like we would walk through a door. No one knows the time of God calling His followers to be with him, but I promise you one thing, hell will come to earth. You will see hell. If you have not yet by then or hardened your heart to God, I recommend some serious soul searching before it is too late and your soul is lost forever. The Bible lists several requirments of things that will come to past prior Jesus' second coming, most have come and gone recently (past 20 years). How far behind are the rest. If you would like me to elaborate, I will be happy to do so. But I fear that you are set in your ways and are not interested in what others may have to say which in contrast to your opinions. I pray it will not be the death of you.
They've come and gone many times, beginning with Attilla. Go ahead and prepare yourself for the end of the world, but you're likely to be disappointed.
Sounds like you two have a lot in common, then .
Thats because I live in America. If that Korean communist shit tried anything with us, we could just ship over the lower-east side of NYC and take control of a third of asia in under a month.
yeah u could do that, but ud be responsible for the nuke that they launch that will wipe out billions of ppl
Why do we need *two* of these threads? I'm melting this one into the other one.
Separate names with a comma.