The CIC OT Zone's Official You're All Huge Idiots Religion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Farlander

Rear Admiral
Lynx said:
The point of the church is strange indeed. The pope says that we should respect homosexuals and not discriminate against them, but at the same time he voices his concern about gay marriages and gayness in general. It's like the church says "You are a very bad person, but we don't damn you to hell for it."

I`m interested in which way gay marriages would actually hurt or weaken the institution of marriage and family or lead to the other than hurting the worldview of several people? If I was married, it wouldn't hurt me one bit if they would be made legal. Could you enlighten me please?
The position of the Church is that homosexual acts are just like any other mortal sin - if you know it is a mortal sin, and you do it, you're going to hell by your own choice. If you have homosexual inclinations, then you are called to live a life of chastity - those inclinations are not sins in themselves. And of course people with those inclinations deserve the same respect that any other person does.

The argument the Church makes is that the purpose of marriage is to serve as the basis of family, for bringing children into the world and teaching them what they need to know to live as good and productive members of society. This is not possible for homosexual couples, because they cannot bring forth new children. Furthermore, since each child has the natural right to a mother and a father, an adoptive situation would violate that child's rights. Therefore, homosexual unions do not contribute in any way to the present or future good of society. Consequently, they should not be given legal status.
 

Napoleon

Spaceman
overmortal said:
1) Homosexuality is a choice made by individuals. It follows the "TISA" principle. Thought, Imagination, Stronghold, Action. You have a 'thought' of a homosexual nature.


.
yea because the scientific evidence says that homosexuality is based on genetics and not choice, that means that clearly it must be a choice. Right there overmortal.... :rolleyes:
 

Needaham45

Spaceman
I think I should add that once I heard about a study on animal species that said pure homosexuality occurs 10% of the time, and pure heterosexuality occurs 10% of the time. The other 80% are varying degrees of bisexuality. The proposed theory for these numbers not being expressed in humans was that they hold true, but due to society's pressures on us, often overridden.
 

steampunk

Spaceman
It is very sad that so many people here are prejudice. Especially the ones who say "Let them be gay. Away from me." I guess that means white americans were never racist against blacks. They were alright with blacks, just as long you were black at the black water fountain near the black entrance to a building. Just as long as they were black, away from me.

That's progress for you.
 

overmortal

Bearded Person
Ghost said:
Hehehe...you are very stupid man
Ah, yes. Nothing like, in a debate, resorting to good, old fashioned name-calling. Way to show 'em who's boss. . . (notice the severe sarcasm)
 

Preacher

Swabbie
Banned
Starkey said:
...but relationships with children are forbidden because, in one sentence, their mind and body are not ready for it...
Bingo. And society is not "ready" for the consequences of allowing for the legality of gay marriage. Nor should it be. If you want a warning, look at ancient Rome.

Lynx said:
I'm sorry to report that you actually sound like Senator Rick Santorum.:rolleyes: From your point of view homosexuality is comparable to murder, terrorism etc. YOU think it is a crime, at least you sound very much like it. This post shows your ignorance and prejudice.

...And a chain reaction like you described wouldn't happen since this is one issue which many people care about. ...In what way could this actually endanger the state?

...The point of the church is strange indeed. The pope says that we should respect homosexuals and not discriminate against them, but at the same time he voices his concern about gay marriages and gayness in general. It's like the church says "You are a very bad person, but we don't damn you to hell for it."

...I`m interested in which way gay marriages would actually hurt or weaken the institution of marriage and family or lead to the other than hurting the worldview of several people?...Could you enlighten me please?
(1) Thank you. From what little I know of him, Santorum seems like a standup guy (as far as politicians go, anyway). As to your comment, homosexual acts are comparable to the others you cited, in that they all are immoral human behaviors. I do not think it is a crime, but in its immorality, it is most certainly a sin (and all 3 major monotheistic religions, in the main, agree on this). If standing for that which is upright, and standing against that which is wrong/immoral/unethical is "prejudiced", as you say, then I gladly plead guilty.

(2) It is my fervent prayer that you are right on this point. I have no doubt that the chain reaction I outlined WOULD, indeed, happen; rather, the fact that so many people "care about" this issue might be the one thing that prevents it (gay marriage) from ever being realized in the first place. I already outlined how this would adversely affect the state; I'll not repeat myself: go read it again. I will point out, though, the old adage that "as the family goes, so goes the nation". An excellent example of this would be the deterioration of the Roman Empire from their glory days. It was the very corrupting effects of rampant immorality (and its effect on the family) that caused the empire to crumble from within.

(3) The church's stance is really not that strange at all. It comes down to good old Christian compassion: Just as Jesus had compassion & forgiveness on prostitutes & tax collectors, so we also should be with people caught in any other kind of sin/sinful lifestyle. Yet you'll notice that Jesus never condones the thievery and corruption of the tax collector, nor the immorality of the prostitute. Indeed, he speaks quite firmly against all of these, as they are sin. This is commonly summarized by the old adage "hate the sin, love the sinner".

(4) Actually, Farlander answered this last point of yours rather well, so I refer you to his post on that.
Napoleon said:
....because the scientific evidence says that homosexuality is based on genetics and not choice...
D'oh!

::Napoleon wakes up & smells the coffee, schmacks self in forehead using famed "V-8 maneuver" ::

steampunk said:
It is very sad that so many people here are prejudice. Especially the ones who say "Let them be gay. Away from me."...
No, what's sad is that people like yerself are ignorant to the fact that there are certain prejudices that we humans routinely and rightfully exercise. Most fathers, for example, wouldn't let their teen daughters date a guy who's done time for rape; most people wouldn't invest their money with a broker who's been nabbed for fraud; most would not hire an alcoholic to drive a truck, etc. Prejudice in itself is a normal healthy human phenomena, as I just illustrated. The problem comes in when prejudice is applied wrongly. As to your illustration, blacks did not, of course, choose their color. Therefore such a prejudice is/was unwarranted. Exercising your gay orientation or not, on the other hand, most definitely IS a choice (and a moral choice at that). As such, when one persistently chooses to do that which is immoral, others are right to be "prejudiced" against you (This applies, by the way, as much to the person who has an "alternate lifestyle" of cheating on their spouse, "shacking up" with a boyfriend/girlfriend outside of marriage, or is a compulsive gambler, etc., not just gays).

BTW, to clarify, Christ was killed by the Romans, who in turn were asked to do so (or more precisely, they were threatened into doing it) by the corrupt Jewish religious leadership of the day (as opposed to the Jewish *people* per se - that is, the average Jew on the street.). There is absolutely no basis for a conscientious Christian to hold any prejudice whatsoever against Jews. As Christ Himself said from the cross, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do". This very statement forbids any possible room for prejudice in the Christian heart. The fact that Nazis or the KKK could take & conveniently ignore this fact speaks to the corruption of the human heart more than anything else.
 

LeHah

212 Squadron - "The Old Man's Eyes And Ears"
"Four voices just audible in the hush of any Christmas:/ Accept my friendship or die / I shall order and not very much will happen / Bring me luck and of course I'll support you / I smell blood and an era of prominent madmen." - W.H. Auden

I also smell a thread getting closed soon because the stupidity level is rising to high tide.
 

Ghost

Emperor
overmortal said:
Ah, yes. Nothing like, in a debate, resorting to good, old fashioned name-calling. Way to show 'em who's boss. . . (notice the severe sarcasm)
That is the only reasonable answer..you don´t explain why the sun rise from the east nor you debate if you see it yellow or green,but hey, the world is full of stupid people...but if you wish..i will post some of them

1) Crucifixion (spelling) wasn´t a jew method of ejecution

2)The last dinner of jesus was the night of the seder of Pesaj, the next day he was crucifixed, The Sanhedrin and the other elders don´t made trials or ''ejecutions'' in holy days.

3)Jesus was a rebel against the Romans, he was judged under Roman laws and authority, jews didn´t have the authority to judge him for that charges


4) Jews put the INRI sign in the cross...wait no.
 

overmortal

Bearded Person
At this point, I could care less about your little debate. I'm just along for the ride. And I'm going to laugh rather hard when this thread gets shut down.
 

Ghost

Emperor
Preacher said:
BTW, to clarify, Christ was killed by the Romans, who in turn were asked to do so (or more precisely, they were threatened into doing it) by the corrupt Jewish religious leadership of the day
I don´t think so, i can´t believe that 30-40 old men threathed the Roman Empire (or if you want the Governor,etc).
Last time that jews ''threathened'' (an uprisal) the Romans it ended in a diaspora ,the Temple and Jerusalem destroyed.
But i will grant that some jewish dirigents didn´t like jesus and saw with ''good eyes'' his death

Bob McDob said:
Maybe he mean *orange catholic*!
Yeah, the Orange Catholic Bible is great
HYA YHA CHOUHADA!!!
 

Preacher

Swabbie
Banned
Ghost said:
1) Crucifixion (spelling) wasn´t a jew method of ejecution

2)The last dinner of jesus was the night of the seder of Pesaj, the next day he was crucifixed, The Sanhedrin and the other elders don´t made trials or ''ejecutions'' in holy days.

3)Jesus was a rebel against the Romans, he was judged under Roman laws and authority, jews didn´t have the authority to judge him for that charges


4) Jews put the INRI sign in the cross...wait no.

...I don´t think so, i can´t believe that 30-40 old men threathed the Roman Empire (or if you want the Governor,etc).
-- Correct. It was originated by the Persians, later adopted by Rome.

-- You are right in saying that trials weren't *supposed to* occur on holy days. However, that is nonetheless how it went down. Six (or was it 7?..I forget) trials in half a day. Amazing.

Anyway, that just goes to show you how vehemently the Pharisee leaders were intent on getting rid of Him.

-- The legal theory was just what you said: The justification for His execution was that he was setting himself up as a king, which was threat against Roman authority. However, the Jews *did* have the authority to judge Him, and judge Him they did (thus, the various trials he underwent before execution).

The prob was, they had no authority to *execute* Him. This authority was taken away from them when the Romans took over Palestine some time before. Thus, the Pharisees had to take Him to Pilate to get him killed. Even Pilate wasn't convinced, though. In the end, they had to threaten to make trouble for him with Caesar to get him to bend to their will.

-- You are right: Pilate, for the record, was the one who came up w/ the INRI inscription on the sign .

-- Believe it, bub.
Although, in all fairness, it wasn't so much 30-40 old men, but around 70: The Sanhedrin (the Jewish "Supreme Court"), was a group of 70-72 guys, though Scripture tells us that not all of them were in favor of it (Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus were 2 exceptions we know about by name). What's more important to remember is that this core group of guys then incited the crowds to demand Christ's death. It isn't hard at all to imagine how a mob mentality can quickly take over a situation - sadly, we see that all the time in this world of ours.

Moreover, it wasn't just the sheer numbers involved, it was also shrewd politics on the part of these leaders: Ssee my point above about how the leaders threatened Pilate with making trouble for him w/ Caesar. The fact is, Pilate was already in some trouble w/ Caesar because of his generally brutal treatment of the Jews. For them to have then complained to Caesar that Pilate was allowing a seditionist to go free would've surely been the end of Pilate's career, if not his life also...
 

Bob McDob

Better Health Through Less Flavor
As for President Bush standing by his beliefs. Bravo, we need more leaders like that. Someone who answers a higher calling. Don't forget that while there is a seperation of Church and State, that only means that the government would not interfear with the Church or dictate religion to the citizens. Remember this coutry (USA) was founded by people fleaing religious persecution in Europe. This contry (USA) was founded by leaders who had their vision in one hand and their Bibles in another.
I don't have any problem with Bush believing anything ...my problem is when he tries to foist his ideals upon the nation for no apparent reason other than the Bible tells him to - though I may be biased due to Bush's obvious Christian influences and born-again mindset.

Sure, Thomas Jefferson may have thought homosexuality immoral and recommended castrations, but he also played a large role in the creation of the constitution and seperation of church and state. And if you're implying that we should go back to burning young girls at the stake and lynching blacks and whatnot ...

I will point out, though, the old adage that "as the family goes, so goes the nation". An excellent example of this would be the deterioration of the Roman Empire from their glory days. It was the very corrupting effects of rampant immorality (and its effect on the family) that caused the empire to crumble from within.
Wow ... immorality caused the fall of Rome? I'm not sure what your standards are, but I've always considered the Romans more or less always immoral. I'd also like to know your source stating Rome's endorsement of gay marriage, since this is something quite new to me.

It's also kind of silly to say "corruption" caused the fall of the Romans (although I've heard this brought up before, just replace "corruption" with "christians"). It's probably more accurate to blame the total collapse of the Imperial line following the death of Commodus and the two hundred years of military juntas and tin-pot dictators of the week, along with the political instability that entailed ... this in turn caused massive inflation and economic catastrophe. I'm not really sure how to blame this on a loss of "family values", though, since the tradition right through this time was for patrician families to auction their daughters off to suitors, a practice which continued through the Dark and Medieval period ... and the tradition of Roman emperors was to murder their family whenever they deemed appropriete. I can think of Nero, who murdered his nagging mother, and Constantine (who was incidently not a Christian and baptised only on his deathbed) , who killed his wife after she killed his son. As for the plebians, well, nobody really gave a rat's ass about the plebians.

The idea of corruption might hold more water if you were dealing with the Byzantines, whose downfall can be traced steadily to the deterioation of their army. Though of course, it was the Ottoman Turks who brought out the cannons and blew Constantinople's defenses to smitherines.
 

Preacher

Swabbie
Banned
Wow. Me exrtremely sad...

"Ladies & gentlemen, we are very very near the end of civilization as we know it"

(a tip o' the hat to Dave Letterman)

Bob McDob said:
... I've always considered the Romans more or less always immoral. I'd also like to know your source stating Rome's endorsement of gay marriage, since this is something quite new to me.
...and the tradition of Roman emperors was to murder their family whenever they deemed appropriete.
It ain't so much "gay marriage" per se, but, as time went on in the Roman Empire, there got to be increasing levels and "acceptability" of all sorts of sexual perversion going on, including gay sex, pedophilia, incest, etc. The fact that this stuff was practiced at the highest levels with the aristocracy made it seem more "legit", and so it spread like a cancer. All these served to cause a breakdown of marriage and the family, and in turn, ended up causing Rome to rot from within, rather than simply fall in battle to an external enemy.
 

Ghost

Emperor
Yeah...i remember what old TC told me once....3 hours ago:

[22:36] <TC> Wow... I should go into this gay marriage thread and tell one of the religious people that their argument "Has more holes in it than Jesus" and see if they explode

It´s disturbing...disturbing
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top