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

[Dammerung]

The Preists molesting children is not so much as a problem as when Little Johnny goes to his parents about it, they smack him and say "How dare you speak about a preist in that way!". Thus, the crime goes unreported. And LOAF is right, religion no longer serves it's purpose. I could care less if a guy wants to stick his wang, in, as LOAF put it, a non-wang hole as opposed to a wang hole. It isn't, and shouldn't be a problem in today's society. Also, I really doubt that if god exists that he(or she) would stoop down to being a bigot.

 

[Preacher]

...- a: far less preventable than it was 2,000 years ago... when it was essentially *not* preventable.

- b: far more treatable than it was 2,000 years ago... the vast majority of STDs aren't going to kill you in this day and age, where they may well have in the past.

Heheheh, LOAF; good one. I'll assume you meant far MORE preventable now than back then, eh?...
As to "b", I think you need to consider something you may not be aware of: AIDS, to be sure, is the only *directly* fatal STD, but there's still significant long-term & big-time risks with some of the other more common ones:
-- Hepatitis (various types, but mainly Hep B) is an STD, though it can be transmitted elsewise as well. Hepatitis can lead to liver failure/death, not to mention the carrier state where you can unknowingly transmit it to other people, who in turn MIGHT go into liver failure, even if it didn't affect YOU that way
-- HPV (venereal warts) can put women at increased risk for cervical cancer, which can definitely cause death, or at least major surgery

-- Syphilis can have a very long dormant period (enabling you to transmit it without even knowing you have it), and can lead to long-term serious brain damage
-- A number of STDs can have serious consequences on pregnanat women and/or their unborn babies, perhaps even rendering them unable to have children
-- Likewise, good old standards like gonorrhea and chlamydia can cause serious infections in women which can have the end result of causing them to become infertile or end up having to undergo hysterectomy. No small matter, that (esp. if the woman is your wife, girlfriend, sister, etc.).

...You know, it's getting tempting to close this thread, not because of the actual discussion, but because of the broken-record "this thread is going to be closed" idiocy...

Yeah. I think they fail to understand that if they don't like where the thread's going, all they have to do is not READ it anymore...

The Preists molesting children is not so much as a problem as when Little Johnny goes to his parents about it, they smack him and say "How dare you speak about a preist in that way!"
...Also, I really doubt that if god exists that he(or she) would stoop down to being a bigot.

-- Yeah, well, ain't no more parents gonna be doing THAT anymore, now, are there (except for the really dumb ones)?...
-- You need to learn a bit more about God then, bub. Every Supreme Being that I've ever read about (Christian/Jewish/Muslim, to start with) have their "prejudices", to use your paradigm. For starters, NONE of them are pleased when we humans worship OTHER gods than them. Moreover, they all have no small problem with the idea of their worshippers lying, murdering, raping, stealing, etc. ... Finally, as has been pointed out earlier here, we humans ourselves have no shortage of justifiable "prejudices" against, say, the very things I mentioned in the previous sentence. That's why societies have LAWS, dude: To let the criminally-minded know that we are "bigoted" against their deeds and lifestyles, and that if they continue on, they WILL eventually get caught and have to pay the piper for what they've done. Sheesh.

...Thus by both action and inaction the Jews brought about the death (and later resurection) of Jesus Christ.

So long as you realize that God has by no means abandoned the Jew, and still has a vital place for them in His plan. As such, their sin then *has* been forgiven (Luke 23:34), just as ours (Christians) have been *since* then...

 

[dextorboot]

The Bible does condone slavery, when it's done "right". If you've read Leviticus, it reads more like slavery=indentured servitude. For instance, you're only allowed to have the slave for at most 7yrs, or if they owe you something until that debt is paid before those 7yrs. After 7 yrs, all debts are supposed to be forgotten. You're also not allowed to mistreat them or else you can be stoned to death (harsh). But yeah, the way it was practiced in the US was by no means condoned by the Bible.

Let's not go into the priest molesting kids thing. That has no relevance here. Child molestation has nothing to do with sexua preferance. They are entirely uncorrelated. Not only that, but catholi priest are no more (or less) likely to be child molesters than anyone else allowed to be around children. There are dozens of well respected demographic studies that support that. The only reason we think they are is because the media covers it more. Having said that, every Catholic should condemn such an act regardless of who commits it. Coverups for things like that exist everywhere. Those acts should also be condemned. If it were up to me anyone involved would be gone from the priesthood already. I'm all for forgiveness of sins, but that's a criminal act. Give to Caesar what is due to Caesar. These sickos should be put away. The Church deserves all the crap they've gotten for not doing anything about it. But the way the media portrays it as a breeding ground for sex offenders is wrong.

To bring up (and go back to) another point, the Catholic Church has many openly gay priests. It's sort of a non-issue though since they practice celibacy.

 

[Preacher]

...But instead of rolling with the punches and adapting to the current situation, the old religions are throwing these childisn 'notice me!' hissy fits. ...So the very smart people in charge of setting up religions stepped in and said "Uhm, this God guy doesn't like that". Now that's fine. Good job, religion. It was useful at the time. But it's *not* anymore.
...Religion should grin and bear it and expend effort helping with something else instead of wasting all our time yelping about why they're still relevent.

-- On the contrary mi amigo; in a world of ever-changing values and ideas of right & wrong, religion presents one of the few constants (aside from death & taxes, natch) that people can rely on to guide them through life. I speak here of religion in general, and the great monotheistic ones in particular (i.e., not JUST Christianity). The purpose was never to "roll w/ the punches" in the first place; to do so would make a mockery out of said religion. That's not to say that they can't adapt to changing times; in fact, they SHOULD do so. BUT, only within the confines of whatever their "eternal truths" are set out to be. If they "adapt" so much as to abandon those principles, then they are worthless as a belief system. That's exactly what's happening with this recent move by the Episcopals: It will serve to trash their credibility as a truly Christian denomination... I have little doubt that, if this decision isn't somehow reversed, the Anglicans worldwide, and the truly faithful Episcopals here in the US, will have to split from them, else cast them out of their fellowship.

...Child molestation has nothing to do with sexua preferance. They are entirely uncorrelated.
...Not only that, but catholi priest are no more (or less) likely to be child molesters than anyone else allowed to be around children. ...The only reason we think they are is because the media covers it more....Coverups for things like that exist everywhere.
...These sickos should be put away. The Church deserves all the crap they've gotten for not doing anything about it. But the way the media portrays it as a breeding ground for sex offenders is wrong.

To bring up (and go back to) another point, the Catholic Church has many openly gay priests. It's sort of a non-issue though since they practice celibacy.

-- Um, not quite, Dex:
If your sexual orientation is toward children, then by definition to have sexual contact with a child is molestation.
-- You are right about the statistics. But we don't "think they are" SOLELY due to media attention: The prob w/ the RCC pervert priest scandal is that these sins/crimes were so widespread - and the coverup so comprehensive - that it became institutionalized. When you hear of similar things happen in other than RCC churches, it's something that happened at the Boston 1st Baptist Church, or the Redeemer Presbyterian church in Phoenix, etc.. That is, when it happens elsewhere, it is an isolated local pheomena, rather than something that is so widespread as to be institutional - across the entire denomination.
-- I agree with you about how they deserve everything they're now getting (and a whole lot more). But because it's something that became so institutionalized, it unfortunately *did* serve as a de facto "breeding ground" for pedophiles.
--Finally, you make a good point about the celibacy thing:. If you as a priest - or to make it nondenominational, a minister - can maintain your celibacy, it makes no difference what your orientation is. The problem comes in when you can't keep it in your pants, and your orientation is towards children.

...I hear you mention the bible all the time is that what you trust paper and books and men's failed attempts at trying to guess what god meant when he said things.
...As a former church attender...I found myself praying alot. I asked god once how can I proove that the bible is flawed. well the obvious was it was written by men, the second was a piece I saw on the civil war where the south had manipulated the bible and changed some scripture to show that slavery was ok. If that doesn't make you really think about what or who really matters, I have no Idea how to show you what I know to be true everything is flawed by man...
...since aids gay men have curbed alot of their permiscious (sp) behavior while 78% of all new aids casses are reported in straight society I think aids was gods way of saying sex without Love is bad and if aids was really gods way of killing gay as so many put it in earlier years why aren't we all dead then?
...Okay but I have another qeustion I don't think preacher will touch...

-- Any Christian worth His salt will rely on the Bible above and beyond anything else, when push comes to shove. The reason is really quite simple: We believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God to mankind. As such, human error is averted: It is inerrant, and entirely consistent within itself. No one part of it contradicts any other part. Pretty remarkable for a collection of writings written over 1600 years, by 40+ human authors, living in a variety of cultures & nations.
-- You are right in saying that everything by man is flawed to some degree. However, as pointed out above, we view the Bible as being written by God thru the pens of human authors. If you can grasp the idea of God speaking to mankind & telling him what to write down (and it doesn't seem as though you can, but nonetheless...), then surely it's no big thang for God to make darn sure that the text that passes down thru the ages remains intact. If certain..."special interest groups" (as you point out) take what was written and manipulate it around, that's to their shame, but it doesn't change the truth of what was originally passed down; moreover, the errors they made came to light not long thereafter, else you wouldn't have been able to point them out to us.
-- We don't know that HIV was God's way of killing gays; it's merely human speculation. Nonetheless, let's assume that that theory is right: The answer to your question lies in God's abundant patience & mercy. Look at Old Testament Israel: They slapped God in the face for hundreds of years between the giving of the Law (Exodus) and when they finally got deported to Assyria/Babylon (Jeremiah/Daniel). The New Testament says "God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to eternal life". This speaks of God's tremendous mercies. If He was not so merciful, I guarantee you that I would be dead several times over by now. Similarly, for our example, y'all gay guys are not all dead because HIV served as a warning or "wakeup call", more or less, to get yourselves right with Him. I can't tell you how many stories I've heard/read of gays facing imminent death from HIV who decided finally to repent of their lifestyles and turn to Christ. They may've gone on to die, but they died peacefully and feeling forgiven by God.
-- I will gladly "touch" this question of yours, but I'll hafta save it for a later post, since I have to get going soon.

 

[vindicator]

I only mentioned child molesting preists because if we allow them to keep their high positions what's so bad then about letting gays in that same spot I am not saying it's better or worse but if you allow child molesters you gotta let gay people to because a sin is a sin and if you look the other way on one you gotta look the other way on them all

-Rance-

 

[vindicator]

in rrgaurds to that preacher,

do you think those people repented because they believe they were wrong or because they were afraid because fear and hoplesness are key factors religion uses to goad you into believing god wants you to be afarid of him and it's fear that drives most types like you you are afraid of what this means for humanity this gay bishop and you fear so much why? the god I know asks us to learn and follow him fear is a tool of the devil and fear is never a good thing accept in self protection

as yoda once said "fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering"

-Rance-

 

[dextorboot]

First off, it's not a widely accepted idea that pedophilia is a sexual preference. Most would consider it a perversion, as do all respected studies, DSM4, and legal documentation. You need to readjust your definitions.

If the Church were a breeding ground for pedophilia then all statistics would support that statement, but NONE do.

The cover-ups were exactly what I was condemning. You're arguing with nobody.

The reason it is an isolated local phenomenon with other churchs is that no other churchs have the beaurocratic structure that the Catholic church has. Most churchs are indeed left alone by any other higher authority in their denomination. Cathoic churchs don't operate that way. They are all organized into parishes, archdiocese and so on. The idea here is so all Catholic churchs are operating on the same page. (not perfect, but it works for the most part)

AIDS/HIV is not a gay disease meant to teach gays a lesson. It's a human disease, is it MEANT to teach us anything? I don't know. Will/has it? Oh yeah.

 

[vindicator]

Oh! I'm sorry

 

[Ghost]

How old are you? To save some time I'm 25.

Jim

I´m 25 too

 

[Bob McDob]

AIDS, to be sure, is the only *directly* fatal STD

AIDS doesn't actually kill you ... it just weakens your immune system and whatnot.

-- Um, not quite, Dex:
If your sexual orientation is toward children, then by definition to have sexual contact with a child is molestation.

I like that you said "sexual orientation toward children" ... A lot of a-holes seem to think that when a priest molests a boy he's practicing homosexuality, and then saying it "proves" the link between homosexuality and pedophilia. In reality, pedophilia is pedophilia. It rarely has anything to do with gender - just the mindset of the perp and victim. I'm not sure why young boys are preferred, since you never hear about "lolitas" except in pornos and network TV (whatever happened to Amy Fisher, anyway?) ... It's arguably just as common for female teachers to seduce their sixth-grade students as for priests to molest young boys (although the former is generally far more monogamous ... )

AIDS/HIV is not a gay disease meant to teach gays a lesson. It's a human disease, is it MEANT to teach us anything? I don't know. Will/has it? Oh yeah.

One of my favorite conspiracy theories is that AIDS was developed by the CIA at the behest of the Reagan administration to kill off homosexuals.

 

[vindicator]

Yay!

oh wait regan was trying to kill us awww damn it

-Rance-

 

[Preacher]

I only mentioned child molesting preists because if we allow them to keep their high positions what's so bad then about letting gays in that same spot I am not saying it's better or worse but if you allow child molesters you gotta let gay people to because a sin is a sin and if you look the other way on one you gotta look the other way on them all

...in rrgaurds to that preacher, do you think those people repented because they believe they were wrong or because they were afraid because fear and hoplesness are key factors religion uses to goad you into believing god wants you to be afarid of him
...and it's fear that drives most types like you
...you are afraid of what this means for humanity this gay bishop and you fear so much why?
...the god I know asks us to learn and follow him fear is a tool of the devil and fear is never a good thing accept in self protection
...as yoda once said "fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering"

-- Well, the problem, of course, is that they shouldn't be allowed to keep their positions, but unless the law intervenes, we must rely on some of those same higher-ups to root out this cancer, and we've seen how fabulously successful THAT has been... And the law is ineffective here because the statute of limitations is far too short for this type of crime. Many victims aren't ready to come forward until they've grown to adulthood, and then, guess what? The statute has expired!... On the other hand, when there's your standard straight or gay sexual hijinks going on, the victims of same can be relatively "good to go" to come forward and seek justice, at least within the limits of the statute.

So, what is at play here is not so much a moral quandary (as you seem to imply) but rather a legal one. Ask any devout Christian churchgoer: Most would tell you that if a minister/priest is guilty of a sexual offense, they have forfeited their right to be a leader in the church - once they get out of jail, that is. In short, morally speaking they ALL should be chased out of the ministry/priesthood, legally, however, it is an entirely different matter when it comes to pedophiles. Maybe one good thing that might come out of this is that there will be a mass revision of statutes of limitation for pedophiles; say, extending the statute to 20-30 years after the crime. That would be schweet... (BTW, this response pretty much covers that question you asked me about last time, so I won't bother to respond to it separately, unless U need further clarification...).
-- They believed they were wrong. And you *are* wrong about people being goaded into faith out of fear of God. You should look up the phrase "fear of God" in a Bible dictionary or concordance. As it's used in the Bible, it does not mean that you are afraid that God will come and whack you upside the head with His Justice stick if you step out of line. That's far too narrow a definition of the term, and in fact, it's totally off-base.
"Fear of God" means a combination of the following (a) Reverent awe, (b) profound respect and love, and (c) extreme aversion to doing that which displeases the Lord (Why? Because if you love someone profoundly, the LAST thing you want to do is to displease, insult, or disappoint them).
-- "Types like me" have THAT type of "fear of God" that I describe above, not the petty, selfish, self-indulgent type that you mean when you use the term.
-- I'm "afraid" (*your* word, not mine) of what this whole gay bishop thing will do to the church as a whole, and how it gives God's reputation a black eye, and for how it will lead many astray. This is from a combination of the "fear of God" described above, and a healthy concern (or "fear", if you insist on using that term) for how many souls will be lost or sent astray by the heresy that will result from it. A good person LOVES his family members, and doesn't wish to see any of his brothers/sisters/cousins/etc. fall into harmful consequences. As a result, he'll, for example, be a bit worried when he sees his little sister cross the road for the first time, or go out on her first date, etc. Same principle here, only the stakes are MUCH higher.
-- As to your last point, I couldn't have said it better myself. But those who remain in their sin are NOT "following" God, whether the sin pattern in question is sexual, addictional, emotional, or whatever. As Christ said, "if you love me, you will obey my commands" (John 10). And before you tell me that Christ didn't directly address the issue of homosexuality, let me tell you that one of his "commands" was to obey "the law and the prophets" (basically, obey the OT scriptures). That covers all your various OT prohibitions and condemnations against homosexual conduct, FYI.
-- One question: What's up with quoting fictional nonhuman movie characters?...

First off, it's not a widely accepted idea that pedophilia is a sexual preference. Most would consider it a perversion, as do all respected studies, DSM4, and legal documentation. You need to readjust your definitions.

If the Church were a breeding ground for pedophilia then all statistics would support that statement, but NONE do.

The reason it is an isolated local phenomenon with other churchs is that no other churchs have the beaurocratic structure that the Catholic church has. Most churchs are indeed left alone by any other higher authority in their denomination. Cathoic churchs don't operate that way. They are all organized into parishes, archdiocese and so on. The idea here is so all Catholic churchs are operating on the same page...

-- I consider it to be both. I don't care what it's clinically classified as; I'm using "sexual preference" here as a descriptive term. You need to keep in mind, homosexuality (I'm using the term here descriptively, hence I mean both gay males AND gay females) was only relatively RECENTLY re-classified as being a sexual preference; before that, it was considered a pathology, or "perversion", if you will.
-- I'm not aware that there is a technical definition for the term "breeding ground". If you have one, please give it to us and provide documentation. Until then, I'll use the common usage definition: A setting/situation which tends to attract and/or foster certain kinds of activity (usually with a negative cannotation) in the entities involved. Because of the centralized bureacratic structure of the RCC, and the rampant institutional secrecy/coverup at the highest levels, the RCC has been able (till recently, thank God) to get away with having so many of its priests exercise their sick minds and not have to be accountable for it. Non-RCC churches/denominations, lacking that centralized structure (and the wide coverups that may go with it), do not, of course, "cover" for the sickos. Thus, it remains a local phenomena. To the extent that the RCC has had this de facto policy of playing a shell game with their pervert priests, it has indeed functioned as a "breeding ground" for this type of activity, using the common usage meaning of that term.

Anyhoo, in the case of a Catholic seminary, those on the "priesthood" track go into it knowing that, once they have graduated, they have set themselves up for a life of celibacy forever afterwards. For those that know their orientation is gay or straight, and are prepared to live celibately from there onwards, they are set. For those who have, um, "other" sexual orientations (READ: pedophilia), many see it as a "way out", whereby their desperate struggles can be, hopefully, forever controlled by being bound by their vow of celibacy. However, once they get in to seminary, at some later point they've discovered the rampant institutional allowances (for lack of a better term) that are made for being able to indulge their perversions and yet still be able to remain a priest. Consequently, their inhibitions weaken and they are far more likely afterwards to violate their vow of celibacy. Oh, sure, they may hafta get shuffled around a lot, but in the end, they've known (till recently) that the church will "cover" for them. From then on (for such susceptible sickos), it's like a fox having the keys to the henhouse. Such is not the case with Protestant or Orthodox seminaries, in that (a) Once graduated, they will be free to find themselves a wife, and (b) Pedophiles cannot "count on" being protected from the consequences of their actions.

AIDS doesn't actually kill you ... it just weakens your immune system and whatnot.

Picky, picky!. Well, fair enough, but the bottom line is the same either way...

 

[Quarto]

I have little doubt that, if this decision isn't somehow reversed, the Anglicans worldwide, and the truly faithful Episcopals here in the US, will have to split from them, else cast them out of their fellowship.

Well... I certainly don't mean to insult any Anglicans here, but technically, the Anglican church is nothing more than a bunch of ex-Catholic heretics . Now, of course Anglicans don't see it that way - if Anglicans didn't feel they were justified in splitting off from the Catholic church, then they would have returned to it, after all. But as far as the Catholic church is concerned, the Anglicans were very wrong to do what they did. In short, both sides are convinced they were right.

I'm not writing this just to annoy you, or to attack Anglicans (or Catholics), though. My point is simply that in religion, there are things that take precedence over unity. Anglicans especially must understand that. If the Anglican congregation is on the verge of splitting, perhaps the best thing for Anglicans to do is to stop worrying about it and go for it. Indeed, encouraging this division is the only logical course of action for Anglicans (except perhaps for a mass conversion back to Catholicism ).

 

[Preacher]

...I'm not writing this just to annoy you, or to attack Anglicans (or Catholics), though. My point is simply that in religion, there are things that take precedence over unity. ..If the Anglican congregation is on the verge of splitting, perhaps the best thing for Anglicans to do is to stop worrying about it and go for it. Indeed, encouraging this division is the only logical course of action for Anglicans (except perhaps for a mass conversion back to Catholicism ).

Uh, that's a big 10-4, there, bub. Well said.

I'd only add that it might be worth exploring for them to see if there's any way this decision could be reversed. Even if it was, the pro-gay faction might then split off from THEM... But at least then, the Anglicans/mainline Episcopals could satisfy themselves that they did everything they could to try and work it out before resorting to a split (Romans 12:18, 1 Corinthians 5:9 thru 6:11) .

 

[vindicator]

Mostly,

I don't want a gay bishop, specificly because that just draws out more religous gay hate psychos. I am not attacking you preacher, but now even my own mother, who is christian and has foresaken me, says the time of the end is come.
Just today I overheard people speaking in the most hateful manner about it.

Stuff like this is just making it harder and harder to live in peace. Everybody is worried how it will affect the church, how about how it affects me or my gay friends or my boyfreind? what if this causes gay hate crimes to happen I don't know about you but I am terrifyed.

-Rance-

 

[dextorboot]

I wasn't aware homosexual had more than one meaning. But whatever....

Preach, even by your definition my argument is STILL validated. According to your definition (and what you seem to be arguing), the Catholic Church is a breeding ground for cover-ups, which no one could ever deny even before the media started covering pedophilia. The only way you could say that it was a breeding ground for pedophilia (using your definitions) is if the facts supported that statement, which they don't. So then, it would only be a breeding ground if pedophiles were becoming Catholic priests at a rate that was higher than pedophiles doing anything else. Demographic information tells us that is not true. Your arguments are good but only if you're talking about a case study of a few individuals who did that. On the grand scale, that's not what's happening. So yes, just like there are those homosexuals that "turn back to God" after being on their deathbeds with AIDS, that is in no way the norm (or even a strong minority) and it's really just better suited to an afterschool special or something like that.

Poor Reagan. I really feel sorry for the old man. Almost everyone loved him while he was President and now that he's lost it everyone bashes him. It really is sad.

 

[Wedge009]

The Catholic Church at times worships Mary over Jesus, in my mind a form [idolatry] since Mary just brought Jesus into the world and was not set up herself for worship by God.

I know this was corrected later, but the point is the same - Mary is like the rest of us (in that she was human, she still sinned), but she was still special in being chosen to bring Jesus to Earth. Nevertheless, I disagree that we should pray to God through her.

The strangest thing I know of is that in the past (middle ages) the Catholic Church preformed all services in Latin (and some still do) a language that most people of the time did not speak so they where not able to understand their worship.

Many things were done strangely in early days. Church services were dictated from Rome (or wherever the Pope and other 'top' people were), since not even Church ministers could read Latin Bibles. One of the many things which led to Protestants/Reformations, etc, IIRC.

Being catholic myself I work hard to try to convince catholics to re-center our cult on the central message of Jesus...

Cult?! Wrong word to use there, methinks.

[Homosexual behaviour in animals] does seem to be well documented and thus proves that homosexuality can indeed be governed by genetics. Hence the same is likely to be so with humans. While humans have big brains, this does not neccessarily mean we can go against what is in our genes. Its like saying, I choose to have purple skin, *poof* I have purple skin. That's silly. Its not neccessarily a choice to make.

I disagree that such behaviour 'proves' anything such as genetics governing choice of said behaviour. It's like the gay activists 'condemning' Australian PM John Howard for being "morally reprehensible" (that's hypocrisy) in saying that gay 'marriages' won't be made legal. They liken such a thing to women previously having no vote, or black people being treated as second class, and claim that heterosexuals have a monopoly over marriage.

The flaw with their argument is that clearly someone cannot choose such physical attributes such as their gender or their skin colour - these are dictated by genes. But the mind is a complex thing, and I cannot believe that things such as personality and behaviour are genetically linked, so to say that someone is 'born' 'gay' or 'straight' doesn't make any sense to me.

I have heard (unfortunately I don't know of any cases personally) of people who practised a homosexual lifestyle, turned to Christ, and are (pleasantly) surprised to (months maybe years) later find themselves attracted to members of the opposite sex. I don't mean to say that the transition happens in an instant, but it shows that it can happen.

There is a difference between being a homophobe and being a Christian. I have no problem if you choose to live a homosexual lifestyle, however, you cannot serve God in a leadership capacity when your life clearly dictates that you are not willing to follow Him completely.

Unfortunately, people still see Christians as homophobes, but this is a good point.

What does the first commandment say? "I am the lord thy god, thou shalt worship no other gods BEFORE me" this means that the god of the bible must always be #1 on your list of dieties/things to worship, and you cannot place any other god ahead of him, but you can still worship other minor dieties and or other such things.

Don't forget we 'worship' all sorts of 'gods' even in our modern lives. Money, sex, power, that sort of thing.

Dark F: you seem to forget that paul consideres all forms of sex between any combination of sexes or beings wrong and evil and that celebacy is the best way. He also considers women evil.

Where did you get that teaching from? Paul said it is good for a man not to marry so he can devote his life to worshipping God. But he also said it is better for a man to marry lest he be burned up in his lust.

Paul also advocated certain things about women (women must learn in silence, etc) but he said such things in a time when Jewish rulers made life such that women truly did appear as inferior beings.

What Paul actually said was that he *wished* that all people could be "as I am", meaning single and content to stay that way (1 Corinthians 7, starting w/ verse 7). He goes on quite extensively to say what are the proper and accepted means of being related to one another in a marital situation, albeit ONLY between ONE man and ONE woman. He even states that single-ness (as Paul himself is) is the exception rather than the rule, and is only for those to whom God bestowed it as a spiritual gift.

Yeah, this is along the lines of what I wrote just above.

I feel that to hate a gay person is just as much sin as committing homosexual acts.

Indeed, which is why I am just as unhappy with those who commit 'hate' crimes against gay people. (Not to mention it gives gay activists more ammunition.)

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 sure the Pope is having a hard time trying to do his job and keeping his statements 'politically correct'. Also, we (humans, I mean) cannot damn anyone to Hell, it is only God who judges us at the end of our lives on Earth.

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.

I'm not so sure about the inclinations bit, since Jesus stated that sinning in thought is just as much a sin as sinning in action. But the last sentence there is true.

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

Yet the Romans could find no basis for a charge against Jesus.

[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

That's nice, TC.

I hear you mention the bible all the time is that what you trust paper and books and men's failed attempts at trying to guess what god meant when he said things.

Of course the Bible is written by Man, and could be flawed as a result. But is not to say that we haven't done our best to keep it as accurate as possible and that God had no hand in keeping it as accurately as humanly possible. AFAIK, the Bible (at least the 'New' International Version of it) essentially takes Jewish Scripture as the Old Testament, and scholars went through the thousands of manuscripts which have survived to translate what's known as the New Testament.

Keep in mind, if we cannot accept the Bible as being accurate, then we also have to question the accuracy of writings of/on other historical figures such as Caesar.

As for people manipulating the Bible for their own ends, well, the blood is on their own heads. I recall the verse "you shall not allow a witch to live" or some such being used by the people of Salem as the backing for their witch hunt.

...LOAF is right, religion no longer serves [its] purpose.

I would say that religion never had a purpose. Certainly not in the way people perceive 'religion', anyway.

The Bible does condone slavery, when it's done "right". If you've read Leviticus, it reads more like slavery=indentured servitude. For instance, you're only allowed to have the slave for at most 7yrs, or if they owe you something until that debt is paid before those 7yrs. After 7 yrs, all debts are supposed to be forgotten.

Many things were done in the Bible which were not necessarily good. And many things in the Bible should not necessarily be taken literally.

Well... I certainly don't mean to insult any Anglicans here, but technically, the Anglican church is nothing more than a bunch of ex-Catholic heretics... My point is simply that in religion, there are things that take precedence over unity.

I know you're from Catholic-dominated Poland, Q, but how does "technically" justify that statement? Also, all Christians are one in Christ... but of course, as imperfect humans we have different ideas on different things. Just look at all the so-called Bible-based 'Christian' cults out there.

...but now even my own mother, who is christian and has foresaken me, says the time of the end is come.

I am sad for you. If she truly was Christian, I don't think she shouldn't have forsaken you, and if she really follows Christ, she should be prepared to (re)accept you as her child, no matter what.

There's a whole lot of stuff that I've skipped, but I think this post is long enough as it is (phew one hour reading/typing!)

 

[Bob McDob]

The flaw with their argument is that clearly someone cannot choose such physical attributes such as their gender or their skin colour - these are dictated by genes. But the mind is a complex thing, and I cannot believe that things such as personality and behaviour are genetically linked, so to say that someone is 'born' 'gay' or 'straight' doesn't make any sense to me.

Not Genes != Free Choice

I have heard (unfortunately I don't know of any cases personally) of people who practised a homosexual lifestyle, turned to Christ, and are (pleasantly) surprised to (months maybe years) later find themselves attracted to members of the opposite sex. I don't mean to say that the transition happens in an instant, but it shows that it can happen.

I'm pretty sure most of those have been discredited.

 

[Wedge009]

Neither of your statements have any reasoning to justify them.

 

[vindicator]

I hate the Idea that people think the bible is right just because it's old and stuff.

"Oh this was written 1000 years ago so it's gotta be right!"

Well I know for a fact that in the early christian times, there was no new testement. So how did they justify their beliefs because, they had to justify them to believe them. I am just curious because, all the time I hear "The bible is right because it was written so long ago, blah blah blah and so it's right because it is!" Without your bible or your cross, would you have your faith?


-Rance-