mormonism & homosexuality

[cole grey]

Snakelord says, "Oh, so you posted merely to tell me what's right, what's wrong and done with it? Oh, not to mention briefly trying to compare me to a fundamentalist, before you go on your merry little way?"

No. I posted because you implied that the christian belief was completely selfish, which I thought showed some insight. There is an element of selfishness, and there should also be an element of selflessness, which I described in a post. Do I really need to explain in detail how I once cared little about anyone but myself, and now care quite a bit about other people?

I am selective about answering your questions because I am not here to try to mentor you into a relationship with God. Like I said, you have some interesting ideas that are relevant when you don’t devolve the conversation into black and white statements about things the most informed theologians, some who have devoted their entire lives to understanding the book we are talking about, have argued about forever. I never intended to get into a 15 point discussion on it, but you take each post and instead of dealing with the point of a paragraph, pull each sentence out and we have three new discussions for every one point.

CG- “However, anyone that says "God is good, but he has told me to do evil", is living a logical impossibility.”
SL-“This would then include the majority of characters in the bible.”
CG- "most of the characters of the bible" did not use, "God said to", as an excuse. “
SL-“Abraham goes to kill his son - because "god said to"
Noah builds a boat and buys a few pets - because "god said to"
Moses went and had a go at the Egyptians - because "god said to"
etc etc etc yada yada.
The only 'characters' who seemingly differ from that would be Adam and Eve who ate the apple - because "god said not to"
The entire bible is a "god said to" excuse.”

But we are not talking about using, “god said to”, as an excuse for just any old thing. We are specifically talking about using,”god said to” as an excuse for doing “evil”. You have created a whole new conversation by shifting away from my point over the period of a few posts. Is building a boat related at all to this conversation? No. Don’t waste my time with that.

CG- “You do not know what I need, or do not need. You do not know my level of functionality with or without God.”
SL-“Nor do I care.“

Why did you say this in an earlier post, “And so clearly, you do need god,” if you don’t know and don’t care? Don’t waste my time with that.

CG-“If I happen to ascribe meaning to it that you do not, it just means I am making connections you are not. “
SL-“No, it means you're making a fantasy that I am not.
We can both play that game. Give it a rest. .“

The part I “gave” you to show that I am not coming with holier-than-thou bullshit is the sentence that follows the one you quote – “Whether the connections I make have any basis in reality, other than their positive effects on reality, is far from being shown.” The sentences are not written to be read one by one, without making connections between them. I did not say you were ignoring everything I said.

Also going back to 75% etc.,

CG- “The mistake you make in talking about the 75%, 25% right and wrong is the same mistake fundamentalists make. The book must be interpreted, it seems that the whole thing cannot be interpreted literally. The onus is on you and God to figure it out, or not figure it out. Don't pretend there is only one way to read it.”

There is a point here. The point would seem to be something you would agree with. You can’t take the whole thing literally. It can’t be done without either apparent logical impossibility, or an understanding that is far, far beyond my studies of the book. That’s all. The point is not who introduced the percentage, but your usage of the concept of a list of rules for christians when you already know situations are relevant. That is the same description of the christian practice fundamentalists have.
Why pretend the atheist has exclusive rights to use their brain? This is not acceptable.

CG- “Sorry. I hope you continue to help in God's work by attacking the hateful, illogical, and anti-scientific beliefs some people hold.”
SL- “You know, I generally try to get along pleasantly with people, but it is certainly a hard thing to do when they shove this in my face, along with trying to compare me to a fundamentalist and so on. But I can live with that. What really get's on my tits is when people ignore questions I ask, instead preferring to just post the crap from your quote.”

I mean this honestly. If it gets under your skin, that is up to you.

--

But this is the part of the discussion that is still relevant to your orignal idea.

CG – “christian morality is a paradigm, not a list.“
SL – “Christian morality isn't a list, it's a free for all pick and mix.”

I would submit to you that there are principles taught by christ that are overarching and also foundational. It is only through applying these ideas that I am able to make sense out of this book.
“love God with all your heart mind and soul.” And “love your neighbor as yourself.” This is the beginning. Is it impossible to do for me today? Of course. But this is the fountainhead of spiritual wisdom for christianity. Are there issues and problems? Of course.
Snakelord says, “Even your own kind will undoubtedly disagree on certain parts, which leaves us with a distinct problem.”
I don’t really see people having differing viewpoints as a problem. I see it as exhibiting multi-dimensional thinking. It doesn’t leave me with a problem, unless I need to have a majority of people agree with me to feel comfortable. I don't.

 

[SnakeLord]

No. I posted because you implied that the christian belief was completely selfish, which I thought showed some insight.

Not at all. The implication is that christianity does not uphold that which it preaches, and that which it's leader preached. Now I would agree with you completely to state that these laws, rules and beliefs exist solely for, and written by, people from another place and time. However, as someone who supposedly follows, believes in and loves this being, those laws are just as pertinent today as they ever were. The fact that you and a billion others are happy to dismiss them doesn't change that they, for believers, were set down by god for humanity. There is no "follow these rules until the year [enter year here]", but that each rule given by god is permanent.

Then jesus came along not to change or abolish those laws, but to complete them. And until the end comes "not one dot" and "not one little stroke" is to dissapear from the law, and anyone who infringes even one of the least of these commandments will be considered the least in the kingdom of heaven.

Before you start trying to dismiss that, remember that it's not me who's saying it, but jesus. Pay attention to jesus, he's trying to tell you something.

You haven't yet managed to justify ignoring god's laws other than to imply that the bible doesn't mean anything - unless it personally suits you to do so. That is not justification, it's an excuse to ignore god.

Do I really need to explain in detail how I once cared little about anyone but myself, and now care quite a bit about other people?

What purpose would that serve? Are you trying to sell your side to me by claiming you're now a nice guy? What difference would that make? It doesn't in any way change what I'm saying.

I am selective about answering your questions because I am not here to try to mentor you into a relationship with God.

Ah, you call completely ignoring every and any question posed as being "selective" heh.. Oh and don't panic, you couldn't mentor me into a relationship with a non-existant being no matter how hard you tried. It would be like me getting you to believe in and form a 'relationship' with leprechauns. That doesn't mean you're not allowed to ask questions about leprechauns though.

you have some interesting ideas that are relevant when you don’t devolve the conversation into black and white statements about things the most informed theologians, some who have devoted their entire lives to understanding the book we are talking about, have argued about forever.

Again you seem to like playing the numbers game. More people, more time spent, etc.. It's worthless.

I never intended to get into a 15 point discussion on it, but you take each post and instead of dealing with the point of a paragraph, pull each sentence out and we have three new discussions for every one point.

Guilty as charged, but if you say something I feel like commenting on, or rebutting, or even agreeing with, I do. I'm not one to ask if you want a "15 point discussion" before responding to posts you make, and even then you have the right to ignore the majority of it, (which you do exceedingly well). It would still be nice to at least answer the questions though.

But we are not talking about using, “god said to”, as an excuse for just any old thing. We are specifically talking about using,”god said to” as an excuse for doing “evil”. You have created a whole new conversation by shifting away from my point over the period of a few posts. Is building a boat related at all to this conversation? No. Don’t waste my time with that.

Actually, yes it is. Let's use the Abraham example that I mentioned. Now, telling someone to kill their child is "evil", plain and simple. Of course however, people justify it as god's will, and if being an order from god, it is not evil at all. Asking someone to kill their child is still evil, whether they do it or not.

Now, look at the woman who stoned her kids to death. She said god told her to do it, and there is no reason to doubt this at all. god has clearly told people to do "evil" things, but they're just not considered evil because "god said to". However, now it is modern day the excuse doesn't work so well, and people are generally imprisoned. Our justice system however, cannot speak for god - and although you and I regard these things as evil, god has no reason to and has not shown in the past to be able to make the distinction between our version of evil and his.

Now you just assign your human value of "evil" to things you disagree with, while still excusing god for his actions which, in human terms, are still just as evil.

"Those people are bad", so sayeth god, "take up your sword and smite them all, men, women, children". This is pure undiluted evil without any shadow of a doubt, and yet you justify it as being not evil because god commanded it or caused it. And yet people then get pissy about a woman following gods orders who happened to kill her sons, and then label her as evil, or committing evil, when it is absolutely no bloody different to all those acts that you attempt to justify.

So we go back to your quote:

"However, anyone that says "God is good, but he has told me to do evil", is living a logical impossibility."

If that then is the case, the only word worth removing is "good". Look through the bible and you'll see god telling people to do 'evil'. As in your own words it's a logical impossibility to have both, you answer it for yourself.

Why did you say this in an earlier post, “And so clearly, you do need god,” if you don’t know and don’t care? Don’t waste my time with that.

Ok, it was based upon the 'before I was a christian I was a scumbag' speech. I stated you clearly do need god as a result of that. Still doesn't mean I care.

There is a point here. The point would seem to be something you would agree with. You can’t take the whole thing literally.

I'm an atheist, none of it should be taken literally. That's not my issue, but that you as a believer do not have the position to make that choice and end up speaking on god's behalf. Jesus states that every law must be followed to the last dot. If you have a problem with that, take it up with him. I didn't write, or demand you follow the laws. But when you then start pulling it to pieces and making the "cole grey's bible", of what to listen to and what not, you are cheating god and ignoring jesus.

I am still awaiting some justified refutation to that, but you just keep repeating "you can't take it literally", like a parrot. I'm already aware the bible is a mish mash of old cobblers, but that's hardly justification to ignore it.

It can’t be done without either apparent logical impossibility, or an understanding that is far, far beyond my studies of the book. That’s all. The point is not who introduced the percentage, but your usage of the concept of a list of rules for christians when you already know situations are relevant. That is the same description of the christian practice fundamentalists have.
Why pretend the atheist has exclusive rights to use their brain? This is not acceptable.

This isn't about using brains, it's about obeying laws. Let's take a look at society laws

Murder is illegal, car theft is illegal, credit card fraud is illegal, stealing, shoplifting, flashing your private parts in public.. all of these are illegal.

You can ignore as many of them as you want. You can go kill some guy, steal his car, wave your bum out the window, and spend a fortune on his gold card. You can do that if you want, but when caught you will be punished for ignoring the laws that have been set - whether you think those laws are relevant to you or not.

The same goes for the laws set down by god. You can ignore them and state they're not relevant for you but only old jews, but it doesn't in any way change those laws - and as jesus said.. those laws would remain until the end. Your choice to ignore them does not change that in any way whatsoever.

An atheist is not bound by those laws simply because, like you, he does not believe in those laws. They mean nothing to him. That still does not change those laws in any manner at all. So you see, just like an atheist you are using your brain, and nobody ever denied that. That in no way justifies a believer saying it's ok to ignore the laws, because those laws still remain for the religious man to follow. I'm more than happy to be considered the least in the kingdom of heaven. Are you?

I mean this honestly. If it gets under your skin, that is up to you.

Really? It's upto me? No shit sherlock.

I don’t really see people having differing viewpoints as a problem.

Not yet at any rate.

 

[cole grey]

Snakelord says, "It would still be nice to at least answer the questions though."

Which ones? The ones you want an answer for, or the ones you don't want an answer for?
Example-

CG-"My relationship with god is pretty selfish, but through this relationship I am influenced in positive ways."
SL- ”I would like to ask how. You go on to give one such example, which is that your caring for people you have sinned against, or not, has increased. How do you 'care' any more than you did before finding this 'relationship'? What is different about it exactly?"
CG - "Do I really need to explain in detail how i once cared little about anyone but myself, and now care quite a bit about other people?"
SL- "What purpose would that serve? Are you trying to sell your side to me by claiming you're now a nice guy? What difference would that make? It doesn't in any way change what I'm saying."

If I don't answer your question, you have an issue. If I offer to answer your question, even though I already know you don't want me to, you say, "don't bother". Do you see why I am being selective? If not, please refer to the above example again. Are you even aware of what you are writing, or do you just go line by line ignoring what came before. I am using a completely different kind of ignoring. It is called "thinking ahead".

SL - "Then jesus came along not to change or abolish those laws, but to complete them. And until the end comes "not one dot" and "not one little stroke" is to dissapear from the law, and anyone who infringes even one of the least of these commandments will be considered the least in the kingdom of heaven.
Before you start trying to dismiss that, remember that it's not me who's saying it, but jesus. Pay attention to jesus, he's trying to tell you something. "

Explain Jesus' healing on the sabbath, and his explanation to the pharisees, basically teaching us that unthinking, blind adherence to the law is not possible, or profitable. Did he "complete" the law that day? What does your above statement mean in light of this? What is Jesus trying to "tell" me?
I think Jesus is trying to tell you something about the statement you make that follows. A statement which is, by the way, exactly the same perspective a fundamentalist has.

SL-"This isn't about using brains, it's about obeying laws."

Jesus teaches that the brain is a valid tool, by example.

Also,

SL - "But when you then start pulling it to pieces and making the "cole grey's bible", of what to listen to and what not, you are cheating god and ignoring jesus."

Cool, please tell me whose bible I should use then, if not my own? "Nobody's" is not a satisfactory answer.

P.S.

SL- "I'm more than happy to be considered the least in the kingdom of heaven. Are you?"

Actually, that is precisely what I think I will be. Sounds nice.

 

[cole grey]

From an earlier post:

So god's laws are always changing.. Hell there was a time when murder was a sin, but it didn't stop the Christians during the inquisition. No, the laws had changed - perhaps not for the better, but changed nonetheless.

from the same post:

If I stumbled upon a man raping a woman, I wouldn't hesitate in bashing his brains in. At no time would I consider this 'wrong'. In this instance taking a life would be the right thing to do because you would have saved the more worthy life.
Technically I would be a murderer, but deep inside I'd know I'd done the 'right' thing.

So, you get to use your brain but God says, "no, no brain-usage is allowed"? If you want one law that works for every situation, which you obviously don't think is possible looking at your second quote, you have to join the fundamentalists.

 

[SnakeLord]

If I don't answer your question, you have an issue. If I offer to answer your question, even though I already know you don't want me to, you say, "don't bother". Do you see why I am being selective?

Actually I said 'don't bother' when you asked if I wanted your entire life story - which I do not. What I asked for was how you are influenced in positive ways, (after you said you were influenced in positive ways). You gave one such example which I pointed out to you, in that you care more. I was wondering if there were other ways you had been influenced positively since finding god. This does not require an indepth look at your personality, just a small list of influences. Is it really that hard that you need to resort to bad manners instead?

I am using a completely different kind of ignoring. It is called "thinking ahead".

How about you stop 'thinking ahead' and try 'thinking now'?

Explain Jesus' healing on the sabbath, and his explanation to the pharisees, basically teaching us that unthinking, blind adherence to the law is not possible, or profitable. Did he "complete" the law that day? What does your above statement mean in light of this?

It would show that nobody is perfect, even jesus. Either that or he can do whatever he wants because he, unlike you, doesn't have to answer to anyone. But let's look at the former. While its true that nobody is perfect, I think the plan was for you to at least try to be that way as opposed to happily neglecting the laws. He didn't say "Hey, healing on the sabbath is only for old jews so why should I bother?" No, he showed that laws sometimes get broken, and as other christians will tell you, that's the time when you repent and ask for forgiveness. He's not saying "forget this law entirely, it don't mean shit". Is he? Hey, you tell me..

A statement which is, by the way, exactly the same perspective a fundamentalist has.
“ SL-"This isn't about using brains, it's about obeying laws."

While I will give you ten points for your ability to use the same word over and over again, you should know damn well what my quote meant. I guess perhaps you didn't, which is not a surprise really. If you need me to spell it out for you, let me know.

Cool, please tell me whose bible I should use then, if not my own? "Nobody's" is not a satisfactory answer.

I think you entirely missed the point of the comment. As I said, forget 'thinking ahead' for now. Go back and read it again in it's context. What you're doing is pulling apart the bible and picking and choosing whatever you personally feel comfortable while dismissing anything you don't as junk text that somehow worked it's way in there. What you end up with is.. bah forget it, it's like explaining algebra to a hedgehog.

So, you get to use your brain but God says, "no, no brain-usage is allowed"? If you want one law that works for every situation, which you obviously don't think is possible looking at your second quote, you have to join the fundamentalists.

Perhaps you missed it so I'll explain very clearly and simply:

I'm an atheist, the non-existant god's laws have no meaning at all for me. For someone who does supposedly follow, love and worship god, those laws mean, or should mean, more than they would to me. As a result, when he says "don't kill", it means, 'don't kill'. When he says "don't covet thy neighbours wife", it means; 'don't covet thy neighbours wife', and when he says "get circumcised", it means 'get circumcised'.

After all these posts and you've still failed to justify why that law need not be listened to, other than to say "it's for old jews" [I give you the challenge to point out where god even implies that the law is for old jews only].

Perhaps I should start drawing diagrams.

 

[cole grey]

No more arguing. You have your view as to where the confusion comes into our discussion, I have mine. I don't think that is going to be resolved...

The discussion -

It would show that nobody is perfect, even jesus. Either that or he can do whatever he wants because he, unlike you, doesn't have to answer to anyone. But let's look at the former. While its true that nobody is perfect, I think the plan was for you to at least try to be that way as opposed to happily neglecting the laws. He didn't say "Hey, healing on the sabbath is only for old jews so why should I bother?" No, he showed that laws sometimes get broken, and as other christians will tell you, that's the time when you repent and ask for forgiveness. He's not saying "forget this law entirely, it don't mean shit". Is he? Hey, you tell me..

You tell me...

Mat 12:1** At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples became hungry and began to pick the heads {of grain} and eat.
Mat 12:2** But when the Pharisees saw {this,} they said to Him, "Look, Your disciples do what is not lawful to do on a Sabbath."
Mat 12:3** But He said to them, "Have you not read what David did when he became hungry, he and his companions,
Mat 12:4** how he entered the house of God, and they ate the consecrated bread, which was not lawful for him to eat nor for those with him, but for the priests alone?
Mat 12:5** "Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and are innocent?
Mat 12:6** "But I say to you that something greater than the temple is here.
Mat 12:7** "But if you had known what this means, 'I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT A SACRIFICE,' you would not have condemned the innocent.
Mat 12:8** "For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."
Mat 12:9** Departing from there, He went into their synagogue.
Mat 12:10** And a man {was there} whose hand was withered. And they questioned Jesus, asking, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?"--so that they might accuse Him.
Mat 12:11** And He said to them, "What man is there among you who has a sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will he not take hold of it and lift it out?
Mat 12:12** "How much more valuable then is a man than a sheep! So then, it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath."
Mat 12:13 Then He *said to the man, "Stretch out your hand!" He stretched it out, and it was restored to normal, like the other.
Mat 12:14 Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him.

Not only Jesus, but the disciples, AND david. Just to feed their faces. Then the words about healing too.
No forgiveness needed or asked for.
He actually did say "not healing on the sabbath is only for old jews", basically.

It is like "explaining algebra" to hedghogs (plural). Are the hedghogs the pharisees, or are the hedghogs you and I?

 

[SnakeLord]

He actually did say "not healing on the sabbath is only for old jews", basically.

Well there's certainly a few things to examine.

1) That jesus was saying that 'healing on saturday' is allowed, making modern day christians do everything they like on a saturday. Of course this would then be excused from our discussion because god or jesus has distinctly allowed this law to be ignored. This doesn't excuse all the others though, now does it?

So you see, that is the whole point - and unless you can give a freedom from the law quote for every law, you have no justification for ignoring them, (i.e circumcision)

2) jesus was trying to excuse himself and friends for breaking the laws. You can clearly see how he does this by stating; "the son of man is lord of the sabbath", which is little short of; "I'm mini-god, I can do whatever I want". His statement to those who upheld the laws didn't do much good, and straight after this he goes into hiding and tells people he cured not to let anyone know where he was. That is the typical action of someone who is guilty, and of course he couldn't persuade the people that it's ok to heal on a weekend - because they upheld god's laws. If he truly was god, he'd realise this and be able to sort the problem out without too much hassle.

3) It's a sign of bad writing. That happens often with large scale texts/novels, and you end up with serious contradictions. In this very instance jesus makes himself the lowest in the kingdom of heaven.

Changing the laws while saying; "I have not come to change the laws", shows how prone to error the biblical authors were.

 

[cole grey]

Well there's certainly a few things to examine.
1) That jesus was saying that 'healing on saturday' is allowed, making modern day christians do everything they like on a saturday. Of course this would then be excused from our discussion because god or jesus has distinctly allowed this law to be ignored. This doesn't excuse all the others though, now does it?
So you see, that is the whole point - and unless you can give a freedom from the law quote for every law, you have no justification for ignoring them, (i.e circumcision)

No. This was an example of jesus using his brain. The pharisees were not using their brains. They were going for a fundamentalist, easy answer for any question. That is not available. Jesus points that out by showing how the law (don't work on the sabbath) can go against common sense and doing good (take the sheep out of the well). An apparent contradiction. If Jesus says he doesn't come to abolish the law, then he didn't. Your idea that he came to abolish the law about the sabbath is no good.

2) jesus was trying to excuse himself and friends for breaking the laws. You can clearly see how he does this by stating; "the son of man is lord of the sabbath", which is little short of; "I'm mini-god, I can do whatever I want". His statement to those who upheld the laws didn't do much good, and straight after this he goes into hiding and tells people he cured not to let anyone know where he was. That is the typical action of someone who is guilty, and of course he couldn't persuade the people that it's ok to heal on a weekend - because they upheld god's laws. If he truly was god, he'd realise this and be able to sort the problem out without too much hassle.

This is a nice perspective for an atheist, but has no application to a believer. I most certainly am not going to use the "atheist's bible". Even the "cole grey bible" is less sacreligious than that one.

3) It's a sign of bad writing. That happens often with large scale texts/novels, and you end up with serious contradictions. In this very instance jesus makes himself the lowest in the kingdom of heaven.
Changing the laws while saying; "I have not come to change the laws", shows how prone to error the biblical authors were.

You don't get it. He doesn't have to change the law. He is saying that the laws are not to be interpreted the same for every situation. This is called applying your brain. You did it when you talked about killing the rapist to protect the victim.
If you want to take the easy out and say, "it just can't make sense", go ahead, but don't pretend that I have to.

 

[Brutus1964]

Duendy

I am not asking you these questions in a condemning way but I have a couple of questions. You say you are into nature and everything, but isn't homosexuality against nature? You have to admit that homosexual sex is not what nature intended. Nature doesn't concern itself with our pleasures and passions. It's only concern is to progenerate the species. Natural selection frowns on living organisms that do not reproduce. It ultimately will select that species for extinction. How do you reconcile your deifying nature but at the same time your lifestyle is diametrically against it?

 

[SnakeLord]

Jesus points that out by showing how the law (don't work on the sabbath) can go against common sense and doing good (take the sheep out of the well). An apparent contradiction. If Jesus says he doesn't come to abolish the law, then he didn't. Your idea that he came to abolish the law about the sabbath is no good.

Oh right, I see.. the law still stands? Groovy, so tell me Cole, what did you do on Saturday? Many sheep got stuck in wells? Oh let me guess.. Common sense would dictate that shopping for cd's in the local mall is "doing good"?

Your very post in comparison with jesus quote would suggest that the law can be broken if there is a serious reason to do so, (such as healing a man with a withered hand). Tell me Cole, healed any withered handed men recently? Does this law and exception from it state you can go ice skating, or to the cinema? Would that be classified as "healing on the sabbath"?

This is a nice perspective for an atheist, but has no application to a believer. I most certainly am not going to use the "atheist's bible". Even the "cole grey bible" is less sacreligious than that one.

Of course not, you'll just work the bible you have to mean anything you want it to mean, and excuse and justify anything you personally feel like doing. When you go and kill someone, you'll ignore the "thou shalt not kill", and point out paragraph so and so that says in some instances it's ok. You're a fake.

You don't get it. He doesn't have to change the law. He is saying that the laws are not to be interpreted the same for every situation. This is called applying your brain. You did it when you talked about killing the rapist to protect the victim.

Fair enough.. extreme circumstances like the one I mentioned earlier can be broken and ignored, but then does circumcision come under one of these extreme circumstances? Was it going to cause lifelong misery, make you a cripple, cause sheep to fall down wells? Or is it possible you just don't feel like obeying it? Well?

The amusing thing is that being circumcised is actually more hygienic, and supposedly more stimulating for a woman. I would consider getting circumcised then as "applying your brain". The operation takes 5 minutes and you're better off because of it.

Anyway Cole, justify it.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Brutus1964: Duendy

I am not asking you these questions in a condemning way but I have a couple of questions. You say you are into nature and everything, but isn't homosexuality against nature? You have to admit that homosexual sex is not what nature intended. Nature doesn't concern itself with our pleasures and passions. It's only concern is to progenerate the species. Natural selection frowns on living organisms that do not reproduce. It ultimately will select that species for extinction. How do you reconcile your deifying nature but at the same time your lifestyle is diametrically against it?
*************
M*W: Brutus, I cannot speak for Duendy or others, but as a heterosexual female, I'd like to share my viewpoint.

No, homosexuality is not against nature. How do we know what nature "intended?" That's like saying that we knew the tsunami was coming. Homosexuals are a part of nature just like heterosexuals but, I understand your question regarding the inability to reproduce. Maybe I can explain a few things.

Nature is evolving just like we are. Homosexuality is a result of sexual evolution. I believe certain environmental factors, along with genetic predisposition, and hormonal surges in utero, all affect our gender and our sexuality. There have been studies on the hypothalamus, but I believe they have all been inconclusive to date.

Nature, however, does concern itself with pleasure and passion. Nature is rife with pleasure and passion, and we are part of and partake in that joy.

The world is becoming more crowded (but not yet to the point of not having any space left -- there's a lot of room to spread out). In the laboratory, mice that overpopulated their cages were observed to have a higher percentage of homosexuality and violence. (Sorry, I don't remember the citation).

Have you ever given the thought that humanity may becoming extinct like the dinosaurs, pterydactyls, dodo birds, etc.? We still have certain lizards and birds, but pterydactyls are sort of a combination of the two. Anyway, they became extinct, but their descendants still survive. The same thing can happen with humans. We will evolve. We won't look like we do now. We won't have the same needs that we do now. Our gender and sexuality is also evolving (transforming over eons of time). There will come a time when our current human family evolves to extinction. Oh, but we'll still be here, but we'll look, think and act totally different! We will become a lot smarter than our species is now, and we will grow bigger and stronger. Of course, we will be more technologically intermeshed in our society then. Although I hope I'm wrong, we may not have the need or desire to reproduce the old-fashioned way. As our ancestors are being phased-out to extinction, our progeny won't even be able to recognize us in the future. They will look at anthropology books and laugh at what a crude sort we are, just like we do today when we look at the Neanderthals.

What is natural to us today may not be natural for us in the future, because we will have evolved to extinction. Our gender will evolve toward a more androgynous human being, and our brain capacity (storage) will increase. Reproduction may evolve toward self-impregnation or a common in vitro fertilization. I know this doesn't sound like something we could look forward to, but if we lose our capabilities to have heterosexual sex, we will also be relieved of our natural heterosexual desires. It may not sound like the future would be much fun, but the good things will always weigh out the bad.

 

[cole grey]

My point is this - since I can't make total sense out of the bible when interpreting it literally (neither can you), I have to do my best to make sense out of it with my brain, and apply it from there. This includes study of other people's perspectives, but in the end I am responsible for deciding what I believe, and that is necessary. <--- ***if you don't understand the preceding point you are never going to get it***
The sabbath is a day of rest. I try to always take a day off to clear my head. I even extend this to people I work with - if they are working seven days in a row, I try to do the work with them another time. This can be a pain, but when you put it all together it isn't a big sacrifice, remember this -
Mark 2:27 Jesus said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath."
I think other commandments are sensible too, when APPLIED INTELLIGENTLY.

Of course not, you'll just work the bible you have to mean anything you want it to mean, and excuse and justify anything you personally feel like doing. When you go and kill someone, you'll ignore the "thou shalt not kill", and point out paragraph so and so that says in some instances it's ok. You're a fake.

So, you get to kill someone when necessary to protect another innocent person, but I am a fake. Your bias is magnificent.

Also, check this out -
"Having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him.

Therefore let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day- things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ." (Col 2:14-16)

What do you make of that verse? "It's a copout", is not acceptable. If you don't even try to make sense of the bible, you are not justified to condemn it as senseless. You might as well put down a movie you've never even watched.

Also, I was circumcised as a baby, so I don't have to think about this. Easy to wash, like you say. Also, I have heard that circumcision results in better sex due to slightly decreased sensitivity. Other people's, or their children's, penises are not my concern. If I have a male child, I'll do some more research on all aspects, scientific and biblical, and make a decision. This paragraph is funny. Who talks about this - two "sensible" adults. You keep bringing up circumcision though, so I figured I might as well just say it.
Look, I may be a half-assed example of a "christian", but I'm not a "fake". At least I admit that I screw things up, and don't try to justify every negative thing I do, and call it good. I am not kosher at all, but refer to the above verse (col 2:14-16) and make sense of that before you come out trying to judge me.

 

[Brutus1964]

Medicine Woman

I understand what you are saying about population. However, there is no evidence of an increase in homosexuality based on the increase in population. China is the most populated country on the planet and they have no more homosexuality than any other place. In fact China is an excellent example because they are going through a female crisis. There culture values female babies less so there are less female's born because of abortion and infanticide. You would think that a culture with more men would cause an increase in homosexuality but in fact it does not. If anything it makes men yearn for women even more. In prisons people are confined and that seems to produce homosexual behavior. However, most prisoners that are released do not continue homosexual behavior after being released. So there may be something in the human psyche that changes when a person is confined not just because of an increase in population. Therefore homosexuality is not nature’s way of controlling overpopulation.

 

[cole grey]

Brutus,

Don't use china as an example. I just heard a story about a guy in china who grew up in a farm province who was gay, but thought he was the only person who felt that way, a total freak of nature. Then, through the internet, he found out that a lot of men were attracted to men. Men in China are not as open about homosexuality, as in many other cultures, so it is impossible to make the statement you made without taking that into consideration.

 

[Brutus1964]

cole grey


Is there any evidence that places with larger populations have a higher percentage of Homosexuality? If we look at India they are a much more open society that is almost as populated as China. Also Japan's population is extremely dense. The United States and Europe are relatively low in population compared to some of these others. It seems if we used this logic that homosexuality should be much lower in western countries but I do not think that is the case. It is hard to say how much homosexuality there is in any society. Even in the United States we cannot agree on an actual percentage. It is said to be anything from 1 - 10%. Not a very exact number.

 

[SnakeLord]

My point is this - since I can't make total sense out of the bible when interpreting it literally (neither can you), I have to do my best to make sense out of it with my brain, and apply it from there. This includes study of other people's perspectives, but in the end I am responsible for deciding what I believe, and that is necessary. <--- ***if you don't understand the preceding point you are never going to get it***

There's no problem with understanding that, the problem is that it serves to render 'god's word', or god's laws completely meaningless. Every law, every rule, every commandment sent down by god for his creation to uphold and obey now ends with an "unless.."

"Dont do this.. unless...[insert random variable here]"

This being the case, you can easily excuse yourself for any "sin" you might commit - and those sins are no longer sins, but in your words "using your brain". We need only look at your posts to see how the excuses take hold, as an example: "For old jews", or "jesus said it's ok in this chapter".

I too am guilty of this, by saying I would happily transgress the laws and kill someone to protect my child.

But I thought this is what separated christians from moral-less scumbag atheists like myself? I also do not get the impression that your transgressing the laws that have been set down by a god that you do believe in, while I do not, leaves you liable to punishment due to it. You seemingly view it as if no sin has been committed at all.

From my perspective - obeying man made laws, I would expect to be punished for my crimes even if I considered them justified - because those laws are not freely interpretable in the way I personally want them to be or consider them to be. I do not see that you feel this way with concern to god's laws, but more like they can be freely modified depending on your opinion at any given time.

When I was 15 I considered the laws about drinking alcohol to mean nothing. However, if caught drinking alcohol I would face the penalty of breaking that law whether I personally agreed with it or not.

By that same token, whether you agree to god's laws or not, (for example.. not eating pork), you are still liable and still comitting a sin. Just because you sit down and say you'll apply some brain and come to the conclusion that it isn't relevant to you, does not make that any less of a law, and you any more free to ignore it.

My having to answer to the law when I commit a crime cannot surely be anywhere near having to answer to god for committing sin?

What would your justification be then? "It was for old jews"? "I didn't consider it relevant"?

but when you put it all together it isn't a big sacrifice

No it isn't, but then a few posts back you did apparently go out of your way to justify ignoring it.

What it really comes down to is just your disagreement with the laws.

I disagreed with the law stating only people over 18 could drink, or only people over 16 could have sex, or the law stating I can't kill my neighbour if he upsets me, or the law that states I can't make loud noises at night. I find them of no relevance to me, especially considering that these laws were made by pompous old fools who didn't know how to party.

But then.. I can drink alcohol as long as I keep it a secret, I can bonk women as long as no policemen find the condom, I can make noise as long as the neighours don't wake up, and I can kill the neighbour as long as I wear gloves.

That is what you're doing, whether you see it or not. While I can/could do those things and get away with it, what chance would you honestly have when god's eye is always upon you?

Pleading ignorance in court might help a little bit, but how many times do you think you'd get away with it?

Mark 2:27 Jesus said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath."

See my point?

I think other commandments are sensible too, when APPLIED INTELLIGENTLY.

How about now?

I think laws are sensible, when applied intelligently. As a result, I find myself having a problem with the underage sex laws. How can you make it illegal for someone to perform the most basic and natural act of all living things on the planet? How can you ban hormones from being able to carry out their natural god designed duty?

Now tell me this, do you consider what I've said here as a personal opinion? Does it change the law or free me from the law in any way whatsoever regardless to whether I think it's been applied intelligently or not?

So, you get to kill someone when necessary to protect another innocent person, but I am a fake. Your bias is magnificent.

I am not under god's law. If I kill someone -regardless to reason - all I have to worry about is a bunch of detectives and "crimestoppers". You on the other hand would have to answer to god, and I get the impression he would be harder to hide from, and the punishment is slightly longer than 30 years or so.. well, an eternity longer.

The difference however, is that I would still consider myself as having committed a crime. I do not get that same impression from you, who seems more at home excusing that crime as "using your brain" - and thus removing any liability for the crime itself. The crime that you apparently don't even consider to be a crime, the law that you don't even consider to be a law. (Not specifically talking about the murder example).

For the sake of discussion let's use the don't eat bacon example and for my side the don't use drugs example.

You do not consider eating bacon as a sin. You've applied your brain and decided that it's actually irrelevant in the year 2005, and was instead just a law for old jews.

I do not consider smoking marijuana as a crime. I've applied my brain and decided that it's actually irrelevant because i'm old enough to realise the risks, and is instead just a law for teenagers.

Now, when I sit down and smoke a joint, I am aware it is against the law and thus do so secretly - even though I consider that law irrelevant to me. I am also fully aware that if caught I will be punished under that law.

When you sit down and eat a pork chop, I bet the thought that you are actually breaking a law never even enters your head. Not only have you decided the law is irrelevant to you, but you've completely dismissed it from your mind as if the law has vanished off like a puff of smoke into the void.

Neither of those laws have changed. The only difference is that I still recognise them as laws, whereas you have swept them under the rug.

Do you see what I am getting at?

Of course, you're taking a bigger risk than I am. I can go to certain lengths to keep my breaking of the laws a secret. Can you?

What do you make of that verse? "It's a copout", is not acceptable. If you don't even try to make sense of the bible, you are not justified to condemn it as senseless. You might as well put down a movie you've never even watched.

It's saying that a human can't judge you for your transgressions of the law, but god bloody well can.

You keep bringing up circumcision though

Yeah, Sigmund would certainly have something to say about that, but no, I do not have a problem with my mother

To be honest I consider it a good law to focus on, simply because as a general rule christians don't obey it, and I can see very few excuses or justifications as to why it is ignored, (aside from some rare cases of penis deformity or something whereby a cicrumcision would cause extra damage).

The law has basically been buried in the dirt - Not by god, but by man. As shown above, it doesn't make that law any less of a law, or the transgressors any less liable for punishment.

but refer to the above verse (col 2:14-16) and make sense of that before you come out trying to judge me.

But wait, I applied some brain and realised that text is irrelevant. Not judging others might be of value to you and old jews, but not to me.

Pisstaking aside, I am not under the bibles jurisdiction. It's one of the benefits of not being religious.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Brutus1964: Is there any evidence that places with larger populations have a higher percentage of Homosexuality? If we look at India they are a much more open society that is almost as populated as China. Also Japan's population is extremely dense. The United States and Europe are relatively low in population compared to some of these others. It seems if we used this logic that homosexuality should be much lower in western countries but I do not think that is the case. It is hard to say how much homosexuality there is in any society. Even in the United States we cannot agree on an actual percentage. It is said to be anything from 1 - 10%. Not a very exact number.
*************
M*W: The overcrowded mice population study was done a long time ago, and as I said, I don't remember the researchers. It had to be more than 20 years ago. Anyway, the overcrowding led to violence and homosexuality, not that the two are related. I human populations, I really don't know the ratio of overcrowding to homosexuality. The more recent ratio of homosexuality to population is 1:4. I believe homosexuality (including lesbianism) is increasing, but also more people are coming out of that closet.

When I was in high school, back in the Dark Ages, there were 'rumors' of 2, maybe 3, students who were suspected homosexuals. When my kids were in high school, there was a high percentage of outted homosexuals. I guess the statistics really cannot be compared because of the closet factor. I also believe that our chemically manipulated food supply, in addition to genetic predisposition, environmental factors, and hormonal surges during pregnancy, may be the factors that show an increasing number of homosexuals in our day and time, and I believe we will continue seeing more of them. These people need a voice. They need to be heard. They deserve the same human rights that most of us are accustomed to, at least in this country. I don't know about other countries.

I don't agree with current policy, at least in my state - Texas - "the good old boy state," that disallows same-sex marriages. We've come a long way from the Beaver Cleaver family model. I just don't see how government can tell us who can be in our family and who cannot. A family should be made up of whomever you want to be.

 

[Brutus1964]

Medicine Women

There is nothing wrong with the Beaver Cleaver model. The husband working and the mother staying home taking care of the kids is still the most healthy model for children. That is the way I was raised and that is also the way I am raising my children. It isn't easy with just the one income but it is worth the sacrifice.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Brutus1964: Medicine Women

There is nothing wrong with the Beaver Cleaver model. The husband working and the mother staying home taking care of the kids is still the most healthy model for children. That is the way I was raised and that is also the way I am raising my children. It isn't easy with just the one income but it is worth the sacrifice.
*************
M*W: No, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Beaver Cleaver model! I was raised that way, too. My children, however, didn't have that opportunity, but one of my grandchildren has a stay at home mom, and she is excelling in everything a 10-year-old could do. I'm also there for my grandkids when their moms are away. I have truly been blessed. If grandchildren could be exchanged for money, I'm the richest woman in the universe!