|
Post by messengermicah on Apr 7, 2006 18:24:37 GMT -5
wanderingtrekker,
The examples of Europeans and Africans are examples of micro evolution and not macro evolution. I have no problem with that and neither does the Bible.
Since I took many science classes in college I had a lot of respect for science and so I reasoned that the earth could not be 6,000 years old. I believed in the gap theory (this theory believes that man was created 6,000 years ago but that the earth could still be billions of years old if necessary to validate isotope dating). I never actually studied the methods or validity of this isotope dating but just took it by faith (pun intended).
Later I realized this was a compromise and unbelief in God's Word and renounced that theory. Now I believe the earth is around 6,000 years old as the Bible affirms.
Why is this important? Well Moses wrote the book of Genesis (inspired by God of course). I have come to the conclusion that the Bible does teach that the earth was actually created around 6,000 years ago. If I believe otherwise, then I am not in agreement with the bible.
Jesus said repeatedly if you cannot believe Moses how can you believe me? (John 5:47, 3:12, Luke 16:31).
If we cannot trust what the Bible has to say about creation how can we trust that Jesus died and rose again for our sins? How can we trust anything else the bible says if we cannot trust the creation story?
Another key scripture that showed me it was 6 literal days was Mark 10:6-But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female (this would also be a good scripture for the homosexual thread). God made them male and female AT THE BEGINNING OF THE CREATION.
Anyway, that is why I refute evilotion.
Immorality actually began with Adam's sin in the garden of Eden.
I understand the point you are making about God always being around and so was immorality. Good point and I would like to answer that.
As I pointed out evilotion gives people a reason not to be accountable to God for their actions. In the days of the prophets of Israel even though people believed in God they did not think God would judge them, hold them accountable, or watch their actions. Here are several scriptures:
Psalm 14:1-The fool has said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that does good.
As soon as people say there is no God they begin to do corrupt and abominable works.
Psalm 10:11-He has said in his heart, God has forgotten: He hides His face; He will never see.
Psalm 10:13-Wherefore does the wicked condemn God? He has said in his heart, Thou (God) will not require it.
Psalm 94:7-Yet they say, The Lord shall not see, neither shall the God of Jacob regard it.
Ezekiel 8:12-For they say, The Lord sees us not; the Lord has forsaken the earth.
Ezekiel 9:9-For they say, The Lord has forsaken the earth; the Lord sees us not.
Please look these up and read them in context and you will see this was the reason for their evil doing.
Ezekiel was a prophet and he pronounced judgment against God's people and cried out against sin. The people believed in God but did not believe God would hold them accountable or judge them.
We have the same problem today in America with many professing Christians. This is one reason why Jesse, Miles, Jeff, myself and many others on this board preach the way we do, because this country has not been taught about this holy God that will judge us for our actions.
Evilotion is not the sole root of this problem but it has contributed greatly to it by allowing people to discredit the God of the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Apr 8, 2006 13:14:12 GMT -5
Charles Darwin was racist, read origin of species, he used evolutianry thought to try amnd prove the African Americans and Africans were "less Evolved". Hitler used evolutionary thought to try to justify the slaying of millions of jews.
|
|
|
Post by ejuliot on Apr 8, 2006 13:25:28 GMT -5
Charles Darwin was racist, read origin of species, he used evolutianry thought to try amnd prove the African Americans and Africans were "less Evolved". Hitler used evolutionary thought to try to justify the slaying of millions of jews. This is the real title of darwins book "The origin of species by means of natural selection: Or, The preservation of favored races in the struggle for life"Pretty self explanitory
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 8, 2006 13:46:21 GMT -5
Charles Darwin was racist, read origin of species, he used evolutianry thought to try amnd prove the African Americans and Africans were "less Evolved". Hitler used evolutionary thought to try to justify the slaying of millions of jews. Yeah and Britain used the Holy Bible to justify the genocidal Crusades against the Muslim world during the Middle Ages. Your point?
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Apr 8, 2006 14:14:30 GMT -5
are you homosexual? If not then what is the point of your sickening banner. I wish that people could use common sense. But I guess you cant have wisdom apart from God, so we really cant expect to much. (I iknow that was harsh, but look at that. I would rather see swear words.)
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 8, 2006 17:54:21 GMT -5
Aw, but they're so cute... just look how much they love each other.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 8, 2006 20:40:22 GMT -5
The only sexual orientation that the bible permits is heterosexual. The bible clearly condemns homosexual perversion in Romans chapter 1 and also 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.
The bible says nothing about homosexuality? Have you not yet read Romans chapter 1 and 1 Corinthians 6:9.
The issue is one of lust. Lust is sexually desiring that which is forbidden. There is no lust in a marriage because it is not forbidden. We are never to cope with sin, rather we are to excercise self-control.
.
1Co 7:9 - "But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." It does not forbid marriage.
Your arguement here is fallacious. You are discrediting the passages against homosexuality because of passages about straight marriage. This is not an arguement at all. You have yet to discredit the scriptures against homosexual perversion.
You have yet to give an arguement that is not fallacious against the clear and pain scriptures against homosexuality.
The bible clearly teaches in Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 that homosexuality is forbidden. You have yet to discredit these scriptures on any rational ground.
I didn't say they raised homosexual children. I am saying that it's a terrible thing for anyone to see homosexuality, especially children.
So long as they don't have sex before marriage, I see no ethical reason to condemn it biblically.
On what authority do you say these things? The bible clearly teaches that God's love is conditional - see John 14:21.
Do you decide what the essence of love is? Do humanists decide what the essence of love is? Or does God decide what the essence of love is?
I understand that is what they want. But God does not accept them and neither should we. I do not accept a homosexual for the same reason I do not accept a murderer or a child molestor. I would however accept them if they deny themselves and say no to their temptations and loved God with their actions.
Alison, on what grounds to you condemn slavery at all?
Do you have proof of this or is this merely prejudicial conjecture?
Unbelievers say that it is most likely that the scriptures have been changed because if you give people enough time, it won't be long until they change the facts a little bit.
However this is clearly prejudicial conjecture to say "most likely". You are dealing with these manuscripts from your foundation as though they were normal manuscripts and thus have already excluded from the beginning the possibility that these are the Words of God and therefore God has preserved His word.
This is truly begging the question. Your wrong premise automaticly means you will make the wrong conclusion.
Putting aside your guessing, the facts do not agree with you. The manuscripts we have been using to translate the bible are in actually the same as the originals and the earliest manuscripts that we have found.
The bible is the most credable peice of manuscript from the ancient world. Our earliest extant manuscript of a work by Plato dates from right before 900 AD ("Oxford B," found in a Patmos monastery by E.B. Clarke), and we must remember that Plato is thought to have written rougthly 350 years before Christ - thus leaving us with a gap of over twelve centuries. By contrast, the earliest fragment of the New Testament date less than fifty year after the original writings; the bulk of our most important extant manuscripts date from 200-300 years after original composition. The text of the New Testament is remarkably uniform and wel established. The reliability of the Old Testament text has been demonstrated by th discovery of the dead sea scrolls.
H. M. Orrlinsky wrote: "More and more the older view that the biblical date were suspect and even likely to be false, unless corroborated by extra-biblical facts, is giving way to one which holds that, by and large, the biblical accounts are more likely to be true than false.."
And even Time Magazine wrote: "After more than two centuries of facing the heaviest scientific guns that could be brought to bear, the bible has survived - and is perhaps the better for the siege. Even on the critics own terms - historical facts - the Scriptures seem more acceptable now than they did when the rationalists began the attack."
That is the wrong reason for doing it. You must stop sinning against God because it is a crime against God. Society has nothing to do with it. Society once said slavery is ok. The society of Nazi German said ghettos for jews was ok. Society today says homosexuality is ok. Morality does not come from society but it comes from God.
Who is to say that fleshly desires are to be obeyed? God says to deny the flesh and obey the Spirit.
The great orator Spurgeon said, "You cannot stop the birds from flying over head, but you can stop them from making a nest in your hair." You won't be able to stop the tempations of life, but you can stop obeying those temptations. You will never be above tempation, you will be tempted your whole life. But you never have to sin. However if you choose to sin God will call you into account and you will recieve just punishment.
You started this arguement with "I think it is better". Are you autonomous? Are you the creator of morality? The bible says it is better to suffer with the children of God then to enjoy the pleasure of sin for a season.
You have made happiness the goal. But happiness is not the goal established by God - Holiness is.
If happiness should be the determing factor in ethical decision making, what is someone said, "it is better for a man to molest children because it will make him happy then for him to supress these desires and be miserable". If you would condemn such logic, you are being inconsistent and are condemning your own arguement.
One could also argue that homosexuality is damaging to ones self because the average homosexual dies at the age of 42 of AIDS, HIV, or another type of STD. Would you say that men should not be homosexuals because of the negative physical affects of homosexuality? If not, then you are again being incoherent with your own philosophy of ethics.
I see this arguement to be irrelevent. When I was getting off alcohol and drug use I knew plenty of people who tried before and ended up relapsing back into drugs, often times worse drugs then before. Does that mean one should not try to get clean and sobor because others before have failed? Absolutely not.
I do not see how this is an arguement against homosexuality is a choice. Even these "down-low" homosexuals are choosing to be perverted.
There are genetic mutations in many areas. I have yet to be convinced that there is a homosexual gene. But even if there were, that is not to say that it is ethically acceptable. Genetic mutations are damaging not only to the individual but also to society and we should find a way to cure all genetic mutations.
On what grounds do you stand upon to say that you should wait until marriage?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 8, 2006 20:40:52 GMT -5
Here is a point I wanted to comment:
Some say survival of the fittest. If that is the case, who is to say that something is wrong just because it is traumatic and psychologically damaging. You mentioned before that one should not refrain from doing something if it will make them miserable, as though happiness were the goal. What if a child molester is made very happy by molesting children and is terribly depressed when he cannot do so? What if some child molesters even commit suicide because they cannot molest children?
Says who?
I do not deny the possibility that anyone is a homosexual. I could choose to be one, but I choose not to be one.
So here you have stated that society does not determine morality. Just because society says something does not mean that it is morally right. So then, if society does not determine morality who does?
Overpopulation is something people have been saying for centuries and it's simply not true. Could someone also not argue that Bestiality could be God's way of solving the so-called over population?
Isn't it true that just because something does solve a problem, doesn't mean that it is the right solution? Hitler determined that the solution to solving the great depression in Germany was to put the jews in work ghettos. It did solve their problem and Hitler was loved for saving the country from the great depression.
The problem you get into here is pragmatism - whatever works is right. But who is the authority of what works best? Some say owning slaves is the best way to help our society. Does that mean it is ethically acceptable? Because everyone has differing opinions, who is to say what works and what works best?
So far, just about all your arguements for homosexuality could also be used for bestiality.
Both homosexuality and bestiality are sexual perversions.
Who is to say that it is ok so long as both involved agree? Who is to say that it is wrong if one of those involved does not consent?
What if one claims to have that same type of love with an animal or even with a child?
I take it you have not read Darwins book. If you read it, he specifically mentions black people not being as evolved as white people and he teaches the principle of "survival of the fittest." If that principle is to live by, would it not be acceptable to enslave any people group?
Hitler justified what he had done because of evilution. The first thing taught in Hitlers school for children was evilution. He was helping evolution along by cleaning up germany and the world to further the arian race.
One is not a Christian because they say they are, one is a Christian if they live like Christ. One is not a doctor if they say they are a doctor, and yet butcher people in their backyard with knives. Rather a doctor is one who actually practices medicine.
We are not trying to discuss picking the lesser of two evils. Rather we are trying to discuss what is ethically correct and what is ethically wrong.
What is your arguement for children growing up in same sex homes?
You are greatly mistaken. The bible condemns two types of judgment but commands one type of judgment.
The judgments that are condemned are:
1. Hypocritical judgments (Matthew 7:1-5) 2. Unrighteous judgment (John 7:24)
But the judgment that the bible commands is:
1. Righteous judgment (John 7:24)
The slavery which we see in the bible was the cultural slavery of the nation of Israel, which was a servanthood workmanship to pay for ones debt. But at the seventh year of jubaliee all slavers were to be set free.
However the bible does clearly condemn the type of slavery which haunts American history. When the nation of Israel were enslaved against their will in Egypt God sent judgment to the nation of Egypt and brought liberty to the enslaved nation. (Genesis and Exodus)
While there was polygamy in the Old Testament, the New Testament says that a man is to be the "husband of one wife." The bible says that the times of ignorance God overlooked but now He commandments all men everywhere to repent - Acts 17:330-31
But, what ethical standard are you using to judge the bible??
The basis for all that we do must be the glory of God. The bible says whether we eat or whether we drink, let us do all for the glory of God.
We are to marry to glorify God. God has clearly said in Romans chapter 1 that homosexuality is unnatural, vile, unseemly, and is an error. This is not glorifying God but is even disgracing yourself.
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 10, 2006 2:12:13 GMT -5
The bible says nothing about homosexuality? Have you not yet read Romans chapter 1 and 1 Corinthians 6:9. Actually, the Bible does not say anything about homosexuality. The Bible does speak about intercourse between men, that is: male-male sex. In some cases it could be (and has been) argued that the sex being referred to was rape or exploitative. Perhaps the Bible was actually referring to sex between males, plain and simple, but it DOES NOT refer to a sexual orientation at all. The Bible does not make any claims about sexuality. This is most-likely the case because the concept that someone could be born with a non-heterosexual attraction was completely unknown. In this case, it makes perfect sense for Biblical writers, who are trying to express God as a God of order (as opposed to chaos) to describe only the type of intercourse understood as falling within the natural (that is: God's) order of things. Now that the concept of a sexual orientation of attractedness toward members of the same sex exists, we understand that the natural order of things includes male-male sex. Namely, it would be unnatural for someone who is born homosexual to have intercourse with someone of the opposite sex. Please understand that the Biblical writers were not trying to express what God thought (that would be idolatry), but rather their understanding of God. They understood God to be a God of order, so they wrote a law putting order above chaos. For instance, the language of "father" is often used in reference to God. God is not a father except in the symbolic sense. The imagery of fatherhood is used to express to humans a concept which is inexpressible--the essence of God. When you cannot describe something with words you do not have, you must use the words that you do have. The Jews understood this concept, which is why they instituted the rule against graven images: you cannot capture the image of God with human hands, so don't try--you won't be able to do the concept of God justice. It is a lesson that I wish Christians had adopted everytime I see a painting of Jesus with blond hair and blue eyes.
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 10, 2006 2:29:44 GMT -5
The bible says nothing about homosexuality? Have you not yet read Romans chapter 1 and 1 Corinthians 6:9. Actually, the Bible does not say anything about homosexuality. The Bible does speak about intercourse between men, that is: male-male sex. In some cases it could be (and has been) argued that the sex being referred to was rape or exploitative. Perhaps the Bible was actually referring to sex between males, plain and simple, but it DOES NOT refer to a sexual orientation at all. The Bible does not make any claims about sexuality. This is most-likely the case because the concept that someone could be born with a non-heterosexual attraction was completely unknown. In this case, it makes perfect sense for Biblical writers, who are trying to express God as a God of order (as opposed to chaos) to describe only the type of intercourse understood as falling within the natural (that is: God's) order of things. Now that the concept of a sexual orientation of attractedness toward members of the same sex exists, we understand that the natural order of things includes male-male sex. Namely, it would be unnatural for someone who is born homosexual to have intercourse with someone of the opposite sex. Please understand that the Biblical writers were not trying to express what God thought (that would be idolatry), but rather their understanding of God. They understood God to be a God of order, so they wrote a law putting order above chaos. For instance, the language of "father" is often used in reference to God. God is not a father except in the symbolic sense. The imagery of fatherhood is used to express to humans a concept which is inexpressible--the essence of God. When you cannot describe something with words you do not have, you must use the words that you do have. The Jews understood this concept, which is why they instituted the rule against graven images: you cannot capture the image of God with human hands, so don't try--you won't be able to do the concept of God justice. It is a lesson that I wish Christians had adopted everytime I see a painting of Jesus with blond hair and blue eyes. INDEED. He was probably VERY dark skinned, maybe even closer to black/African in appearance than Middle Eastern or Arabian looking. This is because at that time period, different groups of people lived in that area of the world than do today. I personally think it makes more sense to view God as a feminine Mother of the world... after all, it is the female who gives birth to new life, not the male.... so the idea of a manly, Fatherly God confuses me. But you are correct in asserting that God has no gender. That would make God human, and he/she is not that.
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 13, 2006 0:05:01 GMT -5
The bible says nothing about homosexuality? Have you not yet read Romans chapter 1 and 1 Corinthians 6:9. Actually, the Bible does not say anything about homosexuality. What no disagreement with that statement? I was sure you guys had some prepackaged arguments to refute that one. You guys are falling down on the job, I'm disappointed.
|
|
|
Post by hopefulheart on Apr 14, 2006 23:51:50 GMT -5
Jesse:
The only sexual orientation that the bible permits is heterosexual. The bible clearly condemns homosexual perversion in Romans chapter 1 and also 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.
No, it's not so clear, as I've repeatedly stated in many previous. Thank you for ignoring my comments to such a point - you make this message board a wonderful place for discussion. You really listen (yes, that's sarcasm, because I'm offended)
1Co 7:9 - "But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." It does not forbid marriage.
Your arguement here is fallacious. You are discrediting the passages against homosexuality because of passages about straight marriage. This is not an arguement at all. You have yet to discredit the scriptures against homosexual perversion.
Nah, I'm saying that you're giving into your weakness. But it's ok - if they cannot contain, let them marry. I wish that could be applied to homosexuals, too, but I doubt you'll allow that.
You have yet to give an arguement that is not fallacious against the clear and pain scriptures against homosexuality.
See above. I'm sorry for cutting things so short, but I really am tired of being blatantly ignored since my very first post. I don't like wasting my time, ya know?
I am saying that it's a terrible thing for anyone to see homosexuality, especially children.
They used to say the same thing about black people =\
On what authority do you say these things? The bible clearly teaches that God's love is conditional - see John 14:21.
Do you decide what the essence of love is? Do humanists decide what the essence of love is? Or does God decide what the essence of love is?
I say that on the authority of my heart and maybe some writings of Paul that I don't wanna look up right now, lol. You're basing your statements on the infalliblity of a book written by human hands. How do you know that God didn't put in the Bible's inconsistencies as a challenge for us?
I believe that if he wanted us to live to set instructions he would have 'programmed' us to follow only those instructions...
And even Time Magazine wrote: "After more than two centuries of facing the heaviest scientific guns that could be brought to bear, the bible has survived - and is perhaps the better for the siege. Even on the critics own terms - historical facts - the Scriptures seem more acceptable now than they did when the rationalists began the attack."
On what day was Jesus put on the cross - the day of Passover or the day before? Consult the Gospels before giving your answer. "One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn't belong. Can you tell which thing is not like the other by the time I finish my song?"
However this is clearly prejudicial conjecture to say "most likely". You are dealing with these manuscripts from your foundation as though they were normal manuscripts and thus have already excluded from the beginning the possibility that these are the Words of God and therefore God has preserved His word.
Refer to my comment on the challenge that may be intended in the Bible. That, and the contradictions.
Who is to say that fleshly desires are to be obeyed? God says to deny the flesh and obey the Spirit.
The Bible says that. In the movie Dogma, God's direct voice basically makes your head explode. I know, that's a movie, so it has 0 basis for a debate, but that amused me
There are genetic mutations in many areas. I have yet to be convinced that there is a homosexual gene. But even if there were, that is not to say that it is ethically acceptable. Genetic mutations are damaging not only to the individual but also to society and we should find a way to cure all genetic mutations.
What do you base that on? It's rare for you to not back something up with Scripture.
0o0o0o, while we're at it, can we modify the genetics so everyone's blonde-haired and blue-eyed?
On what grounds do you stand upon to say that you should wait until marriage?
Duuuuuuude, isn't that one of the things you've been arguing about all throughout this forum? Jeez
Some say survival of the fittest. If that is the case, who is to say that something is wrong just because it is traumatic and psychologically damaging. You mentioned before that one should not refrain from doing something if it will make them miserable, as though happiness were the goal. What if a child molester is made very happy by molesting children and is terribly depressed when he cannot do so? What if some child molesters even commit suicide because they cannot molest children?
That's why the majority punishes rapists - they're 'more fit'
One could also argue that homosexuality is damaging to ones self because the average homosexual dies at the age of 42 of AIDS, HIV, or another type of STD. Would you say that men should not be homosexuals because of the negative physical affects of homosexuality? If not, then you are again being incoherent with your own philosophy of ethics.
One would be wrong. It's not diseases that are damaging. Why not preach safe-sex, instead?
Overpopulation is something people have been saying for centuries and it's simply not true.
Overpopulation isn't true? Ha! Wow, you obviously don't live in Georgia. Let deer go for a few years without hunting them. Many will starve and die. Wheee!
Could someone also not argue that Bestiality could be God's way of solving the so-called over population?
Yes, they could. Thank you for that valid point. But that's when I go into my consenting-individual point, which you've addressed later
Isn't it true that just because something does solve a problem, doesn't mean that it is the right solution? Hitler determined that the solution to solving the great depression in Germany was to put the jews in work ghettos. It did solve their problem and Hitler was loved for saving the country from the great depression.
The problem you get into here is pragmatism - whatever works is right. But who is the authority of what works best? Some say owning slaves is the best way to help our society. Does that mean it is ethically acceptable? Because everyone has differing opinions, who is to say what works and what works best?
So you're saying God's solution in this hypothesis isn't right? Might I say... blasphemy?
Who is to say that it is wrong if one of those involved does not consent?
Genesis, Leviticus, and many of the parts of the Bible used against homosexuality =) I interpret it as saying that rape is bad. Don't you?
What if one claims to have that same type of love with an animal or even with a child?
Gah, dude, bringing up a question I've already addressed and know you've seen it? *hiss*
While there was polygamy in the Old Testament, the New Testament says that a man is to be the "husband of one wife." The bible says that the times of ignorance God overlooked but now He commandments all men everywhere to repent - Acts 17:330-31
That's very interesting... I wonder what other ignorances he's overturned since then? Hmm... so the religion Does grow... I'm thinking it even grows after the New Testament ends. Yay =) That makes me happy, thank you.
We are to marry to glorify God. God has clearly said in Romans chapter 1 that homosexuality is unnatural, vile, unseemly, and is an error. This is not glorifying God but is even disgracing yourself.
Nup, it doesn't say that
|
|
|
Post by Miles Lewis on Apr 15, 2006 12:16:20 GMT -5
As a side, I have a question. For those of you who don't see the Bible as having any authority (if in fact you don't believe it to be authoratative), why do you go to painstaking lengths to try to say that it does not condemn homo sex (or that it does not condemn anything for that matter). Even if YOU could be shown that beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Bible said something absolutely, would it matter to you?
Miles
|
|
|
Post by victoria on Apr 15, 2006 12:29:40 GMT -5
I'm answering the original questions. Just so you know where I'm coming from- I'm bisexual. I have had serious relationships with both men and women. My family is still together, and it is a loving family. I grew up in church, although due to school I cannot attend (I am enrolled in an all-girls' private highschool 2.5 hours away from home, by my own choice). I was baptised as a baby. I was confirmed my junior year of highschool (a year late, but there were school complications). I have read the majority of the Bible. I believe in God and Jesus. When I attend church, I partake in communion.
On what grounds do you justify homosexuality? It is natural. Multiple scientific studies have shown that the homosexual orientation is genetically programmed while in the womb -- I can't argue with that. Penguins can be homosexual, along with other animals. They were, as you put it, created by God. If you argue that humans need to be heterosexual for reproduction: the world is already overpopulated, and there are thousands (if not millions) of unwanted children. Why should we add more to the masses?
Do you believe in homosexual sex before marriage or only after marriage? Well, considering that homosexual marriage is illegal in the majority of the US states, I believe that when two people are truly in love, are in a committed relationship and have been for a considerable amount of time: then I believe they should, and can have sex. I believe the same for heterosexuals. I do not believe in one-night stands, "friends with benefits," or any of the random, impersonal sex. Sex should be an act of love, a joyful joining between two people that are wholey committed to each other.
What do you think about kiddie porn and beastiality? It is an exploitation of the children (kiddie porn) and animals (beastiality).
If you condemn it, on what grounds do you condemn it? Children do not understand the rammifications; they are not old enough. The same goes for animals, who cannot even express consent. It is a violation of their natural rights.
I'm sure that you will not agree with me on my opinions. That's fine; blind hatred of anybody's opinion is simply wrong. You are entitled to your opinion, and I hope that you can understand that I am entitled to mine. By joining this group I am trying to understand your point of view. While I do not expect you to accept my beliefs, please try to understand them. The Christian faith is a loving, understanding one.
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 16, 2006 21:13:22 GMT -5
As a side, I have a question. For those of you who don't see the Bible as having any authority (if in fact you don't believe it to be authoratative), why do you go to painstaking lengths to try to say that it does not condemn homo sex (or that it does not condemn anything for that matter). Even if YOU could be shown that beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Bible said something absolutely, would it matter to you? Miles I never said that it didn't have any authority. The Bible is a compilation of the writings of a people, a people who were trying to understand themselves and the world around them. I believe it was Bishop John Shelby Spong who said that he could learn more from the Bible about men than he could learn about God. I concur with that statement. I know you'll disagree, but the Bible was never intended to be taken as the literal truth of God. It was an attempt to express one people's understanding of God. Just as the Bible prohibits creating any graven images of God, it must therefore also prohibit any attempt to believe that you understand God. The prohibition against graven images was created because the biblical writers understood that no artwork could adequately express an image of God. Nor can the Bible, written by men, in the language of men, to be read by men, express the complete God concept. Men cannot understand completely the infinite, nor can any of their creations express it. Yet, I still believe that the Bible has authority. You see, it is one understanding of the God concept, but it is only one. Even more importantly, however, is what we can learn about the human condition, which lives on today as a point of conflict for everyone. Therefore, I understand that I can learn much from the Bible, but it is a dated piece of work. We have a different understanding of humanity, nature, God, and life now, so the Bible's edicts must be taken with a grain of salt. Now, I wouldn't say that I go to painstaking lengths to claim that the Bible doesn't condem homosexuality or homosexual intercourse. I haven't said anything new on this message board. The reason that I claim that homosexuality is not condemned is because you claim that it is. It is, therefore, an appropriate topic on this thread. Much of the homophobia and heterosexism that exists today exists because religion supports it. Therefore it is an obvious reaction to A) understand why and B) attempt to show you a different interpretation. Yes, if I could be shown without a shadow of a doubt that something in the Bible was true, I would believe it. The fact of the matter is that that cannot be done. We have no accurate historical records which can confirm the Bible's actual historical accuracy. Quite a bit of evidence has been shown to discredit the Bible's understanding of nature (Earth is round, evolution, etc). Furthermore, any issues of spirituality are issues of faith, something that certainty removes, and something that I believe cannot be condensed into one religion. If you have some piece of evidence, please bring it forth; yet I doubt that you do. But, yes, if you did, I would consider it.
|
|
|
Post by drsocc on Apr 16, 2006 21:24:49 GMT -5
Wanderingtrekker took this thread apart. I love how there are actually people here who can't differentiate between philosophy and biology.
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 17, 2006 23:48:06 GMT -5
Are you guys still out there? I believe that I made logical and provocative arguements in replies # 38 and 44. I would like the points I made to be addressed, unless you guys aren't up to the challenge. Perhaps you are conceeding defeat?
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 18, 2006 11:30:34 GMT -5
Wha... WHY WOULD YOU POST THAT!!?!?
*follows Trek's advice and logs off to cool down*
AGH! Seriously though!!
|
|
|
Post by santywong on Apr 18, 2006 11:47:09 GMT -5
Wha... WHY WOULD YOU POST THAT!!?!? *follows Trek's advice and logs off to cool down* AGH! Seriously though!! I just wanted to know, I just couldn't see how they could enjoy such filth. Obviously we feel the same way about it.
|
|
|
Post by santywong on Apr 18, 2006 12:03:45 GMT -5
I'd be very interested in Jesse's thoughts on the matter.
|
|
|
Post by dmclayton on Apr 18, 2006 14:06:48 GMT -5
jesse, you are wrong on several issues. slavery was never a sin in america. in fact, most northeners were as racist as the southerners if not more. the civil war was fought over state's rights, and the north used slavery against the south to win a propaganda war--it worked. this does not mean that slavery is right, nor do i encourage such a dreadful thing...but get your facts straight.
homosexuality. i do not give two cents either way. i do not know whether it is a choice or if you are born into it and i really don't care. however, if you look at the animal kingdom (humans ARE animals) you will see that animals will engage in homosexual activity when an area becomes over-populated. accordingly, this accounts for population control amongst the species to prevent them from dying out altogether. over-population results in the land being wiped clean of water/food and it is hard for animals to survive in a desolate area. common sense stuff....
this does not mean that it applies to every homosexual, as i do believe every human is capable of love even if it is an intimate love of people of the same sex. this is, however, something to take into consideration.
also, you cannot presuppose that homosexuality is wrong just because it is written in the bible. is there a valid reason why homosexuality should not be practiced outside your narrow view of morality?
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 18, 2006 17:05:18 GMT -5
Seriously homoesexuals, what is it about depraved pictures like this that you find arousing? I have spent hours staring at this particular picture only to find myself growing increasingly disgusted. www.LINKDELETED.jpgExcuse me Santywong, but I would like to know your motives. If you are as you claim to be, one of the heterosexual fundamentalists, how did you happen to come to find this picture on a gay pay for porn website? Furthermore, I wonder why you have been staring at it for hours. What makes it depraved anyway? Gay persons are attracted to persons of the same sex. Gay porn serves the same purpose for gays as heterosexual porn does for heterosexuals. Just because you find it distasteful does not make it depraved. If you are, as I suspect you are, someone jeering from the sidelines, what did you expect to accomplish with that? If you wish to join in an intelligent discussion, please do so. If you are only going to post in order to offend people, I would ask that you cease. Jesse, would you kindly remove the link in the above post. Thanks. And just remove the link, not the entire post. I would like it to stay for continuity purposes.
|
|
|
Post by santywong on Apr 18, 2006 18:16:01 GMT -5
wandeingrtrekker, your post is deeply insulting to me as a person of faith.
I just wanted other Christians to be aware of the menace we are dealing. Please retain the link for this reason.
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Apr 18, 2006 19:41:50 GMT -5
If you are as you claim to be, one of the heterosexual fundamentalists, how did you happen to come to find this picture on a gay pay for porn website? Furthermore, I wonder why you have been staring at it for hours.[/i][/u][/quote] (emphasis by Vally for clarity) Man, I'm with you, Trekker. Do I really need to post the definition of "projection" in this thread, too? Because if I were trying to explain it to a group of intro psych students, I would definitely send them to this thread. I'm sorry--I am not trying to be offensive or resort to argumentum ad hominem, but you guys bring it on yourselves with posts like that. Personally, I did not click the link because I do not enjoy porn, of any sort. I am all for sex as an artistic tool but because of my psychological problems, I avoid graphic sexual content because it upsets me. Because I do not wish to see it, I simply don't seek it out. I wonder why that was impossible for santywong.
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 18, 2006 19:43:29 GMT -5
Wha... WHY WOULD YOU POST THAT!!?!? *follows Trek's advice and logs off to cool down* AGH! Seriously though!! I just wanted to know, I just couldn't see how they could enjoy such filth. Obviously we feel the same way about it. No. We definitely do not feel the same way about it. That photo does not disgust me at all. Actually I think it's pretty hot... What angered me about you posting it was the fact that you can get away with posting something like that, but I was reprimanded for posting a photo of two men kissing. My photo was removed, and I was warned not to do it again. In yet another thread, someone posted photos of aborted fetuses. These too were allowed to stay. Why? Because when I posted my photos, it was in the context that I agreed with such behavior. So the consensus is that if you disagree with the thoughts of the mods on this forum, you are going to be censored. If you agree, anything goes. So long as you're trying to prove a point in the argument against the "sin of homosex" or the "murderous" practice of abortion, posting photos related to sexuality and violence is okay. Also, I find it infuriating that instead of entering into a mature debate about the topic at hand, you chose to simply slap up a picture and say, "See?! Isn't that nasty!?" in an effort to make a statement. I find such behavior immature and pathetic to say the least. Finally... and this point most disturbed me... if you find that photo so disgusting... why have you been staring at it for hours? Why did you go looking for it in the first place? I rather doubt that that randomly popped up on Google while you were looking for photos under the search prompt: "Jesus and fluffy cuddly puppies" ... you had to go looking for it. Hm... could someone be rummaging about in the back of the closet... trying to find a well hidden winter coat? Methinks this is a possibility. PS: I have a giant gay pride flag AND an equality symbol in my signature. Did you HONESTLY think I was on your side of this argument?
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 18, 2006 21:00:42 GMT -5
wandeingrtrekker, your post is deeply insulting to me as a person of faith. I just wanted other Christians to be aware of the menace we are dealing. Please retain the link for this reason. And what did I say that offended you? Was it: or, perhaps: Maybe it was: Could it be: I can't believe that anything I said is "deeply insulting." Personally, I find female porn distateful, and I would never post any here. I would also never post any gay porn either. This is a message board, not a sex show. I must ask a question of Jesse, though. If I had posted that link, with a statement saying "look how hot this is," it would have already been deleted, probably within 15 minutes of it's posting. Why is this link still present? My guess is that Jesse is away from the boards today, becuase he hasn't made any recent posts. Anyway, I might reconsider my stance on pictures if this link is not removed soon.
|
|
|
Post by hopefulheart on Apr 19, 2006 18:58:33 GMT -5
*looks at the piccah.... tilts his head sideways.... then to the other side*
I don't see anything. I mean, if you want a Real picture of anal sex I'm sure I can find you one. That looks to me like two nekkid men. I mean, it's pretty obvious to all of us what's going on, but still, That isn't anything, lol
In fact, because that link was allowed to stay, maybe I should post a series of links, increasing in 'risk' factor, to see what constitutes an allowed image or what doesn't. Or a mod could clarify this issue and save us all some hassle.
Or how about a link to a video?
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 19, 2006 19:47:06 GMT -5
I see that Jesse has yet to remove the link. Is the censor falling down on his job? Because if he's let his guard down, I've been waiting to spread filth here. (I haven't really, but come on now, why is this link still here?)
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 19, 2006 21:36:39 GMT -5
Sorry it took so long to realize there was a link to some sort of porn or something. I didn't click it but I didn't have to in order to make a guess as to what it was.
Again, sorry it took so long for me to delete it. I just came across it. We've been on a campus these past two days, George Mason University. Yesturday we preached for 61/2 hours and today for 8 hours. Actually, Jeff and I were able to speak in a law class on homosexual marriage on the invite of the professor!
So we've been busy and tired and I've slacked on my monitoring. My sincere apologies for all those offended and grossed out by the homosexual picture. I sympathize with you. It's very disgusting.
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 19, 2006 22:01:15 GMT -5
Sorry it took so long to realize there was a link to some sort of porn or something. I didn't click it but I didn't have to in order to make a guess as to what it was. Again, sorry it took so long for me to delete it. I just came across it. We've been on a campus these past two days, George Mason University. Yesturday we preached for 61/2 hours and today for 8 hours. Actually, Jeff and I were able to speak in a law class on homosexual marriage on the invite of the professor! So we've been busy and tired and I've slacked on my monitoring. My sincere apologies for all those offended and grossed out by the homosexual picture. I sympathize with you. It's very disgusting. Thank you. I assumed that you were doing something like that. It was not particularly offensive, but it seemed like a double standard to let it stay.
|
|