|
Post by Morluna on Apr 19, 2006 22:21:05 GMT -5
I agree with Trekker. I didn't find it offensive or disgusting, but this isn't the place for it. Also it would be a huge double standard if it had remained. Thanks Jesse.
|
|
|
Post by elwing96 on Apr 21, 2006 21:24:50 GMT -5
are you homosexual? If not then what is the point of your sickening banner. actually, i really like Morluna's banner. in my opinion, it is beautiful. it is promoting peace and tolerance. it is promoting love, which is one of the main features of Jesus' message (unless i'm wrong..i mean, i'm not a street preacher so i don't know every word of the bible). and i sincerely hope that the "sickening" part is because of the rainbow flag, and not because of the peace on earth or racial solidarity images. not that it's ok to be sickened by the rainbow flag, but i don't think i could deal with that level of hatred.
|
|
|
Post by jobafunky on Apr 23, 2006 0:15:57 GMT -5
Something else to ponder as well: If everyone in the world was a homosexual (a true one, not "bi"), the world would die off in a matter of less than 100 years due to not being able to reproduce! Just another proof that we are not made to be homosexual, but heterosexual. God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve! Actually her created everything, so he did create Adam and Steve as well as a slew of other gay animals.
|
|
|
Post by jobafunky on Apr 23, 2006 0:23:29 GMT -5
I know that there are some homosexuals who would publicly condemn beastiality. But my question to them is, why are you so hateful? The dogs that get involved in beastiality are really men that are trapped in dogs bodies. And so long as the women and the dog really love each other, isn't it ok? Of course I am using satire to prove my point. I truly believe that just as Americans in the past did not tolerate such a sinful thing as slavery, neither should Americans today tolerate such a sinful thing as homosexuality. They used to tolerate slavery...and they used the bible to justify it when it was argued. We were all raised in a world were slavery=evil was almost unanimous but if we hadn't been brought up that way and our moral guidebook both condoned and condemed slavery then how could we know that it is evil?
|
|
|
Post by jobafunky on Apr 23, 2006 0:39:15 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. Menace? What has gayness ever done to you? Why are so many obcessed with what consenting adults do with each other? We have real problems to worry about in this world ya know.
|
|
|
Post by jobafunky on Apr 23, 2006 0:45:26 GMT -5
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. It could happen accidently...you might have some sort of Freuidian slip while typing in the url for your hotmail account. ;D
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Apr 23, 2006 8:36:28 GMT -5
The fact is this: When you read about little Timmy being molested you don't see Aunt Molly's name in the paper... you most times see "uncle jack" as the molester.
Very rarely will you see opposite sex molestation; the majority of sexual assaults on children are perpetrated by members of the same sex, ie, male-to-male.
The homosexual community is littered with perverts, child rapists and such.
There is hope, but only One Hope; His Name is Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Apr 23, 2006 9:49:55 GMT -5
The fact is this: When you read about little Timmy being molested you don't see Aunt Molly's name in the paper... you most times see "uncle jack" as the molester. Very rarely will you see opposite sex molestation; the majority of sexual assaults on children are perpetrated by members of the same sex, ie, male-to-male. The homosexual community is littered with perverts, child rapists and such. There is hope, but only One Hope; His Name is Jesus. Homosexual=/=child molester. Rape=/=about sex. Actually, most men who rape other (adult) men identify themselves as heterosexual, or are so screwed up they don't even have a conventionally defined orientation. I don't know the stats on child molesters, though. Please, let's get our facts straight. It's things like this which perpetrate the nasty misconceptions and foster the kind of homophobia I've seen on these boards.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Apr 23, 2006 10:53:38 GMT -5
Incorrect; Dr. Robert Spitzer of the American Psychiatric Association agrees with my stance and has studied extensively in this area. Before making off the wall comments, it would be a viable and commendable feat to study the issue rather than balk at the facts. The video I created on our site lists the facts by Dr. Spitzer and presents them methodically. Regardless of your opinion, the facts remain, and the facts are what I will stand for every time. To disagree with homosexuality is not a phobia; it's called a worldview, and to state categorically that coming against homosexuality is somehow homophobic is to show ignorance on the issue. Check the video, THEN make your statement: setup.finalweb.net/home/1764/1764/audio/Hope%20For%20The%20Homosexual.wmv
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Apr 23, 2006 13:16:37 GMT -5
Haha. Cute. I did some googling on Dr. Spitzer. Subject selection bias, ahoy!! ;D That study is crap. Share and enjoy: www.religioustolerance.org/hom_spit.htm I particularly like this quote from Dr. Spitzer himself: "I suspect the vast majority of gay people would be unable to alter by much a firmly established homosexual orientation." This one is even better, and more relevant: "...the kinds of changes my subjects reported are highly unlikely to be available to the vast majority [of gays and lesbians]... "[only] a small minority -- perhaps 3% -- might have a "malleable" sexual orientation." He expressed a concern that his study results were being "twisted by the Christian right." (Emphasis mine for clarity). I've studied the issue. I'm going to school to study that issue, and many more (way more important) issues. EDIT: But the song at the end of your video was pretty. Who sings it? I love that kind of country sound.
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 23, 2006 14:31:13 GMT -5
are you homosexual? If not then what is the point of your sickening banner. actually, i really like Morluna's banner. in my opinion, it is beautiful. it is promoting peace and tolerance. it is promoting love, which is one of the main features of Jesus' message (unless i'm wrong..i mean, i'm not a street preacher so i don't know every word of the bible). and i sincerely hope that the "sickening" part is because of the rainbow flag, and not because of the peace on earth or racial solidarity images. not that it's ok to be sickened by the rainbow flag, but i don't think i could deal with that level of hatred. I had a different one when he posted that. It had two guys kissing and LOVE IS LOVE written in rainbow letters. *shrugs* I don't know why he didn't like it...
|
|
|
Post by jobafunky on Apr 23, 2006 14:51:58 GMT -5
The fact is this: When you read about little Timmy being molested you don't see Aunt Molly's name in the paper... you most times see "uncle jack" as the molester. Very rarely will you see opposite sex molestation; the majority of sexual assaults on children are perpetrated by members of the same sex, ie, male-to-male. The homosexual community is littered with perverts, child rapists and such. Just like the Catholic preacher community. You have any proof of it being primarialy same sex? My only evidence is personal experience and it was an older female cousin, who was opposite sex.
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 23, 2006 16:58:49 GMT -5
The fact is this: When you read about little Timmy being molested you don't see Aunt Molly's name in the paper... you most times see "uncle jack" as the molester. Very rarely will you see opposite sex molestation; the majority of sexual assaults on children are perpetrated by members of the same sex, ie, male-to-male. Actually, your aguement is mistaken. What you will most likely see in the paper is Uncle Jack's name, but he won't have molested little Timmy, but rather niece Jenny. Statistically Aunt Molly is far less likely to molest anyone as she is female. Indeed, a study conducted by the Children's Hospital in Denver found that between 1 July 1991 and 30 June 1992, only one percent (1%) of 387 cases of suspected child molestation involved a gay perpetrator. Overwhelmingly, the study found that boys and girls alike said they were abused by heterosexual male family members, including fathers, stepfathers, grandfathers, and uncles. Furthermore, a study in the December 1998 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association that reports that 98% of all male perpetrators who had sexually abused boys were identified in their families and communities as heterosexual. The study was conducted by University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine Assistant Professor Dr. William C. Holmes. A.N. Groth and H.J. Birnbaum in their ground-breaking 1978 study entitled "Adult Sexual Orientation and Attraction to Underage Persons" found that: "The belief that homosexuals are particularly attracted to children is completely unsupported by our data… In our twelve years of work with child molesters, we have found… the child offender who is also attracted to and engaged in an adult sexual relationship is heterosexual. The adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the homosexual male." [Emphasis mine] According to Dr Roland Summit of the Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, "The vast majority of offenders are heterosexual men. Male offenders who abuse young boys maintain adult heterosexual relationships." One particularly telling source on the misconceptions of the perpetrators of child molestation is Dr. Gregory Herek, a professor at the University of California at Davis. His website has very good information, including information on the methodological problems of some "researchers." It can be visited at psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/index.html. It is important to clarify some of the terms which have been thrown around on this thread. The following quote box is taken from Dr. Herek's website: Moreover, Dr. Herek claims that "The distinction between gender of victim and sexual orientation of perpetrator is important because many child molesters don't really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women." Indeed, Dr. Herek cites a 1978 study by Groth and Birnbaum. This study "studied 175 adult males who were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child. None of the men had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation. 83 (47%) were classified as "fixated;" 70 others (40%) were classified as regressed adult heterosexuals; the remaining 22 (13%) were classified as regressed adult bisexuals. Of the last group, Groth and Birnbaum observed that "in their adult relationships they engaged in sex on occasion with men as well as with women. However, in no case did this attraction to men exceed their preference for women....There were no men who were primarily sexually attracted to other adult males..." [Emphasis mine] According to Dr. Nathaniel McConaghy, "The man who offends against prepubertal or immediately postpubertal boys is typically not sexually interested in older men or in women" The misconceptions are shrinking, however. According to Herek, "The number of Americans who believe the myth that gay people are child molesters has declined substantially. In a 1970 national survey, more than 70% of respondents agreed with the assertions that 'Homosexuals are dangerous as teachers or youth leaders because they try to get sexually involved with children' or that 'Homosexuals try to play sexually with children if they cannot get an adult partner.' By contrast, in a 1999 national poll, the belief that most gay men are likely to molest or abuse children was endorsed by only 19% of heterosexual men and 10% of heterosexual women. Even fewer – 9% of men and 6% of women – regarded most lesbians as child molesters. Consistent with these findings, Gallup polls have found that an increasing number of Americans would allow gay people to be elementary school teachers. For example, the proportion was 61% in 2003, compared to 27% in 1977." Additionally, according to Herek, "Scientific research provides no evidence that homosexual people are less likely than heterosexuals to exercise good judgment and appropriate discretion in their employment settings. There are no data, for example, showing that gay men and lesbians are more likely than heterosexual men and women to sexually harass their subordinates in the workplace. Data from studies using a variety of psychological measures do not indicate that gay people are more likely than heterosexuals to possess any psychological characteristics that would make them less capable of controlling their sexual urges, refraining from the abuse of power, obeying rules and laws, interacting effectively with others, or exercising good judgment in handling authority." In conclusion, Dr. Herek states that "The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children." I must apologize for quoting so much, but I have no credentials of my own to make such claims. I must rely on research done by others. Yes, it is. But statistically it is littered with far fewer of these sexual deviants than is the heterosexual "community." In terms of preventing child molestation (which I assume is a good goal to have), damage is done in the thinking that ridding an organization (such as the Boy Scouts) of gay members, because the focus is on a group which is far less likely to participate in such discrimination. In the meanwhile, the focus is taken away from preventing molestation by those perpetrators most-likely to commit it, adult family members. I must remind you, that as Valentine said, rape is not a crime of sex. It is a crime of domination. The goal of the rapist is not to get sexual gratification, but rather to exercise dominance and control over another person. This is exhibited primarily in male prisons in what is called situational homosexuality. It is not the absence of sexual partners that encourages male-male rape, but rather the need to dominate the other prisoners. I hope that this clarifies.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Apr 23, 2006 17:16:53 GMT -5
Valentine, rather than "do some research on your own", why don;t you take my video and demolish it's absolute factual information, point by point? Rather than use and argument to demolish an argument, use facts, and use facts in association with what you watched. I'd like you to show me how the video is incorrect, on a review by case scenario. btw, I like the song too
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Apr 23, 2006 17:18:10 GMT -5
PS: check out www.narth.com GREAT place for factually vased information, using even PRO-homosexual stats to show the homosexual community is in error.
|
|
|
Post by jobafunky on Apr 23, 2006 17:32:04 GMT -5
...I hope that this clarifies. Great post way to do your homework. Now f 1% of child molester's are gay and for that reason they should be, as a group, persicuted/killed/sent to hel/ whatever it is Xians want ot do to them then what % of child molester's are Xian?...I bet it's more than 1%. And if so then what punnishment should Xians mette on themselves...as a group. Are Xians by their own standards evil?
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Apr 23, 2006 17:41:39 GMT -5
Valentine, rather than "do some research on your own", why don;t you take my video and demolish it's absolute factual information, point by point? If you read the article I linked to, you'd realize I already did that. The study you cited in the video was the study analysis I linked to. It was proved to be an invalid experiment, and even Dr. Spitzer himself was quoted in saying that you cannot make the generalizations that you did in the video. I really don't see how I could have possibly been more clear. Since I've effectively proved that your study has little if any external validity (the experimenter himself even admited to it!), I believe I have effectively refuted any points you made citing that study. If there were other, independent points, I will have to return to them at a later time. If for some reason this does not answer your question, I will be happy to "demolish it's {sic} absolute factual information" again. I am very, very angry right now about something unrelated, so I do not think it wise for me to try to respond to that right now. I'll first wait and see if you were able to draw the connection between the study you cited and the meta analysis I linked to. PS: AWESOME post, Trekker. Thanks for getting me those stats--my friend and I were actually wondering about that for an off-topic project we're working on. We just found out a few days ago that the majority of male rapists who rape other men are heterosexual--I just didn't know if that carried over to child molesters, too, and lo and behold it's even lower there!
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Apr 23, 2006 18:19:51 GMT -5
Hi Valentine; my point is that links do not suffice, as I took the several weeks to create the footage and do the research... so I was asking you to post on the video in particular, not simply on Spitzer.
I appreciate your words, however, and I have, thus far, read all of you statements, minus the link, as it may be indirectly a postum against Spitzer, but I wanted something more direct, in relation to the entirety of the video posted.
As for the other post, by JOBA, I would say that a true Christian being a child molester is simply not possible.
A hyprocrite and a con man, yes; a true blue Believer? Not even possible.
One cannot "believe" and yet practice sin in such a manner against the little ones of God.
I do, however, comply with your apparent disgust at molesters and hyprcrites..... on that point we are in agreement
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Apr 23, 2006 18:27:34 GMT -5
Hi Valentine; my point is that links do not suffice, as I took the several weeks to create the footage and do the research... so I was asking you to post on the video in particular, not simply on Spitzer. I appreciate your words, however, and I have, thus far, read all of you statements, minus the link, as it may be indirectly a postum against Spitzer, but I wanted something more direct, in relation to the entirety of the video posted. Look, half of the points in your video are referrencing Spitzer's 2001 study on "reparative therapy." You cited specific aspects of his study, including showing the percentage of "homosexuals" who had "become heterosexual," operationally defined as a long term, satisfying relationship with a member of the opposite sex. I have just shown that the study you cited lacks external validity. Spitzer himself has admitted that his results do not generalize to the general population and that his study suffered major subject selection confounds. The researcher himself, Biblethumper, stated that his research was not to be used in the way you just used it. How much clearer do I need to get? I realize that not everyone is well-versed in psychology, so if I've confused you with any of the above, I will be happy to explain. I'm actually doing my Research Methods homework right now.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Apr 23, 2006 18:39:53 GMT -5
So then the findings of Spitzer are incorrect?
Ok... but if I use Narth's findings, would you say the same or would you balk?
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Apr 23, 2006 18:52:25 GMT -5
So then the findings of Spitzer are incorrect? Ok... but if I use Narth's findings, would you say the same or would you balk? 1. We're talking about Spitzer, not NARTH, since that's what you used in your video. 2. I'm not balking--I'm providing evidence that you're incorrect. 3. They're not necessarily incorrect. Please read the meta analysis. The main points raised by the article were that: 3A. All the participants were found to be bisexual, so of course they would have little difficulty maintaining satisfying relationships with members of the opposite sex. 3B. A major subject selection confound existed which made the results impossible to generalize. 3C. N was too small in this study to make any valid conclusions. 3D. In response to Spitzer's study, the APA reaffirmed their position and cautioned once again that there is no evidence that "reparative therapy" is effective. Looks like the APA didn't buy it either. The study itself was likely sound, but Spitzer didn't find what you're claiming he found, and thus all points you made in your video that referrence his study are invalid.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Apr 23, 2006 18:52:29 GMT -5
Just last year Dr. Robert Spitzer reaffirmed his stance on this issue; I'm not sure where you receive your information, yet if one is not to "use his info", why did he encourage such in March of 2005? RECENT interview: www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/004/20.94.htmlThus, valentine, it's your argument that's not valid
|
|
|
Post by jobafunky on Apr 23, 2006 18:54:06 GMT -5
So then the findings of Spitzer are incorrect? Ok... but if I use Narth's findings, would you say the same or would you balk? And if she shoots down Narths would you stop presenting faulty sources? It's a lot easier to shovel crap than it is to clean it up, and I don't see you addressing any of the evidence against you.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Apr 23, 2006 18:57:37 GMT -5
Evidence against me: www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/004/20.94.htmlIf Spitzer didn't believe his study why does he validate his findings in 2005? Cleaned up now, eh JOBA? Lastly, Joba, this isn;t about Spitzer; it's about being a homosexual who is deceived into thinking it's an ok lifestyle. God says it's wickedness.
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Apr 23, 2006 19:35:23 GMT -5
I suspect that there's something up with that article, but I don't have time to compare notes right now. The Chi Square statistic unfortunately requires all of my concentration. However, whether Spitzer personally thinks the study is valid or not, it's still not valid. Did you even read my third point in my most recent post? N too small, subjects not actually homosexual, subject selection confound--that study is faulty.
And actually, it is about Spitzer's study. If you're going to cite something, you'd better be able to get behind it as a valid finding, not blanket it with statements about what a deity may or may not believe about what the study is concerned with.
I'm pretty sure Spitzer isn't saying in the most recent article what you think he's saying, but even if he is, his research still isn't supported by the APA. They reaffirmed their stance in response to his findings and cautioned that all such "ex-gay" programs have been found to be ineffective. You have yet to respond to this or the findings that indicate the flaws in the Spitzer study. I also notice that you've yet to respond to WanderingTrekker's posts. It seems you pick out one small point to respond to and believe that makes you correct.
With that, I'm back to my homework.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Apr 23, 2006 21:18:04 GMT -5
WanderingTrekker is copying and pasting and also quoting from sources such as the UCLA, which is far too liberal to be taken seriously....liberal don't mesh with the UCLA, so why would I take such seriously? The primary issue, however, is a copy/paste issue.... I will NOT respond to such lazy attempts at "proving a point". I respond to people who have something of their own...sure, copy and paste, but at least have the common respect to say something YOU wrote. Otherwise, no response is forthcoming. As for the article posted, read it before saying, "Something's up". The only thing up is that Spitzer has maintained his stance all along.
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Apr 23, 2006 21:29:05 GMT -5
The primary issue, however, is a copy/paste issue.... I will NOT respond to such lazy attempts at "proving a point". WanderingTrekker is doing the thing that you are not doing: backing up his arguments with legitimate research studies supported by scientific authorities. Or perhaps we should just take a leaf out of the Admins' books and say "BIBLE BIBLE BIBLE" over and over, or repeatedly demand that users "repent." Trekker doesn't have the authority to make these claims any more than you do, unless you are a psychologist with a degree, which I highly doubt given your utter inability to understand basic research methods. Therefore, "something {he} wrote" would be entirely invalid and well within the realm of Making Things Up. If you will not respond to his entirely sound arguments and research, I have nothing more to say to you. Let it be known who refused to acknowledge facts.
|
|
avea
New Member
Posts: 9
|
Post by avea on Apr 23, 2006 21:40:00 GMT -5
I've just read through this entire thing, occasionally skimming, and have compiled responses as I read. Hence, I have rather a massive and not terribly orderly response to several of the posts and points encompassed by this thread.
First off, I do not consider myself homosexual. Nor heterosexual. Nor bi. Nor anything else. I'm simply uninterested in sex. I've lived twenty-seven years without it and have never been tempted to change that-- not because I have a vague sense of needing to wait till I'm married or any similar thing; I'm just not interested. But I wanted to join the thread anyway.
First, the questions: Justification of homosexuality. If a person does his best to be a good person -- helps others, puts others ahead of himself, assists those who can't help themselves, etc, and yet is attracted to members of the same sex and act upon that attraction with another consenting adult, and God sends them to hell, where another person who (to use a biblical example) offers a crowd the use of his virgin daughters to soothe their wrath go to heaven, I have no interest in worshiping that God. Does that mean it's not a mortal sin? No. I don't know if it's a sin or not. I do know that if it is, I want no part of the religion.
Homosexual sex before or only after marriage. As for believing it, it's rather like asking if I believe in grass before or after mowing. It exists-- what's to believe? But okay, I know you mean do I ... condone, perhaps. In answer, I have no interest. As stated, I have no interest in sex myself, and feel no interest to investigate or criticize anyone else -- as long as both (or all) members of the relationship wish to be there.
Kiddie porn and bestiality: Wholeheartedly disapprove.
On what grounds? On the grounds that you can not have a consenting relationship with someone who in unable to consent. Neither a child nor an animal is in a position to fully understand such an arrangement and therefore cannot consent. Of course, given that in biblical times women were objects with no right to consent or refuse, this argument may not hold weight with you.
If everyone was homosexual, the world's population would die out. Well, not entirely accurate, since artificial insemination is not only possible but practiced: Lesbian couples frequently bear children, and gay couples sometimes have one via a surrogate. However, that has not always been the case, of course. Are people who choose never to have sex or never to have children also evil by this standard? What of people who are infertile? Nuns? And if everyone did get married, copulate (without birth control of any kind), and have children until they died, the human species would die out just as quickly and with a lot more misery and bloodshed.
Christians on slavery. Actually the argument was that Africans weren't human and therefore weren't part of the whole image deal. Saying that 'true Christians' didn't feel that way is simply sorting people in the past by your beliefs today. They were considered true Christians at the time, and considered themselves so. Anyone can draw a line separating 'true' from 'false'; I question your right to say your line is more right than that of someone with equally strong opposing views.
I don't understand how the adoption of children causes physical death. I also already stated that in this day and age homosexuals can, in fact, have children.
Evolution may have been a factor as Hitler's justification of the holocaust, but different races have been treated differently long before evolution was ever considered. The theory of evolution has also been used in science to find cures to diseases. Everything has good sides and bad sides-- and most can be used for good or evil whether they're actually true or not. Religion, for example. And far, far more atrocities have been committed in the name of religion than have been in the name of evolution.
The bible verses you stated actually aren't clear at all. They have been translated several times over and leave a great deal to uncertainty. Every single reference to homosexuality has extremely questionable wording (or had in versions closer to the original) that make it extremely difficult to state that they condemn homosexuality. I can provide you with more information in the linguistic discussions that have gone on about the passages you quoted if you're interested, but a quick Internet search will also provide the details.
You said As the (naturally conceived and born, as it happens) child of a homosexual father, I resent that. I don't consider it sick to have a loving and supportive family that, aside from my mother, has both my father and his partner. As it happens, my father and his partner are far more religious than my mother. What I find sick are parents (adoptive or no) who beat, neglect, or otherwise abuse their children. Parents who are would beat to death a child who discovered he was homosexual. That, I consider sick.
It's not possible to go precisely from the bible because the original is long since lost and every single addition since then has altered things to a greater or lesser extent. To claim you know God's word is unutterably arrogant.
I should add to one thing I saw: The bible does not only say that a marriage should be based on love; There is not a _single_ marriage ceremony in the bible, and only one wedding reception, which was focused primarily on the wine. Marriage generally appears to consist of a man giving his daughter to somebody-- or a man simply taking a woman he wants. It could easily be argued that devoted homosexual couples are married by the same standards that many couples in the bible are: they consider themselves so.
As far as the age of the world goes, I don't see how it's relevant. Could it be six thousand years old? Certainly. A God who created the world could easily have built it with a bit of history-- but if so, wouldn't He want that history explored and enjoyed? On the other hand, I see no reason to believe that God and I have the same idea of what a 'day' is. If what he considers a day, I consider a million years-- what of it? We're on different scales.
As a side note, using terms like 'evilution' doesn't convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you; it simply makes you look uneducated at best, bigoted at worst. Also Darwin may have been racist, but he was also an extremely devout Christian trying desperately to fit his observations into existing doctrine.
Just a comment on logical fallacies. This is completely inaccurate-- you can come to a correct conclusion through bad logic, it just happens that you're lucky rather than logical. If you claimed that any answer arrived at by poor means was false, standardized tests would be considerably harder to make. It just means it's a bad argument. I can argue that the sky is blue because I go to work every day. It's obviously a ridiculous statement, and yet the sky remains blue. You can't disbelieve something simply because it's said by someone you don't agree with or because it's badly proven.
This is simply not true. And even were it so, errors come through in translation-- a translation is almost _never_ identical in meaning to its original. Note how many different versions of the bible there are and how completely they vary from each other. They all come from the same source, and yet they are not the same. You appear to have decided that yours is the correct one because it's the one that supports your views. That's a perfectly good reason to choose, but it doesn't make it right.
By that definition, in the last two millenia or so, there has only been one Christian.
I find myself at something of a loss when dealing with these posts because you always refer to a source (primarily the bible) and never effectively defend it against charges of changing language and numerous translations except to say that we have more records of it than of 'anything else' from the distant past. Although this is almost certainly true, it's not terribly relevant. Every single translation makes minor changes, and a great many editions (the King James, for example) have deliberate alterations made to support the church or government of the time. Even when they are translated, or even copied, with the intention of keeping them perfectly faithful to the original, it doesn't work. It's like a line of children hundreds long playing a game of telephone-- by the time the message reaches the end, you're lucky to have any idea what was said in the beginning. The bible does have the advantage of being longer, so individual mistakes can be corrected through context-- but even those corrections can be mistaken. There is simply no way to know exactly what the original writings that made up the bible said, and since those would have been translated by men from a God whose understanding is infinitely beyond theirs, even that translation would be necessarily flawed.
At any rate, I suspect nobody here on either side of the discussion is likely to change his mind. Each group is preaching to the choir on the one side and dropping their words down a well on the other. Everyone's mind is made up, but I thought I'd spend a bit preaching to the choir as well as tossing my two cents (and a great deal of inflation) into the well.
Avea
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Apr 23, 2006 22:00:34 GMT -5
Avea, I love you, just so you know. Add this post to the list of reasons why I owe you my firstborn. ;D You really are amazing.
In case there was any question, yeah, what she said.
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 24, 2006 1:06:20 GMT -5
Great for a first post Avea! I look forward to seeing more from you.
|
|