Religion...? - Page 3

NEW PAGE! Anyhoo...

Look at it from the purely practical standpoint: If everyone in society immediately became homosexual, how would civilization continue? Hardly anyone would reproduce with anyone else and most of humanity would die off.

Our pieces and parts fit together that way for a reason, ya'll.

Are you really so worried that homosexuality is so overwhelmingly appealing that just a little too much tolerance and we'll all convert and extinct ourselves?

We're in far, far more danger from overpopulation than underpopulation. A little less breeding would do us good.

As for how "parts fit together"... so what? If man were meant to fly, we'd have wings, right? Typing messages into your computer is way, way more unnatural than anything people do using only the body parts they were born with. Besides, if how body parts fit together is such a big deal, why is homosexual behavior seen in other animal species, including other primates and dolphins?

In the animal kingdom, exclusively homosexual behavior will obviously be selected against. To the extent that it is genetic, those genes would be self defeating.

It could be argued that societal pressure to conform to heterosexual norms might actually increase the tendency toward homosexuality, since those who have a genetic predisposition to exclusively homosexual behavior would go against their biological impulses in order to conform and gain acceptance, and thus would continue their genetic predisposition in the gene pool.

CosmoNut:

What if everyone turned male?

Terrible argument.

my gay friends tell me that their body parts fit together quite well...

i should be more supportive, but i almost always tell them "ick, too much information" right after they say that...

love is a good thing...i could never be gay, just not hardwired that way...but i would never tell someone they are wrong if they are wired like that


g

Ethics are important. Murder is outlawed for three basic reasons. First, it is harmful to society. Second, it infringes on a person's right to live. Third, the people of our society agree upon the first two points.

Before I make my next point, I will define two words.

Word one: Fornication
When I say fornication I mean one of two things.

Religiously, fornication is voluntary sexual intercourse between unmarried persons. If a particular religion does not recognize a marriage, or legal union, than it is fornication according to that religion despite any legal union that the couple may have.

Politically, fornication is voluntary sexual intercourse between people who are not legally bound, either by marriage or by civil union.

Word two: Adultery
When I say adultery, I mean one of two things.

Religiously, adultery is voluntary sexual intercourse by a person with another than the person's spouse. In order to commit adultery, a person must be within the bounds of a marriage which is recognized by the religion; otherwise it is fornication.

Politically, adultery is voluntary sexual intercourse by a person with another than the person's legal spouse.

Adultery and fornication are (1) harmful to society and (2) infringe upon an unborn child's right to be raised by a mother and father. However, (3) not enough people agree upon those two points to make it as forbidden as murder is. Thus adultery and fornication are difficult to prohibit. It is also difficult to prohibit because of the nature of the activities; being performed privately, between two consenting adults. I view these two activities as very harmful to society and any means to reduce them would be very beneficial.

Now as for homosexuality. I don't view homosexual desires to be sinful or harmful to society. I do view homosexual intercourse as both sinful and harmful to society. However, I do not view homosexual intercourse to be as harmful as either adultery or fornication. It would be great if there was no homosexual intercourse, but that is not a realistic goal because there is no reasonable way of achieving it. It would be more harmful to try to make everyone heterosexual than to simply work with homosexuals. We must strive for a moral, good society, but we must be careful as to what activities we restrict.

I am Christian with corresponding values. I am against adultery, fornication, and homosexual intercourse. I oppose the recognition of homosexual unions within Christianity, but I promote the recognition of homosexual unions within the government. I feel completely at peace with my positions both religiously and politically.

Respectfully,
Alexander the Great

I corrected one point that I made about unborn children in the above post. I also corrected some minor grammatical errors.

Alexander the Great

first of all, how would we all "turn" male?
women aren't gonna just sprout penises, and men won't magically have holes in their loins, right?
if we were all created the same (all male, or all female) then there would have to be a way to reproduce

The test of any theory is whether or not it provides answers to basic questions. Some well-meaning but misguided people think evolution is a reasonable theory to explain mans questions about the universe._ Evolution is not a good theoryit is just a pagan religion masquerading as science.

now, some questions for evolutionists:

asterisk (*).


Where did the space for the universe come from?

Where did matter come from?

Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

How did matter get so perfectly organized?

Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?

When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kindsince this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)

How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

When, where, why, and how did:
Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
Single-celled animals evolve?

Fish change to amphibians?

Amphibians change to reptiles?

Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes,reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
_

How did the intermediate forms live?


When, where, why, how, and from what did:
__ Whales evolve?

__ Sea horses evolve?

__ bats evolve?

__ Eyes evolve?

__ Ears evolve?

__ Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?


Which evolved first how, and how long, did it work without the others)?
The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the bodys resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?

The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?

The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?

DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?

The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?

The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?

The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?

The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?

The immune system or the need for it?


There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?

How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?

When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.

*How did photosynthesis evolve?

*How did thought evolve?

*How did flowering plants evolve, and from that?

*What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?

*Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?

*What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?

*Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?

after you have answered these questions, look at your answers. Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"

Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe? If God is excluded at the beginning of the discussion by your definition of science, how could it be shown that He did create the universe if He did?

also:
Do people accept evolution because of the following factors?:

It is all they have been taught.

They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.).

They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average.

They are too proud to admit they are wrong.

Evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their political agenda.

Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we dont have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)?


Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools?_ If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks?_ It is just a religious worldview.

Just for the purpose of clarification on your last point:

Not all those who call themselves Christian ascribe to the particular views that you set out with respect to fornication and homosexual relations, neither do the doctrines of their particular churches. It is important for you and others to recognize this. I am always taken aback when people, both certain Christians and many non-religious persons, represent such views as being synonymous with a Christian identification.

Actually, I dont recall seeing in the Bible that Jesus spent much time condemning homosexual relations or sex without marriage.

The problem is how you're asking your questions, and what you're expecting from the answers.

It's as if you're saying "My God theory answers 34,204 questions that I can think of. Evolution answers only 6. My theory is better!"

More is not always better.

A theory is supposed to be limited in scope. For instance, quite often people attacking evolution fail to make any distinctions between cosmology, biogenesis (yes, that's a little nod to the Bible in that scientific word), and evolution of species.

I can easily create a theory that answers everything. How about this one: I created everything. Silly? Yes, but try to falsify it with me. I'll have a answer for every challenge you can think of. How? Because my responses will have nothing to do with gathering evidence, they'll all be "just so" answers that seal off all avenues of attack as mistaken or irrelevant.

You need to learn a whole lot more about what science is and how it works before you go talking about what is and is not masquerading as science.

A Buddhist once told me that Buddhism alone isn't a religion. It's more of a humanist metaphysical philosophy. It's really a beautiful concept, though, and I'd argue that it's certainly possible to be a buddhist and a Christian, for example.

I don't know much about Mormons, but do you guys really believe that the American Indians were the 12th tribe of Israel exiled to North America, along with all that other mythical stuff that is way off the scientifically understood timeline?

I may be way off. I don't know any mormons, so my whole knowledge may be based on a telephone-like game of hearsay.

Shetline adequately addressed the major error of your reasoning, but allow me to elaborate...[Edited out "Last Tuesday Theory" because it is totally redundant to Shetline's point. Sorry, didn't scroll enough...]

Search my posts and you will find that I'm always ready to explore a question on evolution, but in my experience I have learned some important pre-requisites for a useful discussion...

1. Don't take over other threads, if you want to debate evolution, start a new thread on the subject, but try to avoid flooding a semi-related thread with a bazillion evolution questions.

2. Admit whether or not there could ever be any scientific evidence that could convince you of the validity of evolutionary theory.

If you are truly interested in exploring the subject start another thread (with evolution in the title), quoting this post and I'll be glad to discuss it with you. There appears to be a lot of knowledgeable people on this forum and the discussions are usually civil.

that's because jesus hung out with 12 guys and one chick (who was a prostitute, yet never sleep with any of the guys)...

not that i am saying jesus was "light in the loafers", but he was tall and thin and unmarried in his 30's....put that same situation in new york and .... well, nevermind

g

That's why it's called FAITH. You see, some people just believe and don't feel like they have to have quantitative data to prove or disprove their beliefs.

Others, like myself, take a middle ground. I look at what I believe and say, is there some sort of scientific/quantitative/logical reasoning that can actually explain this. Most of the time -- maybe surprisingly to you -- there is.

I don't see my religious beliefs as the end-all explanation for the world. I agree that that's naive and short-sighted. On the flip side, I can't say that everything can be explained by science. I've seen too many "unexplainables." So in my life, science and religion work hand in hand to shape my picture of existence...and so far it's worked pretty well.

Who said she never slept with any of the guys....?

Actually, I thought that there are some Christian scholars who seriously think that he was not only tempted but her, but was married to her.

As for possible alernative preferences...I am a liberal Christian and it would not undermine my faith a bit.

And that's fine, so long as they aren't trying to present faith as science or trying to use their faith to make judgements on public policy that effects others (like me).

LOL.

People accept evolution for the same reason they accept gravity and DNA - overwhelming evidence.

Belief in evolution in no way excludes a belief in god.

People support the theory of evolution because it is the best theory to date that explains the evidence. In over 150 years, no one has come up with a better theory. We are all still waiting for creationists to produce one.

Evolution is not outdated or disproved to anyone who understands what it is saying. It is always questionable, as are all good scientific theories.

Creationism can be taught in public schools - in the religious lessons, where it belongs.

Get over it.

Do we really need another creationists ignorance fest?

Actually, I believe that most Biblical scholars will tell you that Mary M. was not a prostitute and has typically been confused with someone else in the bible. At least that's what I learned on the history channel.

How tolerant of you.

What consenting adults do is none of your business. Never has been, never will be.

Consenting adults don't need your approval, or the church's approval.
Never have, never will.

Homosexual christians will continue to ignore you, those like you, and the church.

Feel free to have your opinion. Don't expect it to matter to anyone but yourself.

The closest thing I've found to my current belief system is Satanism.

A lot of fellow Christians on these boards too, so it seems.

State what you believe and why. Refrain from picking at other members.

Thanks,

Fellows

I'm atheist.

- I do have respect for religions and religious people.
- But history tells me that religions are the cause of 50% of wars.
- Politics are the other half ;-) (Ok. that's not funny)
- So religions don't bother me if they stay strict private domain.
- To me necessary morals values were replaced by Human Right Declaration a few centuries ago...
- Religions should be folklore. Unfortunately they still rule a good half of the planet. The problem is here.

No offense pal, but this isn't a self help group. Dynamics and arguments are what make this place enjoyable.

OK. I don't think (or hope not anyways) that your post was directed at me...but here it goes:

Let me at first preface this that I am not a strict aherent to LaVey's take on Satanism. Personally, I think his take was far too 'modern-human' and shortsighted, as well as some reaching 'justification' for his beliefs. IMHO, of course...

Given that, the main reason I sway towards Satanism is that it holds a very 'humanist' set of ideals. Basically, you're on your own. If you fvck up...well, my friend, you fvcked up. Deal with the consequences.

There are also no rules. I abhor rules, and will generally go out of my way to either break them out of spite or avoid them all together. There are guidelines. A few simple principles that most everyone here would agree are reasonable. You don't have to follow them at all, of course, but you would be stupid if you didn't. And we're all stupid.

And before some ill-informed putz asks me why I enjoy sacrificing cats, I'll just say that that's very fringe. It would be like me asking a Christian if they get tired of buggering 13 year olds.

Agreed.

What about hermaphrodites? Does anyone know if they have fully functional organs of both sexes?

What if the human race became hermaphroditic, and everyone had fully-functional organs of both sexes?

Think of the problems that would solve. Maybe males and females wouldn't have so much trouble understanding each other if we were all hermaphroditic. Each person in a marriage could bear a child - that is, take turns. Or not, as they chose. (As IF any of 'you' would choose to bear a child. HA! That'd be the day. )

So many men in the real world have contempt for women, especially within the privacy of their relationships. They abuse them verbally and physically. I would imagine that a fair number of guys on this board have contempt for women.

(And some women ARE contemptible. Some are weak, gutless, simpering, dependent, cowardly, and can't stand on their own two feet. Plus they nag, whine and are bitchy. I would have contempt for anyone like that.)

So, does anyone here like 'any' of the good traits of women well enough to want to keep women around? Or would you rather have hermaphrodites with both sets of organs? Presumably, these individuals would have an equal supply of male and female hormones. Let's say half of the hermaphrodites also had breasts. (Certainly wouldn't want to deprive you of that! )

I know this is a stupid question/premise. Oh well. Off-topic, too. Oh well.

Round asses. Self-reproductive or not, if I had to live my life in a house with only my semi-flat man ass around...I'd be doomed.

I have one vote and that makes it my business. Prostitution is illegal in most places in America, is that not government interfering with what two consenting adults do? If I feel that adultery and fornication are extremely harmful to society than it is my place to oppose such activity. I may or may not be tolerant by your standards, but I am just fine with people having views and opinions that differ from my own. If there are enough people that disagree with me to enact laws contrary to what I want, that's just fine. That's the way the system works and I think the system works pretty darn good.

Please clarify.

The answer to your question is no. However we do believe that the principal ancestors of the American Indians came from Jerusalem.

The Book of Mormon is the keystone (top stone in an arch that holds it together) to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If it is true, we have a lot, if it is not true, we are another Protestant church. The book stands as a witness unto itself and has not been proved either true or false by science. However there is overwhelming evidence that suggests (but does not prove) it is true. The principles and doctrines of Mormonism are the most logical that I have been able to find upon this earth. The Book of Mormon establishes the truthfulness of the Bible and the principles contained therein better than any other book or person I have ever studied. I have studied it out in my mind and I find it to be the most correct religion. I have also received a powerful personal spiritual confirmation as to its truthfulness.

Jesus Christ is the chief corner stone of Mormonism and the foundation of it. The Book of Mormon simply testifies of Christ's life and divinity.

Alexander the Great

The problem is when you are trying to make laws that restrict the rights of others based on your religious beliefs and you have enough people who agree with you to do so, it is a tyranny of the masses. Slavery was legal centuries ago because a majority of *voting* Southern Americans believed there was nothing wrong with restricting the rights of black people. Hell, you could go through all the Jim Crow laws and say the same thing.

It oversteps my bounds as a human being to tell another human what he or she may or may not ingest or do to his or herself or with or to another consenting adult. Full Stop.

Sodomy is not your business. Prostitution is not your business. Drugs are none of your business. Twinkies and Fatburgers are none of your business...until it DIRECTLY affects you. Drinking and driving or getting coked up and driving DIRECTLY affects you and is rightfully illegal. Drinking in one's own basement or doing a line in one's own basement DOES NOT affect you. A prostitute waving her tits at your car as you drive your family to the theater DIRECTLY affects you. A prostitute being called and going to the privacy of a hotel room with a man or woman DOES NOT affect you.

Get the picture?

And the DNA evidence would say you are dead bleeping wrong. Do you say that god faked the DNA evidence as a test of faith?

Wait a minute. Didn't your friend Joe stare through that glass thingamabob into the sun and get some sort of message from it? Something like "over there...and a bit to the right." Sounds like juju to me...but like you say, "to each his own." Good for you, my friend, finding some teaching you can agree with.

Well, it's nice to hear your view, that I am "dead bleeping wrong." Thanks for your feedback. Concerning the DNA issue. And you have a nice day too.

Alexander the Great

Ok so the Semitic tribe was really Asiatic. I see.

Fear the power of belief to obfuscate the truth. Sorry, but it isn't good science to start with a hypothesis and force the world around it to conform to it.

Please note that tobacco companies for years denied cigarettes had any adverse effects on the health of smokers.

I respect your opinion on the topic. However, there is nothing wrong with me disagreeing with you. I am of the opinion that adultery and fornication do have a very real and very negative effect on me and my posterity. If morality in America degenerates beyond a certain point, I assure you the effect will be very visible and very direct. To envision such a scenario, take a look at Africa.

Alexander the Great