The shameful gay marriage ban.

[Ian Boothby]

Well, as infallible organizations go, it's number one in it's class. Well, the superior self-righteous and enlightened folks come a close second. They just haven't elected a president. Something about the candidate failed a quiz on defining God...

And right after mankind defines God accurately I'll get my two year old nephew to write my biography.

[Ian Boothby]

Well the gay thing and the AIDS thing and the birth control thing are all under the sexually repressed section of your menu. Comes with rice and egg roll.

And if their stance on those issues didn't hurt and kill people I'd have no problem with them.


The holocaust is another story. For the record, I side with Pius XII on that one.

But I didn't mention the whole Galileo thing, so you can count that as one of the flubs of our history. Inquisition was kind of over the top too.

Galilieo and the Inquisition are old shames with those affected long dead, the holocaust still has some alive who suffered from the church's evil boneheaded un-Jesus-like stance.

[Evan Waters]

I was replying to your statement that redemptiong is dependent on faith.

Oh, I get it- you're harping on one point to deflect the entire issue. I was referring to the general concept of faith leading to redemption, not the specific issue of faith v. works. But if you want to dodge the subject and not explain how "homosexuality is bad" is supposedly a core tenet of the Catholic faith which cannot be challenged, whatever...

[Spackling Compound]

Galilieo and the Inquisition are old shames with those affected long dead, the holocaust still has some alive who suffered from the church's evil boneheaded un-Jesus-like stance.

Damn! You must have been out smoking weed with the cool kids in the parking lot listening to REO Speedwagon when the nuns covered that ol' theological truth: "Jesus is God, Man and Bonehead".

[Spackling Compound]

Oh, I get it- you're harping on one point to deflect the entire issue. I was referring to the general concept of faith leading to redemption, not the specific issue of faith v. works. But if you want to dodge the subject and not explain how "homosexuality is bad" is supposedly a core tenet of the Catholic faith which cannot be challenged, whatever...
Homosexual acts are an abomination against nature and God and the consequences are hell. If you support gay marriage, you are sending souls to hell.

That's pretty bad.

Now, if you promise not to hex my firstborn, I promise not to burn you at the stake.

[That JonoGuy]

it is just gross. it should never be allowed these people shouldn't have any rights they should be fined for being that way.

Might as well just round us up, make us wear pink triangles and then put us in gas chambers while your at it.

[anthony!]

Also your stance on gay marriage, aids, birth control and hell let's throw in the holocaust. For an infallible organization it sure is wrong a lot.

The pope is only infallible on matters of faith, not necessarilly politics. Could you please get that right?

—A!

[anthony!]

Oh, I get it- you're harping on one point to deflect the entire issue. I was referring to the general concept of faith leading to redemption, not the specific issue of faith v. works. But if you want to dodge the subject and not explain how "homosexuality is bad" is supposedly a core tenet of the Catholic faith which cannot be challenged, whatever...

I was replying to a comment you made. You brought it up. Am I only alowed to comment homosexuality? I've gone on and on about a million times in this thread, I hardly have to repeat myself again. How is that deflecting anything?

—A!

[Ian Boothby]

Homosexual acts are an abomination against nature and God and the consequences are hell. If you support gay marriage, you are sending souls to hell.

That's pretty bad.

That is pretty bad. How can you support a religion that believes nonsense like that? I mean you were making a retarded joke earlier but that is truly retarded.

Bob loves Tom, they kiss, God roasts them alive for eternity.

Nun: What is God?

Me: God is love.

[Ian Boothby]

The pope is only infallible on matters of faith, not necessarilly politics. Could you please get that right?

—A!

I'll get it right if you can show me where you got that from. Used to be the Pope was right about all state matters.

[Cam63]

Homosexual acts are an abomination against nature and God and the consequences are hell. If you support gay marriage, you are sending souls to hell.

That's pretty bad.

Christ. I hope that was a joke.

[kingdom2000]

Wow this thread is still around?

So which is the greater sin? Passing judgement on others when the Son of God himself said not to do it, or being gay?

[Briareos]

Wow this thread is still around?

So which is the greater sin? Passing judgement on others when the Son of God himself said not to do it, or being gay?


Your missing the point. I'm not passing judgement on others but I feel homosexuality is wrong. There is a concerted effort to change societies viewpoint that homosexuality is wrong and to even force acceptance of it on society. That is why its such a hot button topic today.

[That JonoGuy]

Your missing the point. I'm not passing judgement on others but I feel homosexuality is wrong.

which is basically the same thing as passing judgement. :rolleyes:

[Briareos]

which is basically the same thing as passing judgement. :rolleyes:


By your logic saying anything is bad like theft or murder is passing judgement?

[Spackling Compound]

That is pretty bad. How can you support a religion that believes nonsense like that? I mean you were making a retarded joke earlier but that is truly retarded.

Bob loves Tom, they kiss, God roasts them alive for eternity.

Nun: What is God?

Me: God is love.

You took me out of context! How dare you! Homosexuals will not roast in eternity for kissing! They roast for ass fu**ing and sodomy and whatever they do with the absence of the complimentary part normally supplied by the opposite sex. Gahhh...

Well, of course I was giving the short form. We have the whole thing about purgatory, remission of sin and all that.

So, God is love!

[Spackling Compound]

Christ. I hope that was a joke.

A duck walks into a bar and asks for a beer. "Put it on my bill", he says.

That's a joke.

The other thing? That's a short form of what the "harm" is in gay marriage.

Oh, wait, you were addressing that comment to someone else. My bad!

[Spackling Compound]

which is basically the same thing as passing judgement. :rolleyes:
Who are you to judge that Bria is judging?

AHA! Now, unjudge that!

[Spackling Compound]

Oh and this doesn't help the gay issue either...

Yesterday, 10:59 AM #4
sk716
Weirdo



Join Date: May 2004
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 753


I work at Walmart, my days are full of dumbasses, mostly customers. The biggest one at the moment, though, is my new assistant manager who has no freaking idea how to do her job but keeps trying to tell me how to do mine, which she also knows even less about.
And then she gets pissed off at me everytime I tell her that she's wrong, no matter how nicely I try to do it.
I'm telling you, if she writes me up, I'm playing the lesbian card. If she's going to single me out because she's stupid. I'm going to nail her to the wall. She's already given me a verbal for tardies, but no one else. And I am far from the only person in her areas who is terminally late, my day shift associate has turned lateness into an art form.
The woman has no idea who she's messing with.
Yeah, playing the discrimination card on someone who probably has no idea I'm a lesbian is a shitty thing to do. But her messing with my paycheck because she's ignorant is even shittier.

Homophobic? Yeah, I think I may be. If I have an employee that is not doing their job and I call them on it and they surprise me with the "lesbian card", I think I'd be very homophobic.

Interesting things going on at the "I had to deal with.." thread.

[Evan Waters]

I was replying to a comment you made. You brought it up. Am I only alowed to comment homosexuality?

It is the subject of the thread.

[Ian Boothby]

By your logic saying anything is bad like theft or murder is passing judgement?


Theft and murder hurt others so you can say they are bad. Being gay doesn't hurt others. So not much logic there.

[Ian Boothby]

You took me out of context! How dare you! Homosexuals will not roast in eternity for kissing! They roast for ass fu**ing and sodomy and whatever they do with the absence of the complimentary part normally supplied by the opposite sex. Gahhh...

Well, of course I was giving the short form. We have the whole thing about purgatory, remission of sin and all that.

So, God is love!

You said ...

Originally Posted by Spackling Compound
Homosexual acts are an abomination against nature and God and the consequences are hell. If you support gay marriage, you are sending souls to hell.

That's pretty bad.

So no I didn't take you out of context. A gay kiss is a homosexual act. If God burns you for making love he'll burn you for the kissing.

[kingdom2000]

"Your missing the point. I'm not passing judgement on others but I feel homosexuality is wrong. There is a concerted effort to change societies viewpoint that homosexuality is wrong and to even force acceptance of it on society. That is why its such a hot button topic today."

As opposed to forcing people to believe its wrong? I am missing the distinction other then the usual "its what i think therefore more valid then yours". And you dodged my question.

Which is the worse sin, passing judgement that god himself said is wrong, or being gay, which an apostle said was wrong?

[Adam Crocker]

There is a concerted effort to change societies viewpoint that homosexuality is wrong and to even force acceptance of it on society. That is why its such a hot button topic today.

Question, how is trying to change people's minds on the matter forcing (that's the key word here) acceptance?

[Cam63]

Your missing the point. I'm not passing judgement on others but I feel homosexuality is wrong. There is a concerted effort to change societies viewpoint that homosexuality is wrong and to even force acceptance of it on society. That is why its such a hot button topic today.

Well, gosh gee. I'm gunna have to say you're wrong too.

[Cam63]

A duck walks into a bar and asks for a beer. "Put it on my bill", he says.

That's a joke.

The other thing? That's a short form of what the "harm" is in gay marriage.

Oh, wait, you were addressing that comment to someone else. My bad!

When your nice god sends those he/she/it thinks are unworthy to suffer for eternity in hell ?

Fuck that. I'll volunteer to burn with them if that's what I got to do to win favour with that bastard.

[Cam63]

As you can see, I'm VERY forthright when nice people are persecuted by those who think they have the right by their god to persecute them.

The whole religion thing, burning in hell if you don't tow the line or suck up to God shit has no affect on me.

[Spackling Compound]

When your nice god sends those he/she/it thinks are unworthy to suffer for eternity in hell ?

Fuck that. I'll volunteer to burn with them if that's what I got to do to win favour with that bastard.

You already have favor (favour) with God. The volunteer list is pretty booked right now, seems lots of people are lined up along the road of perdition. However, keep calling Him (in the old school we capitalize the "h") a bastard and you may make the waiting list.

[Spackling Compound]

The whole religion thing, burning in hell if you don't tow the line or suck up to God shit has no affect on me.....yet. Has no effect on you yet.

[Spackling Compound]

You said ...

Originally Posted by Spackling Compound
Homosexual acts are an abomination against nature and God and the consequences are hell. If you support gay marriage, you are sending souls to hell.

That's pretty bad.

So no I didn't take you out of context. A gay kiss is a homosexual act. If God burns you for making love he'll burn you for the kissing.
Look, I'm the one defending the Catholic Church here and I'm telling you, kissing is not the same as intercourse.
But if you want to use the "nuns-what-said-what-they-said-in-my-school" approach to Catholicism, then I just have to say that your parents need to get their money back and order you a set of books by Ignatius press. Maybe there's some hope. Heck, I'll even send you some myself. Gratis!

[Cam63]

....yet. Has no effect on you yet.

I so want to join your club. That or get rabies.

[Spackling Compound]

I so want to join your club. That or get rabies.

http://www.vivalavintage.com/store/product-images/MEN80GOLDmbrJK.jpg

[anthony!]

One person told me that you have to determine what is no longer useful or something like that. So I never followed up on that in conversation but it's been brewing in my mind.


There are lots of examples one could throw out to say that it's okay for the Church to alter its beliefs to match a certain situation. Take the role of women in the church,for example. During the Dark Ages (which really weren't all that dark) some monastaries and churches in Ireland came very close to having women hear confessions and administer the eucharist. During the 13th and 14th century, women outright were allowed in some cases to take on the role of priests because nearly half the population was dead (this is England I'm speaking of).

However, most of these situations of "altering" the norm are made on a local level. They also tend to be temporary and only in extreme situations that criple the Church's ability to administer. Once Rome gets wind of this kind of thing they do tend to squash it. Particularly in the Ireland example above.

Another example of "altering" Church beliefs would be the case of the priesthood and celibacy. Prior to (I think) the 14th century priests could marry. Then it was decided that they should be celibate, to better emulate the life of Christ. This practice is considered Church tradition, but not doctrine. It could change tomorrow if the Pope wanted to.

Though your historical examples are true, I would point out that— to me— they seem to be more political in nature, which would change the context of what we are talking about. Hundreds of years ago the Church was much closer to governments and politics, thus decisions took on both a theological and political nature. Probably not for the best I might add.

Also, this is all pre-Vatican II (and concurrently with the time of St. Thomas Aquinas [I think], whose importance can't be understated) which changed the Church in many critical ways, and the impact has yet to be fully understood— and won't be for some time.

Not to get too religious, but as a Catholic I have to add in the Holy Spirit to these equations. Catholicism believes that this one-third of the trinity is a guiding force for the Church. Its part of having faith that the Church (and the bishop of Rome) are graced by the Holy Spirit in a way that brings us closer to God. It's a faith thing, and plays a massive role in the decision-making process of the Catholic Church.

Catholics could change our stance on homosexuality, abortion, celibacy, the death pentalty and war tomorrow and it would probably give us more political clout instantaneously. It definately would make us more popular in certain circles. Yet I think that as the Church grows older and wiser, it concerns itself less with the constant flux of the populace and focuses more and more on undeniable truths that apply to both the spiritual and natural worlds.

The Church in modern times moves at a glacier-like pace, and that certainly isn't by mistake. It only changes as it's understanding of God and our relationship to Him is further enlightened through the Holy Spirit. So unless we get sent some saint who revolutionizes the Church's understanding of sex and marriage— I wouldn't expect a change in position.

Homosexuality existed thousands of years ago, just as it exists today. History has had periods of both so-called sexual "freedom" and sexual "repression". So really not all that much is different today compared to yesterday. We probably just talk about it a whole lot more.

I hope that is a somewhat reasonable answer to your well thought-out reply.

—A!

[Spackling Compound]

Catholics could change our stance on homosexuality, abortion, celibacy, the death pentalty and war tomorrow and it would probably give us more political clout instantaneously. It definately would make us more popular in certain circles. Yet I think that as the Church grows older and wiser, it concerns itself less with the constant flux of the populace and focuses more and more on undeniable truths that apply to both the spiritual and natural worlds.



I think we actually have the political clout we do today because of our age-old stand on the issues you mentioned above. The ambassador to the UN is a hint at the importance the Church has in civil matters. The pope being able to enter into talks with world leaders, including dictators is also a clue at our impact.

Someone said that the Church is losing numbers and that is not true. Actually, Roman Catholicism is growing in population internationally and is the largest Christian religion in the world. It has come to nations that at one time were under tyranny or abject anarchy.

When the Church loses hold, it's not to another religion. It's usually to a humanism that is based on subjective and temporal thought. This will (and has) give way to lawlessness at some point and then a stronger, more conservative system will come in. I think the Muslims are waiting in the wings after the drugs, sex and rock and roll have taken its toll on Europe. Eat, drink and be merry...

[anthony!]

I think we actually have the political clout we do today because of our age-old stand on the issues you mentioned above. The ambassador to the UN is a hint at the importance the Church has in civil matters. The pope being able to enter into talks with world leaders, including dictators is also a clue at our impact.

This is true. I was speaking in the pretense of relations with more liberal and developed areas (parts of Europe, the U.S.A., Canada,etc. — you know, the "enlightened" people)

I think the Muslims are waiting in the wings after the drugs, sex and rock and roll have taken its toll on Europe. Eat, drink and be merry...

Actually I think both the United States and Europe are going to get very rude awakenings, yet both of a different sort. Europe's supposed smarter, enlightened poise will prove once again to really mean appeasing dangerous, threatening nations via economic incentive. The United States on the other hand will see a constant and consistant erosion of its "superpower"-ness as more and more nations attempt to dominate through nuclear power, human rights abuses and economic warfare. Don't be surprised if 50 years from now China begins to morph into something not to far off from Imperial Japan.

My apologies for throwing off the thread— back to gay marriage...

—A!

[Ian Boothby]

Look, I'm the one defending the Catholic Church here and I'm telling you, kissing is not the same as intercourse.
But if you want to use the "nuns-what-said-what-they-said-in-my-school" approach to Catholicism, then I just have to say that your parents need to get their money back and order you a set of books by Ignatius press. Maybe there's some hope. Heck, I'll even send you some myself. Gratis!

You said homosexual acts get you sent to hell. Two gay men kissing is a homosexual act. If you're saying it's just the bum sex then I'd like to see where that's written. Is oral sex okay? Heavy petting? Since in your world first base doesn't get you to hell which base is the damning one?

[Cam63]

You said homosexual acts get you sent to hell. Two gay men kissing is a homosexual act. If you're saying it's just the bum sex then I'd like to see where that's written. Is oral sex okay? Heavy petting? Since in your world first base doesn't get you to hell which base is the damning one?

When you start singing along to the Titanic theme is my guess.

[Cam63]

http://www.vivalavintage.com/store/product-images/MEN80GOLDmbrJK.jpg

I would've worn that in the '80s.

[Screwtape]

Oh and how can you call a verse in the bible "obscure" when it's all the word of God? Isn't one chapter just as important as they others?Sure. But some of them have to be taken within the context of the culture in which they were written (see the ban on cotton/poly blend clothing ;) and the uncleanness attributed to menstruating women), and some of them are a little easier to see the universal truth behind ("Love your neighbor as yourself").

"How can you call that scene in The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly less typical of Sergio Leone's work than the hanging sequence? Don't you think Leone is a good filmmaker?"

"How can you call the word the less important than the words life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? Don't you believe that the WHOLE SENTENCE is true?"

Yawn.

[Screwtape]

Okay sorry about that. How does slavery and stoning fit in with what Jesus taught. Was God pro slavery and stoning and then changed his mind?Slavery existed long before the Bible was written. It was a fact of the ancient world. The Bible sets up a context through which to abolish and condemn slavery by stating that Christ died for everyone, not just slave owners.

What's wrong with stoning people?

[Cam63]

What's wrong with stoning people?

Giving/selling drugs is wrong, that's why :D

[Screwtape]

I'll attempt to answer you with an example.

If not following and heeding The Word of God is a danger to one's eternal soul, then I guess that being an atheist would be "a bad idea" much like homosexuality is, according to you, "a bad idea." Should we, therefore, make atheism illegal?

If your answer is "yes," I'm going to scream.You keep trying to second guess me, which is a bad idea :). Religious belief falls into a different category because (as far as I know) none of us are dead yet. People can think whatever they want to think. My point is that there are victimless crimes and they're STILL CRIMES.

[Screwtape]

Giving/selling drugs is wrong, that's why :D

But... but I thought EVERYBODY must get stoned!

I'm so confused.

[Cam63]

Have some nice herbal tea, mate :)

[Screwtape]

Thanks...

:sips:

GAH! What did you put in this stuff, Cam?

[Cam63]

Whoops ! Sorry, that's the one I normally use for the cat's waterbowl !

[Spackling Compound]

But... but I thought EVERYBODY must get stoned!

I'm so confused.
As long as you don't feel all so alone...

[Spackling Compound]

I would've worn that in the '80s.
Then I guess you're a member of the club. You were talking about the "Foxy Man Club" right? You bring the Drakkar, I got the Midori.

[Cam63]

I drink beer. Is that OK to bring along ?

[Screwtape]

BWAHAHAHA!

But I should remind you that Foster's comes from your country, and I have it on good authority that Foster's is Australian for beer (while it is American for water).

[anthony!]

You said homosexual acts get you sent to hell. Two gay men kissing is a homosexual act. If you're saying it's just the bum sex then I'd like to see where that's written. Is oral sex okay? Heavy petting? Since in your world first base doesn't get you to hell which base is the damning one?

Actually any kind of sodomy is not okay. Sodomy being defined as any sexual act outside of usual sexual activity. So out goes anal and oral sex of any kind.

The way I understand it is that a willful and unapologetic sexual act, with the knowledge and understanding that it is wrong would be considered a sin. A mortal sin, I believe.

Expressing affection probably wouldn't constitute a sin; sexual affection your probably running into issues. Though I think intentions of the parties involved would be a big determinate in the "sinfulness" of an encounter.

—A!

[Cam63]

I don't know one person who drinks Fosters. I think it's only sold overseas and locally for homesick Yanks who've developed a taste for it :D

[Ian Boothby]

Sure. But some of them have to be taken within the context of the culture in which they were written (see the ban on cotton/poly blend clothing ;) and the uncleanness attributed to menstruating women), and some of them are a little easier to see the universal truth behind ("Love your neighbor as yourself").

"How can you call that scene in The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly less typical of Sergio Leone's work than the hanging sequence? Don't you think Leone is a good filmmaker?"

"How can you call the word the less important than the words life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? Don't you believe that the WHOLE SENTENCE is true?"

Yawn.


If the Good The Bad and Ugly was directed by Almighty God!!!! then yes all the scenes would be equally important. I wouldn't want to be God's editor.
If the Bible isn't the word of God and written by men then you've got a point, but if it is written by men and not the Lord then you have to take everything with a grain of salt (like for example that story where God turned a woman into grains of salt).

[Screwtape]

If the Good The Bad and Ugly was directed by Almighty God!!!! then yes all the scenes would be equally important. I wouldn't want to be God's editor.
If the Bible isn't the word of God and written by men then you've got a point, but if it is written by men and not the Lord then you have to take everything with a grain of salt (like for example that story where God turned a woman into grains of salt).Not relevant. The question is whether the Bible is True, capital T. Many things can be True and have more or less important parts to them. Your argument doesn't work.

I personally think God would make Westerns if he directed.

[Ian Boothby]

Slavery existed long before the Bible was written. It was a fact of the ancient world. The Bible sets up a context through which to abolish and condemn slavery by stating that Christ died for everyone, not just slave owners.

What's wrong with stoning people?

What's so funny about peace love and a rock to the head?

I didn't say the Bible invented slavery I'm just saying it endorsed it in the Old Testament.

[Screwtape]

Quite a bit, actually.

Define "endorsed."

[Ian Boothby]

Actually any kind of sodomy is not okay. Sodomy being defined as any sexual act outside of usual sexual activity. So out goes anal and oral sex of any kind.

The way I understand it is that a willful and unapologetic sexual act, with the knowledge and understanding that is wrong would be considered a sin. A mortal sin, I believe.

Expressing affection probably wouldn't constitute a sin; sexual affection your probably running into issues. Though I think intentions of the parties involved would be a big determinate in the "sinfulness" of an encounter.

—A!

So is it just as bad then if a man and woman have oral sex? That's outside "normal" sexual activity.

[Spackling Compound]

So is it just as bad then if a man and woman have oral sex? That's outside "normal" sexual activity.

No up to a point...
The natural end of any sexual, genital act is directed toward procreation.

Catholic girls are told if they have a desire to get on their knees before anything, try the altar first.

We Catholics have an answer for everything!

[Ian Boothby]

Quite a bit, actually.

Define "endorsed."

(n-dôrs) also in·dorse (n-)

To give approval of or support to, especially by public statement; sanction

The Bible says you can sell your daughter into slavery. Exodus 21:7-10

If you keep a Hebrew slave you really should let him go after six years Exodus 21:2-6

Don't beat your slave to death. Exodus 21:20-21

There's also these golden oldies...

Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever" (Leviticus 25:44-46).

And when the Lord thy God hath delivered [a city] into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee” (Deuteronomy 20:13-14).

So not only are you allowed slaves God is telling you to have them.

[Ian Boothby]

No up to a point...
The natural end of any sexual, genital act is directed toward procreation.


We're watching different porn films.

[Spackling Compound]

(n-dôrs) also in·dorse (n-)

To give approval of or support to, especially by public statement; sanction

The Bible says you can sell your daughter into slavery. Exodus 21:7-10

If you keep a Hebrew slave you really should let him go after six years Exodus 21:2-6

Don't beat your slave to death. Exodus 21:20-21

There's also these golden oldies...

Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever" (Leviticus 25:44-46).

And when the Lord thy God hath delivered [a city] into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee” (Deuteronomy 20:13-14).

So not only are you allowed slaves God is telling you to have them.

Ahh...skip ahead when God is Ultimized for a new audience..

[Spackling Compound]

We're watching different porn films.

Film? DSL!

[Screwtape]

Ahh...skip ahead when God is Ultimized for a new audience..
Yes, that was pretty much my response as well.

[anthony!]

So is it just as bad then if a man and woman have oral sex? That's outside "normal" sexual activity.

Actually, yes— if the sodomy is the central aspect to the act.

Many Catholic married couples have questions about this. It's the old "what do you mean we can only be in the missionary position?!" question.

There is something of a movement that is gaining in popularity called "Theology of the Body" which explores the boundries and freedoms of sexuality in Catholicism. I don't really finding it all that interesting myself, but I do have some friends that are really into it— right down to attending lectures at local parishes and reading various books on the subject.

—A!

[Cam63]

What's so funny about peace love and a rock to the head?

I didn't say the Bible invented slavery I'm just saying it endorsed it in the Old Testament.

I suppose we should keep in mind slavery was OK with most of the world for a helluva long time.

[anthony!]

Ahh...skip ahead when God is Ultimized for a new audience..

Totally— that's so before the retcon!

—A!

[anthony!]

I suppose we should keep in mind slavery was OK with most of the world for a helluva long time.

And keep in mind that although the South is very Christian, the abolishionist movement also grew out of Christianity in the North.

So clearly religion played a key fact in the eventual ending of slavery. At least for the developed world.

—A!

[Cam63]

That was very nice of 'em.

[Spackling Compound]

That was very nice of 'em.
Well, not so nice...not many got that 40acres and a mule.

But enough about us, tell us about you! How are the Torres Islanders? Doing well with those land rights and civil freedoms I'm sure.

Enlighten us. Please, you've said enough about our lil' ol' Country.

[Cam63]

I want freedom, justice and happiness for all, Spack'.

No, I don't know how things are going for the Torres Strait Islanders.

[Ian Boothby]

I suppose we should keep in mind slavery was OK with most of the world for a helluva long time.


But this is supposed to be God writing this and God really should know better. You can't say, "C'mon cut God some slack on the slavery I mean everyone was doing it." God should be above peer pressure.

[Ian Boothby]

Ahh...skip ahead when God is Ultimized for a new audience..


Okay so since we're chucking the slave endorsing God did because of the New Testament, why do we keep the "no guys lying together" bit? If the Old Testament is disposible then fine, stop quoting from it to support the anti-gay stuff.

[Briareos]

Theft and murder hurt others so you can say they are bad. Being gay doesn't hurt others. So not much logic there.


I'm not directly comparing them. I'm saying that under his logic someone saying anything is wrong is judging someone which of course it isn't.

[Briareos]

Okay so since we're chucking the slave endorsing God did because of the New Testament, why do we keep the "no guys lying together" bit? If the Old Testament is disposible then fine, stop quoting from it to support the anti-gay stuff.


Ok here's the New Testement Romans 1 26-27

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

[Briareos]

I think this is good for people to read

http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/ds/cb962/cb962.html

[Dreadstar]

SO, the first case to bring up the so-called "defense of marriage act" in Ohio is being invoked by...


... a lesbian woman, suing to remove her ex-partner from visitation privleges of the child the first woman conceived via artificial insemination while they were together. They broke up 4 years ago, and and the second woman was awarded visitation priveleges.

The new law basically states that no simulation of a conventional man-woman marriage is to be recognized by a court of law. It's the plaintiff's contention that the earlier visitaion priveleges are just such a simulation, and therefore illegal under the new law.

I can't wait till all of this trickles down into the non-conventional man-woman civil union arena.

EDIT: Please note that I'm paraphrasing all of this off the top of my head, and some of the therefores and wheras' may be misplaced, but that's pretty much the gist.

[PatrickG]

Have you read that in greek?

My understanding is that there's quite possibly some intentional mistranslating going on with most standard versions and that if you go back, the words used in most instances like this would refer specifically to engaging in same sex liasons with pagan temple prostitutes.

[PatrickG]

BTW, if the New Testament is the Ultimzation of the Old Testament, I'd expect it to be longer.

I mean, I imagine the Gospel of Brian Michael Bendis would spend most of the first trade paperback building up to Jesus' baptism.

[Cam63]

But this is supposed to be God writing this and God really should know better. You can't say, "C'mon cut God some slack on the slavery I mean everyone was doing it." God should be above peer pressure.

The Bible was written, as far as I know, by men in a time when slavery was considered OK by many. I'm not sure how many people were against slavery way back then.

Maybe it was a silent majority.

[Cam63]

I think this is good for people to read

http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/ds/cb962/cb962.html

Gee, thanks for the link. A lot of thought went into that piece of homophobic crap.

[Ian Boothby]

Gee, thanks for the link. A lot of thought went into that piece of homophobic crap.

That starts off with some Anne Frank erotica. Jeeeez.

[Mia]

Ah I see that this thread has resurfaced coupled with loads of intelligent bon mots and insights. Must be a slow news day.... :D

[anthony!]

This thread certainly does tend to come back to life just when you think its dead.

—A!

[Cam63]

That starts off with some Anne Frank erotica. Jeeeez.

Yeah. Real " pillars of society " stuff.

[Spackling Compound]

The Bible was written, as far as I know, by men in a time when slavery was considered OK by many. I'm not sure how many people were against slavery way back then.

Maybe it was a silent majority.

Actually the slaves were against slavery. Hated the stuff.

So, there was this one time, this so-called Egyptian murdered another Egyptian for beating up on a slave. The Egyptian then ran away and found out that he was actually a Jew and then he came back to set the slaves free because God told him to.

Moses something or another....

[stealthwise]

Actually the slaves were against slavery. Hated the stuff.

So, there was this one time, this so-called Egyptian murdered another Egyptian for beating up on a slave. The Egyptian then ran away and found out that he was actually a Jew and then he came back to set the slaves free because God told him to.

Moses something or another....

Hahaha, that's great, especially the first line.

[Spackling Compound]

But this is supposed to be God writing this and God really should know better. You can't say, "C'mon cut God some slack on the slavery I mean everyone was doing it." God should be above peer pressure.

God didn't write the Bible and as far as the Catholics and the one Anglican are concerned, that line of thought is a straw man argument. Heck, I would try to explain the understanding of Scripture to you but I don't think it would do any good.

Suffice it to say...

Divinely inpsired? Yes.

God sitting down and writing his memoirs? Nah.
Come on, even the Torah which was supposedly written by Moses has an account of his death.

[anthony!]

But this is supposed to be God writing this and God really should know better. You can't say, "C'mon cut God some slack on the slavery I mean everyone was doing it." God should be above peer pressure.

Who ever said God wrote the Bible?

The only book that claims to be the direct word of God is Islam's Koran. And even that was handed down via the angel Gabriel to Mohammed.

No, the Bible has always been understood as divine inspiration. Heck, they didn't even settle on a final version until 300 A.D. or so.

—A!

[Briareos]

Gee, thanks for the link. A lot of thought went into that piece of homophobic crap.

oh yeah the publisher who wrote that is so homophobic they would write this:

"On the other hand, those who oppose homosexuality self-righteously consider it to be the worst sin possible. They tend to overlook the equally strong words the Bible has for heterosexual immorality and many other sins that most people commit."

[JeffreyWKramer]

I think this is good for people to read

http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/ds/cb962/cb962.html

I think it is bad for people to read. It is poorly written and full of misinformation. The treatment of scientific fact is shoddy and demonstrates that either a) the author has no comprehension of science at all or b) is simply a dishonest piece of scum who assumes his readers will be so ignorant of science as to buy his arguments.

Please, what did you consider "good" about that tripe?

[sk716]

Didn't we agree to let these threads die and play Justice League instead?

[JeffreyWKramer]

Didn't we agree to let these threads die and play Justice League instead?

Well, superheroes have this habit of coming back from the dead.

Not to mention fighting essentially the same fight over and over.

Speaking of which, has anyone noticed that Marvel has redone the "Gwen Stacy death scene" about five times in the past few months?

[Adam Crocker]

Speaking of which, has anyone noticed that Marvel has redone the "Gwen Stacy death scene" about five times in the past few months?

Really? They did? How?

Anyways...Anthony, I'll get around to your post a bit later, but can't quite yet. But Thanks for taking the time to respond to my lengthy, ponderous ramblings though. :)

I think this is good for people to read

http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/ds/cb962/cb962.html

I don't see why it is a good read. For one thing, when identifying the causes of homosexuality it pretty much fails to mention that recent research has found that hormone levels on the womb are also found to be a major contributing factor among homosexuality in males. It also ignores that recent evidence suggests that homosexuality in women is usually linked to poor experiences with male partners. Instead it just focuses on one research case, yet provides no supporting evidence for any of the phenomena that it claims are causes, many of which are no longer taken seriously by the mental health community. (If the websites of the American Pyschological Association and American Pyschiatric Association are anything to go by.)

Moreover, it's objection on the basis of sexually transmitted diseases is fallacious. For example, it is correct in stating that the sexually-transmitted diseases it lists can be contracted by homosexual men, yet they can also be contracted just as easily by heterosexual couples. None of these are actually exclusive to homosexual males or innately more predominant as a result. (Unless you practice anal sex without protection or proper hygiene measures, that holds equally true for a heterosexual couple doing likewise.)

Emotionally speaking, the article should've mentioned that that increased rates of depression among gays is not up to a rate that would qualify for serious pathology, while suicide rates among gay and lesbian youths have been found to be (http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb02/newdata.html) only slightly higher that those among heterosexual youth. Furthermore it fails to note that both APAs have not considered homosexuality to be a mental illness for quite some time now. It was deleted from the second edition of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (http://www.psych.org/public_info/homose~1.cfm) in 1973, and entirely absent in the DSMIII (The DSM is the standard classification of mental disorders used by mental health professionals in the United States.)

I also really have a problem with the way it characterizes all homosexual relationships as dysfunctional and unhealthy, which really doesn't seem to be the case with many examples I have seen. I especially take issue with the statement 'Female homosexual relationships are particularly burdened with extreme possessiveness and jealousy.' I have a friend who is a lesbian and currently in a relationship and I certainly didn't find any extreme possessiveness and jealously. In fact it was quite loving and healthy. (Including urging her girlfriend to get a rid home with me because it was dark out instead of taking her bike and she was worried about her safety.)

MYTH #5--Homosexuals can't change.
The Bible plainly states that people can overcome homosexuality. After listing a number of categories that typically characterize unbelievers, including "homosexual offenders," Paul reminded the believers in the city of Corinth, "That is what some of you were" (1 Cor. 6:11).

Which unfortunately doesn't prove anything other than Paul felt that some believers could've been homosexuals at one point, and on a very vague supposition of him reminding several believers that they were once unbelievers at one point. That pretty much ignores factual reality that attempts to treat or cure homosexuality have both failed and even proved harmful in many cases. (Then again it cites a book endorsing reparative therapy (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0765701421/qid=1109478225/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-6324533-5706447?v=glance&s=books) an approach pretty much descredited by the American Pyschological Association and the American Pyschiatric Association. You can read about the latter's official position on the matter here (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2000-02/APA-tdiw-0302100.php). It appears that it fails in most cases (http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/reparative_therapy.html).)

Bri, I consider you a friend, but to be blunt you have a habit of relying on dubious sources. In this subject in particular you would probably do well to read up on what the scientific community, particularly pyschology and pyschiatric organization and journals have to say on the matter instead of trusting questionable information from religious sources. Many of the points I debunked here have been debunked repeatedly in this thread and others.

[Cam63]

Actually the slaves were against slavery. Hated the stuff.

So, there was this one time, this so-called Egyptian murdered another Egyptian for beating up on a slave. The Egyptian then ran away and found out that he was actually a Jew and then he came back to set the slaves free because God told him to.

Moses something or another....

Oooh ! I know this one ! Moses Heston. His friends call him Chuck for some reason.

[Cam63]

oh yeah the publisher who wrote that is so homophobic they would write this:

"On the other hand, those who oppose homosexuality self-righteously consider it to be the worst sin possible. They tend to overlook the equally strong words the Bible has for heterosexual immorality and many other sins that most people commit."

It's a misguided article full of nonsense.

[Ian Boothby]

Actually the slaves were against slavery. Hated the stuff.

So, there was this one time, this so-called Egyptian murdered another Egyptian for beating up on a slave. The Egyptian then ran away and found out that he was actually a Jew and then he came back to set the slaves free because God told him to.

Moses something or another....

You know aside from the Old Testament there's no record of Moses, the freeing of the slaves or any of that story.

[Cam63]

Sure there's evidence, Boothby. Luckily some guy by the name of Cecil B. de Mille brought a camera along and filmed the whole thing.

[Mia]

You know aside from the Old Testament there's no record of Moses, the freeing of the slaves or any of that story.

I think that you mean there's no current existing records. Historical records are destroyed all the time. Still does not mean that an event did not take place or a person did not exist.

[Ian Boothby]

I think that you mean there's no current existing records. Historical records are destroyed all the time. Still does not mean that an event did not take place or a person did not exist.

It's a pretty big event to have no documentation or evidence. And without evidence why would you think something happened? The Bible mentions it but they also mention Adam and Eve and Noah neither of which happened.

[Ian Boothby]

Who ever said God wrote the Bible?
—A!

So you're saying the Bible isn't the word of God?

Lots of people say God wrote the Bible. Do you think the content of the Bible is divine? If the Pope is infallible and he gets his info from the Bible how can the Bible be flawed (which it must be if written by man) and the Pope's take on it not be?

[Mia]

It's a pretty big event to have no documentation or evidence. And without evidence why would you think something happened? The Bible mentions it but they also mention Adam and Eve and Noah neither of which happened.

And how do you know that? Like I said before historical documents are destroyed all the time. For various reasons. Such as fires or floods or they just plain get misplaced and fade with time. Or it can be due to the fact that the loosers, in this case the Egyptians, would hardly want to keep that part of thier history on file.

It also appears that pharaohs who fell out of favor would find their names deleted from official records by the next pharaoh. That makes it difficult to learn about some pharaohs. That practice would suggest that Moses would not have been a figure that the Egyptians would enshrine in their records. We do not find Moses identified in existing historical records, but this means no more than that archaeologists have not found many records. Arguments from silence only prove that we do not know enough to prove anything other than what actually exists.




The reason we have the old Testament today is due to a strong Jewish oral tradition. Which, quite understandibly, would be something that the Jews would want to hang on to and keep. The Pentateuch was not writen down until the Babylonian captivity.

[Mia]

So you're saying the Bible isn't the word of God?

Lots of people say God wrote the Bible. Do you think the content of the Bible is divine? If the Pope is infallible and he gets his info from the Bible how can the Bible be flawed (which it must be if written by man) and the Pope's take on it not be?


If you are interested in who wrote the Bible. Here is a link to a web site. You will find books you can reference at the bottom of the page.

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible1.html

[the4thpip]

Hasn't it been pretty much established that Moses was a composite character based mostly on an Egyption Pharao, of all things?

[Mia]

Hasn't it been pretty much established that Moses was a composite character based mostly on an Egyption Pharao, of all things?


This is the first I'm hearing that. What are your sources?

[the4thpip]

This is the first I'm hearing that. What are your sources?
Some issue of National Geographic or its German counterpart, Geo.

I'll look around on the internet for it once things have settled down here a bit. As you may know, we lost my dad last week. His funeral is on Thursday, and on Friday I have a big media event at the AIDS charity I head. It's all a little overwhelming.

[the4thpip]

Do a search for AKHENATEN and MOSES... you'll probably find an equal amount of articles on both sides of the issue.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Really? They did? How?
In the MK SPIDER-MAN book, Green Goblin has MJ up on the bridge, ready to reenact the scene. That same basic concept has shown up in a couple of other books of late, too.

[anthony!]

In the MK SPIDER-MAN book, Green Goblin has MJ up on the bridge, ready to reenact the scene. That same basic concept has shown up in a couple of other books of late, too.

For once we actually agree on something, Kramer. Marvel certainly has revisited that scene way too many times. They also went back to it in Sins Past, I believe. If I were Spidey I would avoid the Brooklyn Bridge at all times.

So you're saying the Bible isn't the word of God?

Lots of people say God wrote the Bible. Do you think the content of the Bible is divine? If the Pope is infallible and he gets his info from the Bible how can the Bible be flawed (which it must be if written by man) and the Pope's take on it not be

"Lots of people" aren't Catholic. I can't speak for them. Catholics aren't Bible-thumpers.

Didn't I answer this question? The Bible is divinely inspired, just not the direct word of God. Perhaps that’s why Catholic Bibles tend to highlight Jesus' words in red and everything else in normal black. The Bible was written by people who were inspired by God and the events that unfolded before them.

As far as papal infallibility (is this a hang up you have?), the Pope draws from more than just the Bible when making a decision or statement. Sure, the Bible gets referenced all the time, but so do other theological works, not to mention the historical writings and actions of previous popes. Your limiting the scope of your thinking so you can justify your logic that papal infallibility is— well, fallible.

As I’ve also said in a previous post, you can't discount the Holy Spirit when talking about these issues. The Church believes that the Holy Spirit works through the church and helps them to make decisions. It's purely a faith aspect to Catholicism, but it should be noted when talking about this kind of stuff and trying to understand it.

—A!

[anthony!]

Some issue of National Geographic or its German counterpart, Geo.

I've never heard this theory. But of course, if its in a magazine it must be true.

—A!

[Spackling Compound]

So you're saying the Bible isn't the word of God?

Lots of people say God wrote the Bible. Do you think the content of the Bible is divine? If the Pope is infallible and he gets his info from the Bible how can the Bible be flawed (which it must be if written by man) and the Pope's take on it not be?

The Pope is not getting "info" from the Bible. I like the way you've set up the Catholic Church to be a circus of fools. Being such, gives leeway for lots of behavior.

[Spackling Compound]

Some issue of National Geographic or its German counterpart, Geo.

I'll look around on the internet for it once things have settled down here a bit. As you may know, we lost my dad last week. His funeral is on Thursday, and on Friday I have a big media event at the AIDS charity I head. It's all a little overwhelming.

Sorry to hear of your father's death.
R.I.P.

[Spackling Compound]

Do a search for AKHENATEN and MOSES... you'll probably find an equal amount of articles on both sides of the issue.

Akhenaton was also the first Pharoah to allow for monotheism.

I like to think that the stories of the Bible are "out of continuity" tales of heroes.

The Exodus carries over themes from other great myths and legends however, the psychic and spiritual power of Moses, the Lawgiver has stood the test of time.
Like I said, the Pentateuch includes an account of Moses' death but it also is "traditionally" believed that he wrote the tome.

[Spackling Compound]

As far as papal infallibility (is this a hang up you have?), the Pope draws from more than just the Bible when making a decision or statement. Sure, the Bible gets referenced all the time, but so do other theological works, not to mention the historical writings and actions of previous popes. Your limiting the scope of your thinking so you can justify your logic that papal infallibility is— well, fallible.


To whit, the "red letter" editions are great for resources in getting quotes from Christ BUT the caveat is that there are some "red lettered" phrases that scholars (Catholic and otherwise) warn that we can't be too literal. The term we use is "saying attributed to Christ" lest we begin to sound fundamentalist and say, "Jesus CLEARLY said", where the synoptics or John may not agree.

Also, on the quote above, I think one of "fun" things people do is set up the Church to be amazingly silly and pompous so that when it comes to their own behavior they can say, "Sure, I'm having sex outside of marriage and using drugs. Like some Church that makes people believe in talking statues and having priests force a graham cracker that supposedly is human flesh down our throats is going to make me take them seriously."

Then again, the posters here are in the entertainment industry.

[anthony!]

I like to think that the stories of the Bible are "out of continuity" tales of heroes.

I am assuming you are speaking of the old testament as "out of continuity".

I sort of pictured the old testament as a sort of science-less, vague orgin-story for man— one that outlined all the crosses mankind has to bear, particularly the closer to Genesis you are.

I had this idea once for a film that would voice over the opening passages of Genesis with a CG sequence of how we know the universe began. ie. "Let their be light" — cue big bang. Perhaps even going so far as to show Adam and Eve as primordial humans in Africa.

Seems like a rather cinematically powerful idea to me that would bring the "myths" and "realities" together in an interesting way— if it hasn’t already been done.

—A!

[Ian Boothby]

"Lots of people" aren't Catholic. I can't speak for them. Catholics aren't Bible-thumpers.

Some are some aren't. I've seen many a bible thumped in my time as a Catholic. If you're saying it's not as thumpy a religion as others, that might be true.


Didn't I answer this question? The Bible is divinely inspired, just not the direct word of God.

Which leaves room for error right? If man is dictating what God is saying there are at the very least going to be some typos and editing mistakes from the sleepy monks copying this stuff.


Perhaps that’s why Catholic Bibles tend to highlight Jesus' words in red and everything else in normal black. The Bible was written by people who were inspired by God and the events that unfolded before them.

Wait, you're saying the Good News is what really matters but out of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John weren't a couple of them around after Jesus' time? They didn't write what unfolded before them but wrote down stories they'd been told.


As far as papal infallibility (is this a hang up you have?),

Yeah, bit of a hang up. When people choose not to protect themselves against AIDS or have more kids than they can feed for example because the Pope says condoms are wrong and he's infallible then I'd like some clarification on what that means. If people are dying because he's never wrong.

the Pope draws from more than just the Bible when making a decision or statement

Then you are a Bible-based religion.


. Sure, the Bible gets referenced all the time, but so do other theological works, not to mention the historical writings and actions of previous popes.

Man there were some bad Popes. I hope they're referencing those guys as cautionary tales. But still even the real bastards were infallible.


Your limiting the scope of your thinking so you can justify your logic that papal infallibility is— well, fallible.

The Catholic faith has always been about limiting your scope of thinking. Our way or the flaming highway of eternal damnation.

[Ian Boothby]

The Pope is not getting "info" from the Bible. I like the way you've set up the Catholic Church to be a circus of fools. Being such, gives leeway for lots of behavior.

And in the past it really has been given that leeway and taking it in some evil directions. Never said a circus though. Maybe one of those evil circuses from the movies.

[Spackling Compound]

And in the past it really has been given that leeway and taking it in some evil directions. Never said a circus though. Maybe one of those evil circuses from the movies.

Oh, to clarify, I meant that when people set up the Church to be this circus atmosphere of foolery, it makes it really easy and facile for someone to say, "You know what? Screw this. I'm going to live with reckless abandon and not even pay a modicum of attention to those bozos."

[Spackling Compound]

I am assuming you are speaking of the old testament as "out of continuity".


—A!

Well, the New Testament accounts say different things about what Jesus did and where. Even his lineage isn't totally consistent with the Gospels of Luke and Matthew.

So, the tales are out of continuity so to speak. But the Truth remains.

[Spackling Compound]

the Pope draws from more than just the Bible when making a decision or statement

Then you are a Bible-based religion.


Uh, did you just read what A! said?


Ian, I don't know how long (if ever) you were a practicing Catholic but I do believe the "Church" you hate is well grounded in your imagination. The one of reality by no means touches yours.

[the4thpip]

I've never heard this theory. But of course, if its in a magazine it must be true.

—A!
If we could only find a Christian blog to be sure! ;)

[anthony!]

If we could only find a Christian blog to be sure! ;)

As long as its a Catholic one! :D

[anthony!]

And in the past it really has been given that leeway and taking it in some evil directions. Never said a circus though. Maybe one of those evil circuses from the movies.

What "leeway" are you speaking of?

-A!

[anthony!]

"Lots of people" aren't Catholic. I can't speak for them. Catholics aren't Bible-thumpers.

Some are some aren't. I've seen many a bible thumped in my time as a Catholic. If you're saying it's not as thumpy a religion as others, that might be true.

Trust me, it isn't. Though I am sure their are Catholic individuals whom on their own take on "thumpy" qualities.


Didn't I answer this question? The Bible is divinely inspired, just not the direct word of God.

Which leaves room for error right? If man is dictating what God is saying there are at the very least going to be some typos and editing mistakes from the sleepy monks copying this stuff.

Error for what? The Bible was edited down by 300 A.D., mostly knocking out the stuff that was known to be untrue.

Heck, we've even been talking about certain aspects of the Bible being "out of continuity", so I really don't know what you mean by error. If you take divine inspiration to mean that God was working through those that compiled the Bible then it contains Truth.

Uh, and by the time your sleepy monks were copying the Bible and inserting your errors, they might— just, might— have had mutiple copies to check it with. You think?


Perhaps that’s why Catholic Bibles tend to highlight Jesus' words in red and everything else in normal black. The Bible was written by people who were inspired by God and the events that unfolded before them.

Wait, you're saying the Good News is what really matters but out of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John weren't a couple of them around after Jesus' time? They didn't write what unfolded before them but wrote down stories they'd been told.

See Spack's comment.


As far as papal infallibility (is this a hang up you have?),

Yeah, bit of a hang up. When people choose not to protect themselves against AIDS or have more kids than they can feed for example because the Pope says condoms are wrong and he's infallible then I'd like some clarification on what that means. If people are dying because he's never wrong.

It always somes down to the sex stuff, doesn't it? I love how you just completely discount all the good things the Pope has done, and basically blame him and the church for the irresponsible behavior of others.

Catholicism believes in no birth control, and they'll continue to do so because its built into the Catholic understanding of sex. That doesn't make them responsible for people dying. You wouldn't want me to accuse pro-choice supporters of murder would you? Thats the kind of irrational logic your using.

the Pope draws from more than just the Bible when making a decision or statement

Then you are a Bible-based religion.

I think you have your own personal definition of what "Bible-based religion" is. If you mean that Catholicism is a religion that has an origin whose account is found in the Bible, then sure. If you mean that Catholicism is a religion whose entirety is to be found in the Bible, you are wrong wrong wrong.

In actuality, Christainity is generally considered to be historical-based religion, because it was found on events that we know to have actually occured in terms of the existence of Jesus and his crucifixtion.


Sure, the Bible gets referenced all the time, but so do other theological works, not to mention the historical writings and actions of previous popes.

Man there were some bad Popes. I hope they're referencing those guys as cautionary tales. But still even the real bastards were infallible.

Here's the deal dude. Yeah, there have been bad popes! Guess what, there are even Catholics out there who think JPII is a "bad" pope (though for more ultra-conservative, anti-Vatican II reasons).

Popes are not perfect. Popes have gone to war, had affairs, played politics, helped get people executed, encouraged assasination and done tons more. The Pope is not without sin. The pope is only infallible when it comes to the matter of the faith. You know, what Catholics believe and don't believe. If the Pope thinks a war is great, I don't have to believe him because the faith doesn't hinge on that. If he says that abortion is wrong, I do— because the matter pertains directly to the Catholic understanding of life and its nature.


Your limiting the scope of your thinking so you can justify your logic that papal infallibility is— well, fallible.

The Catholic faith has always been about limiting your scope of thinking. Our way or the flaming highway of eternal damnation.

Total bullocks. If it weren't for the Church, reading and writing might have been dead today. If it weren't for the Church we might not even know who Aristotle was. Oh and it did just play a tiny role in helping defeat Communism and now the Pope is even critiquing capitalism and materialism. They were also helping Africa and Asia long before anyone in the U.S. or Europe even gave a damn.

Heck, it was a Catholic priest who discovered the principle of dominant genes!

So while your certainly correct that there have been contraversies (mostly caused by individuals), the Church hardly exists to stymie human though and development.

Ian, you must have had a very bad Catholic experience to feel that much visceral hate for the Church. I never said being Catholic was easy, even I have my struggles with the faith. You have to look past the fire and brimstone stuff that gets thrown out there. Please just keep in mind that the faults just might lay with the messangers, and not with the message. We're all human, too.

—A!

[Ian Boothby]

Uh, did you just read what A! said?


Ian, I don't know how long (if ever) you were a practicing Catholic but I do believe the "Church" you hate is well grounded in your imagination. The one of reality by no means touches yours.

I wouldn't say I hate the church. I just feel it's very dangerous. I have no problem with people believing and worshiping whatever they want as long as they don't take that belief into the real world and try to get others to conform to it. And the Catholic church has a long history of that.

I understand that it makes life easier to have religion and think there's an afterlife and a book of rules handed down by God. But when you then try to stop gay folks from having the same rights as you, then it's time to call your imaginary God what he is and tell you to back off. Same for telling folks not to use condoms. God is make believe, AIDS and unwanted pregancy is real.
Reality and its consequences have to come before comforting fiction.

[Cam63]

I don't know how any body of authority, religious or otherwise can say it's wrong to practice safe sex.

[Screwtape]

I wouldn't say I hate the church. I just feel it's very dangerous. I have no problem with people believing and worshiping whatever they want as long as they don't take that belief into the real world and try to get others to conform to it. And the Catholic church has a long history of that.

Ahh. "Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, just so long as they don't act on it."

I understand that it makes life easier to have religion and think there's an afterlife and a book of rules handed down by God. But when you then try to stop gay folks from having the same rights as you, then it's time to call your imaginary God what he is and tell you to back off. Same for telling folks not to use condoms. God is make believe, AIDS and unwanted pregancy is real.
Reality and its consequences have to come before comforting fiction.Yes, of course. Christians are merely foolish people who accept what is told to them, while atheists are brave men and women who have accepted the truth.

Frankly, the least plausible thing we have here is the basis for any ethical argument you make. You don't have any grounding in anything except outrage. "It's wrong!" you say. Well, why? What makes one human life worth as much as any other? What makes crack-addicted babies any more valuable than a cow you kill to eat your dinner?

People are made in the image of God, that's what. I'll continue to act on that notion, thank you.

[Dreadstar]

I don't know how any body of authority, religious or otherwise can say it's wrong to practice safe sex.

Well, that's easy. Many have outright prohibitions against sex outside of marriage. Couple that with sex within a marriage being exclusively for procreational purposes and there you go.

Of course, the only unsafe part of that equation would be... basically nothing, if both partners adhere to their religious doctrine. Otherwise, it would be dependant on the member of the marriage who sinned prior to this relationship.

One important thing to note about some "sex is procreation" ideology is that a condom moves sex into an uncondoned carnal act.

So, there you go. A bit tortured, I confess.

[Screwtape]

Your avatar rocks my world, dread.

[Dreadstar]

Your avatar rocks my world, dread.

Happy trails, to you!

[Screwtape]

That's it, it's cowboy time. In shameful imitation of dreadstar, I have adopted Clint. Anyone want Ronald Reagan? Or John Wayne? Or Clayton Moore?

[Dreadstar]

That's it, it's cowboy time. In shameful imitation of dreadstar, I have adopted Clint. Anyone want Ronald Reagan? Or John Wayne? Or Clayton Moore?

You ought to go over to the Comm Board, if for no other reason than to, once weekly, enter the avatar contest. We've done a cowboy motif on several occasions. This week, it's "Heroes." Roy was that for me.

It can be quite fun, and you get to keep your avatar fresh!

[Screwtape]

Ahh. I've seen that before, but I've never participated. I'll go post now.

[Ian Boothby]

Ahh. "Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, just so long as they don't act on it."

As long as they don't act on it in a way that affects and especially harms others, yes. Consenting adults can do whatever they want as long as they don't force me to join their club or obey it's rules. Saying gays can't marry because it's morally wrong is forcing others to play by your rules.

[Ian Boothby]

Yes, of course. Christians are merely foolish people who accept what is told to them, while atheists are brave men and women who have accepted the truth.

Frankly, the least plausible thing we have here is the basis for any ethical argument you make. You don't have any grounding in anything except outrage. "It's wrong!" you say. Well, why? What makes one human life worth as much as any other? What makes crack-addicted babies any more valuable than a cow you kill to eat your dinner?

People are made in the image of God, that's what. I'll continue to act on that notion, thank you.


Well yes, Christians do have to accept what the church tells them.

Are you saying that people have no basis for ethics aside from the Bible? Man those ancient Greeks must have been messed up.

I don't see a lot of people who become athetists or agnostic going out on shooting sprees.

Why don't I kill me neighbour and steal his stuff? "It's wrong". Just like you say sarcastically. I'm an adult I can make moral choices on my own.

[Screwtape]

Well yes, Christians do have to accept what the church tells them.

Are you saying that people have no basis for ethics aside from the Bible? Man those ancient Greeks must have been messed up.

I don't see a lot of people who become athetists or agnostic going out on shooting sprees.

Why don't I kill me neighbour and steal his stuff? "It's wrong". Just like you say sarcastically. I'm an adult I can make moral choices on my own.Well, there's always Stalin. He's not much of a moralist. And yes, the ancient Greeks WERE messed up. And no, Protestants like myself can feel free to ignore what the church tells them, especially when it contravenes scripture.

You have no grounds on which to disagree with anybody. WHY is it wrong, Ian? Why shouldn't you go out and take what you want, get away with it, and never be punished? Consciences can be seared, laws can be broken and circumvented. Why is human life worth a damn?

[Ian Boothby]

You have no grounds on which to disagree with anybody. WHY is it wrong, Ian? Why shouldn't you go out and take what you want, get away with it, and never be punished? Consciences can be seared, laws can be broken and circumvented. Why is human life worth a damn?

Okay so the police in your neighbourhood go on strike. Do you start looting and grabbing everything you can? Your neighbour comes over and hands you his coat with his wallet in it. Do you steal a few bucks before you put it on the bed before the party? A child has a candy bar and you want it, do you take it?

No, because these are the wrong things to do and they're wrong even without an invisible man in the sky looking down on you. Why are they wrong? They hurt others.

Why is human life worth a damn? Because you make a choice that it's worth a damn. You choose to make the world a better place for you and your family and friends and even people you don't know.

[Screwtape]

Again, why is it wrong to hurt others? The "look at me, I have a chip on my shoulder" approach isn't an argument. It's just rhetoric, and not very good rhetoric. Why do I value human life? Because God in his mercy saw fit to redeem me from the twisted, evil, horrible thing I could so easily become, and he made everybody in the world in his image. I HAVE to love them, I HAVE to reach out to them, or it's ingratitude. What drives you to "choose to make the world a better place for you and your family and friends and even people you don't know?" What possible interest could you have in them besides enlightened self-interest?

[Ian Boothby]

Again, why is it wrong to hurt others? The "look at me, I have a chip on my shoulder" approach isn't an argument. It's just rhetoric, and not very good rhetoric. Why do I value human life? Because God in his mercy saw fit to redeem me from the twisted, evil, horrible thing I could so easily become, and he made everybody in the world in his image. I HAVE to love them, I HAVE to reach out to them, or it's ingratitude. What drives you to "choose to make the world a better place for you and your family and friends and even people you don't know?" What possible interest could you have in them besides enlightened self-interest?


Athiests and agnostics love others, do charity work and don't kill others (well some do but then so do some Christians) so doing the right thing isn't connected to belief in God. If you're asking me to give you a reason why you shouldn't hurt others. Here's two 1) they might hurt you back or 2) it's the right thing to do.
We can play the why game all day like I was talking to a 2 year old...
Do the right thing.
Why?
Because it's the right thing.
Why?
Because it make the world better.
Why?
Because it makes others happier.
Why?

If at some point in the future you lose your faith in God I hope you don't go on a killing, raping and looting spree. Most people who find themselves in that situation don't so I think you'll be fine.

Living your life with a fictional character telling you what to do is fine. But don't drag others into it.

[Screwtape]

The point, Ian, is that you think "Because It's The Right Thing" is an ultimate answer, and frankly, it ain't. You will be running into many people for the rest of your life who think that they are doing The Right Thing, too, and since Because It's The Right Thing is really no different than Because I Said So, you won't have a leg to stand on.

I am truly sorry that you've lost your faith in God. I don't plan on losing mine any time soon, but I think you may find yours again if you can get over yourself and start asking these questions honestly again.

If I die and God isn't real, I'm glad that I'll have lived my life with a sense of something higher than myself, even if that something isn't really there. Because frankly, if I am the only moral authority in the world, as you seem to believe you are, the world is in more trouble than anyone knows.

[anthony!]

I wouldn't say I hate the church. I just feel it's very dangerous. I have no problem with people believing and worshiping whatever they want as long as they don't take that belief into the real world and try to get others to conform to it. And the Catholic church has a long history of that.

I understand that it makes life easier to have religion and think there's an afterlife and a book of rules handed down by God. But when you then try to stop gay folks from having the same rights as you, then it's time to call your imaginary God what he is and tell you to back off. Same for telling folks not to use condoms. God is make believe, AIDS and unwanted pregancy is real.
Reality and its consequences have to come before comforting fiction.

Ian, when you basically accuse people who believe in a religion as small and weak minded, that would be a hateful statement. It’s not easy to believe in much of anything. You probably have a much easier time just going "hey, its all make believe". If you weren't so wrapped up in your own ego and believing in merely your own will, maybe you could see that.

I think your more interested in creating your own warped realities than even bothering to discover even an iota of truth in the world right in front of your eyes. I think you might more guilty of playing "make believe".

—A!

[stealthwise]

The point, Ian, is that you think "Because It's The Right Thing" is an ultimate answer, and frankly, it ain't. You will be running into many people for the rest of your life who think that they are doing The Right Thing, too, and since Because It's The Right Thing is really no different than Because I Said So, you won't have a leg to stand on.

That makes no sense to me. That's not a critique of your way of life, just your opinion that everyone needs a metaphysical moral referee to choose between right and wrong.

[Screwtape]

All I'm saying is that there's got to be someplace that the buck stops besides people simply agreeing to disagree. At some level, you have to say, "My opinion about this trumps yours. I'm right, and you're wrong." Certainly not on everything, because Christians don't know the mind of God, but sometimes you have to stop Tutsis from butchering Hutus, or Kosovar rebels from raping Moslem women, and "this is my opinion and it's right" just turns it into a who-has-the-biggest-stick contest.

[stealthwise]

All I'm saying is that there's got to be someplace that the buck stops besides people simply agreeing to disagree. At some level, you have to say, "My opinion about this trumps yours. I'm right, and you're wrong." Certainly not on everything, because Christians don't know the mind of God, but sometimes you have to stop Tutsis from butchering Hutus, or Kosovar rebels from raping Moslem women, and "this is my opinion and it's right" just turns it into a who-has-the-biggest-stick contest.

But if God is on the American side, as Bush likes to hint at, or outright claim, then who's stopping their soldiers from raping those same women?

It seems like God just gets paraded around as the biggest stick in the contest anyways.

[Screwtape]

I think that's totally wrong, too. And I think that if you look at the Bible, which Bush claims to believe is the Word of God, you'll find long passages about loving your enemies and praying for those who persecute you.

You'll also find short ones like "Thou Shalt Not Kill."

Don't get me started. I don't think Bush is a demon or a baby-killer, but I think he lets himself get jerked around by some very shady people, and then justifies it with my God. Trust me, it's upsetting.

[Ian Boothby]

The point, Ian, is that you think "Because It's The Right Thing" is an ultimate answer, and frankly, it ain't. You will be running into many people for the rest of your life who think that they are doing The Right Thing, too, and since Because It's The Right Thing is really no different than Because I Said So, you won't have a leg to stand on.

Better than living a lie. "Because it's the right thing" is how people who take responsibility for their own actions live.


I am truly sorry that you've lost your faith in God. I don't plan on losing mine any time soon, but I think you may find yours again if you can get over yourself and start asking these questions honestly again.

I also lost my faith in Santa but you don't have to feel sorry for me for that either.

If I die and God isn't real, I'm glad that I'll have lived my life with a sense of something higher than myself, even if that something isn't really there.

So living a lie is okay because you feel it's okay. This is where we split. Feelings are fine but when you place them above reality you're in a dangerous place. A more comfortable one but dangerous.


Because frankly, if I am the only moral authority in the world, as you seem to believe you are, the world is in more trouble than anyone knows.

I'm not starting from scratch here with my moral code. I have my parents, community, history and my own common sense. The world has gotten into more trouble following God than athiests or agnostics.

[Ian Boothby]

Ian, when you basically accuse people who believe in a religion as small and weak minded, that would be a hateful statement.

Because God is fictional. I don't think people who believe in myths are weak minded. They make the choice to do so and it makes the burden of living easier. You can do whatever you want in your own home or church, just don't bring your fiction into the real world and try to force people to live it as well.

I do hate oppression and when you try to stop gay marriage of real people because your make believe God doesn't like it then my tolerance for you ends. Real life needs to win over fiction.


It’s not easy to believe in much of anything. You probably have a much easier time just going "hey, its all make believe". If you weren't so wrapped up in your own ego and believing in merely your own will, maybe you could see that.

I believe in many things. Some I can prove and some I can't. But I'll try my best not to take any comforting myths I use to get through life and force you to live by them.


I think your more interested in creating your own warped realities than even bothering to discover even an iota of truth in the world right in front of your eyes. I think you might more guilty of playing "make believe".[/QUOTE]


Not warped reality. Reality. Not make believe. Real life.
You're on the side that believes in magic and men coming back from the dead. Your myths are fine, keep them to yourself, don't fight wars over them, oppress others with them, tell people not to use birth control and disease protection because of them and we're cool. Bring them out into the real world and we've got a problem.

[Ian Boothby]

I think that's totally wrong, too. And I think that if you look at the Bible, which Bush claims to believe is the Word of God, you'll find long passages about loving your enemies and praying for those who persecute you.

You'll also find short ones like "Thou Shalt Not Kill."
.


But that's in the same top 10 as "Keep the Sabbath Holy" and "Don't Use the Lord's Name in Vain". They all have the same weight but do you really think working on Sunday (or Saturday) and swearing are as bad as killing?

Of course not, so like everything in the Bible, you pick and choose what works for you.

[Screwtape]

Better than living a lie. "Because it's the right thing" is how people who take responsibility for their own actions live. You have an interesting definition of "easy." Do you think Christians fight and die for their faith because it makes life easier for them? That it's somehow "easy" to be eaten by wild animals for entertainment, or to see your children crushed in a rice mill because the government has found out how you worship?I also lost my faith in Santa but you don't have to feel sorry for me for that either. Regardless, you really do have my sympathy for losing your faith in God. I probably understand better than you think.So living a lie is okay because you feel it's okay. This is where we split. Feelings are fine but when you place them above reality you're in a dangerous place. A more comfortable one but dangerous. Yes, feelings definitely should not be placed above reality. "My common sense tells me so," for example, is not much of a mandate.I'm not starting from scratch here with my moral code. I have my parents, community, history and my own common sense. The world has gotten into more trouble following God than athiests or agnostics.You may not be starting from scratch, but you're certainly not starting with anything definite. The familial, communal, and historical factors in Rwanda were enough to convince ALL the Hutus to go outside and try to kill ALL the Tutsis.

Oh, and really? Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, Pol Pot, those guys weren't troublemakers?

[anthony!]

I'm not starting from scratch here with my moral code. I have my parents, community, history and my own common sense. The world has gotten into more trouble following God than athiests or agnostics.

Untrue. Just off the top of my head, how about the Nazis?

They manipulated and warped religion and mysticism, but at it’s heart Nazism was a pretty Godless movement. You don't think all that writing, philosophy and propoganda about genetic superiority and "triumph of the will" was just for show do you? The Nazis were a frightening peak at what happens when man believes himself to be in total control.

Oh, and how about those great men and women of the "Enlightenment" that went around chopping off the heads of clergy and Catholics in 19th century France?

And kudos to Stalin and Lenin for shuffling religion off to the side to justify the murder of 20 million of their own citizens.

And how about the millions of unborn children that never even get the chance to live, thanks to ultra-left wing feminist thought? What it is it now, 42 million unborn killed since Roe v. Wade? Congrats.

No, Ian. You atheists and agnostics are just as easily warped and tempted to extremes as anyone else. There's nothing particularly real or unique about your outlook. If I brought your vision to its logical conclusion, then there would be no point to morals or the "common sense" you think so highly of.

—A!

[Screwtape]

But that's in the same top 10 as "Keep the Sabbath Holy" and "Don't Use the Lord's Name in Vain". They all have the same weight but do you really think working on Sunday (or Saturday) and swearing are as bad as killing?

Of course not, so like everything in the Bible, you pick and choose what works for you.No, and you'll notice that they don't have the death penalty for working on Sunday or swearing. And taking the Lord's name in vain isn't the same thing as swearing - you could make a good case that anyone who kills in the name of God is taking it in vain.

[anthony!]

Well since I consider religion in some cases a mental handicap you might not be too far off.

Seems like a pretty sweeping statement. And when you put it in the context of this forum, I take it to mean you are pointing specifically at people like me.

Ian, when you basically accuse people who believe in a religion as small and weak minded, that would be a hateful statement.

Because God is fictional. I don't think people who believe in myths are weak minded. They make the choice to do so and it makes the burden of living easier.

Um, no. If anything I can personally attest that it makes it more difficult. And I'm sure others can too. It would be very tempting and easy for me to say its all just made up and intended to get me to shut-up and get in line.


You can do whatever you want in your own home or church, just don't bring your fiction into the real world and try to force people to live it as well.

I do hate oppression and when you try to stop gay marriage of real people because your make believe God doesn't like it then my tolerance for you ends. Real life needs to win over fiction.

See, when you call God "make believe" and try to get me on your side by insulting my beliefs and my intelligence— I'm just more and more inclined to write off your thinking and whatever talents you might have.

Again, I think your just interested in feeling like you've won intellectually.

—A!

[Ian Boothby]

So are you both saying it would be easier to live a non-religious life? I'd disagree. Regardless of the earthly pain it causes thinking there is an afterlife and higher plan to things makes life easier to bear.

Hitler has a connection to religion, twisted yes but if you discount twisted versions of religon we have to remove quite a few decades of Catholic history (not that Catholics are the only religion warpers).

Stalin and Pol Pot, yep they prove you can be faithless and be evil on your own but they don't erase all the evil done in the past and still being done. The U.S. is in a religious war right now, it's called a war on terror but it's sponsored by God.

And as I said, I only call your God "make believe" when you use it to try and affect real people's lives in the real world. Keep it to yourself and you can believe anything you want.

Religion is a short cut that allows you to skip the scientific process and reasoning so in that way I consider it a mental handicap.

[anthony!]

Hitler has a connection to religion, twisted yes but if you discount twisted versions of religon we have to remove quite a few decades of Catholic history (not that Catholics are the only religion warpers).

Your only point in saying that is to once again place blame on Catholics, and ignore the actions of others.

Stalin and Pol Pot, yep they prove you can be faithless and be evil on your own but they don't erase all the evil done in the past and still being done. The U.S. is in a religious war right now, it's called a war on terror but it's sponsored by God.

What, are you keeping some sort of score?

I find it interesting that you even bother using phrases like "evil" if you personally don't believe in a God or an afterlife. If there was no afterlife of any sort, what is even the point of constructs such as "good" and "evil"?

— And framing the "war on terror" as a religious war is a highly dubious thesis. It is certainly a war that takes on religious aspects, simply by the nature of the cultures involved— but the causes and motivations behind it are truly more economic and political in nature. A minority of Christian and Mustlim extremists on both sides a religious war do not make.

And as I said, I only call your God "make believe" when you use it to try and affect real people's lives in the real world. Keep it to yourself and you can believe anything you want.

Religion is a short cut that allows you to skip the scientific process and reasoning so in that way I consider it a mental handicap.

Well, I don't really have to keep it to myself considering I have a right to worship as I please. I also have a right to engage others in conversation about it. I don't consider that to be forcing it upon others. And if you are refering to laws and lawmakers— then I think you should go back to other responses for that discussion.

As far as your highly insulting "mental handicap" statement— aren't I the one thats been giving examples of how the Catholic Church has no beef with science? And in fact how its crucial to a Catholic understanding of how God works? Catholics only have a problem with scientific research that uses methods that amount to commiting a sin. We've been through this.

[Screwtape]

Hitler has a connection to religion, twisted yes but if you discount twisted versions of religon we have to remove quite a few decades of Catholic history (not that Catholics are the only religion warpers).

Oh, so I owe you an apology for all the evil done in the name of Christianity? Hardly.

So are you both saying it would be easier to live a non-religious life? I'd disagree. Regardless of the earthly pain it causes thinking there is an afterlife and higher plan to things makes life easier to bear.

If you think that abstract philosophy and theology are somehow used as anasthetics when people are being tortured to death, it's a wonder you don't just bust out the Koran whenever you go to the dentist.

And as I said, I only call your God "make believe" when you use it to try and affect real people's lives in the real world. Keep it to yourself and you can believe anything you want.

I think I'll believe whatever I want, regardless of what you think about the way I practice it. You'd better get used to Christians trying to affect the lives of real people because that's about 90% of what Christ said to do. If you think that you're going to hurt my feelings by calling God "imaginary," "a lie," and "make believe," you must think that my faith is pretty shaky indeed.

Religion is a short cut that allows you to skip the scientific process and reasoning so in that way I consider it a mental handicap.

Religion is in no way a short cut around science. It primarily has to do with how you relate to other people. You've been watching too much television. Many Christians can and do accept the scientific canon as it exists and keep abreast of its constant changes. If anything, strident atheism is a mental handicap because you've precluded belief in one specific thing.

[the4thpip]

As long as they don't act on it in a way that affects and especially harms others, yes. Consenting adults can do whatever they want as long as they don't force me to join their club or obey it's rules. Saying gays can't marry because it's morally wrong is forcing others to play by your rules.
That is so simple and so easy to grasp that it really, really saddens me that some people don't get it.

[Screwtape]

I don't think it's a lack of understanding, Pip. I think it's just general disagreement.

[anthony!]

That is so simple and so easy to grasp that it really, really saddens me that some people don't get it.

I completely understand what he's saying. Almost believed it myself at a point in my life.

I really just completely disagree with him. And it makes me equally saddened indeed that Ian seems to equate religion and mental handicap in the same sentence.

—A!

[the4thpip]

I don't think it's a lack of understanding, Pip. I think it's just general disagreement.
"Not getting it" to me is not really "lack of understanding" necessarily. It can also mean refusal to agree out of pettiness and hatefulness, for example.

[Screwtape]

Of course, there's always refusing to agree because you think someone is wrong. Not everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant or hateful.

[anthony!]

"Not getting it" to me is not really "lack of understanding" necessarily. It can also mean refusal to agree out of pettiness and hatefulness, for example.

Funny, thats exactly what I would have said to other side of this whole thing. Do you get the impression that I hate you?

—A!

[Ian Boothby]

I think I'll believe whatever I want, regardless of what you think about the way I practice it. You'd better get used to Christians trying to affect the lives of real people because that's about 90% of what Christ said to do. If you think that you're going to hurt my feelings by calling God "imaginary," "a lie," and "make believe," you must think that my faith is pretty shaky indeed.


I don't want to hurt your feelings and I won't unless you try to bring your faith to real world situations and try to make others bow to your God. Not allowing gays to marry because your God is against it is one example. Another would be say, forcing drunk drivers to go to A.A. which is a form of church.

I don't care how shaky or strong your faith is, but again your right to swing your arms around ends when you hit someone else in the nose. Believe what you want but reality must always be greater in the eyes of society than myth. When you allow myth to dictate law you are in great, great danger.

Religion is in no way a short cut around science. It primarily has to do with how you relate to other people.

You're right it isn't a short cut. Religon is the opposite of science. Taking something on faith is the opposite of attempting to prove its true or to find out the truth.