For Christians (1 Viewer)

[Montalban]

The real problem for Christians who are attempting to be modern liberals is that we have to ignore the proscriptions in our faith against homosexuality.

It's not a matter that some people believe that if it 'feels good' it's okay (this is an invalid argument anyway).

Clearly through Old and New Testamant teaching, and through 2,000 years of tradition homosexuality is seen as a sin.

A clash of beliefs (liberal -v- christian) is always on the cards in such matters.

 

[Arch Enemy]

Bringing the Bible into your argument makes it pretty much void, for a number of reasons.
1) Some people could care less what the Christan religion teaches.

2) The Bible has too many errors in it for my taste, it's filled with various scientific misconceptions and some which are now used to scare little children (talking about the fantasy of Hell)

3) How many times has the bible been edited and revised? How can it be a tradition of 2,000 years, if the text has been changed since then?

4) Let us not even begin on the Vatican Secret Library or the randomly left out gospels.

 

[Montalban]

A quick guide to debating.

Bringing the Bible into your argument makes it pretty much void, for a number of reasons.
1) Some people could care less what the Christan (sic) religion teaches.

Truism.
Note I addressed this post to Christians. It is about a conflict I see between Christian ethics/morals and modernist ones that allow homosexuality to be accepted. Some people wear little red hats, too. This statement would also not be relevant to a thread such as this.

2) The Bible has too many errors in it for my taste,

This and the rest of your post is irrelevant then to the thread. It is illogically constructed. For instance your statement then begs the question how many errors would be acceptable to your 'taste'? Which errors don't you like, and which do you find acceptable? That's even leaving aside your unsupported notion that there are errors. Then you don't miss out on bringing out a range of un-supported stock-standard anti-Christian statements such as....

it's filled with various scientific misconceptions and some which are now used to scare little children (talking about the fantasy of Hell)

Then we move to a few more recent ones...

3) How many times has the bible been edited and revised? How can it be a tradition of 2,000 years, if the text has been changed since then?

Even one that is used in the fiction that has become very popular at the moment "The Da Vinci Code". You ask a question based on a premise you're not substantiated.

4) Let us not even begin on the Vatican Secret Library or the randomly left out gospels.

And this too is not only irrelevant to the thread but totally superfluous to an attempt to address myself and my beliefs; as I am not a western Christian.

I am fully aware of 'gospels' that are left out. Start a thread on it. Visit www.earlychrisitanwritings.com that has a fairly impressive list. Note the word 'random' in the phrase 'randomly left out gospels' it contradicts the notion you began with of a conspiracy that of itself implies a concerted effort. So in an effort to 'plan' (or 'conspire') to dupe the public, they 'randomly' left out gospels; implying also that some gospels left in, unintentionally.

If you want to actually address the thread, please do. If you want to bring up any support (in a 'constructed argument') please start a thread and do so.

 

[ShamMol]

Re: A quick guide to debating.

Truism.
Note I addressed this post to Christians. It is about a conflict I see between Christian ethics/morals and modernist ones that allow homosexuality to be accepted. Some people wear little red hats, too. This statement would also not be relevant to a thread such as this.

Just adressing Christians...how bout the perspective of a past Catholic, will that do? It is relevant in a thread like this because Christians have to reconcile the fact that not everyone agrees with them and that they may have to change their less hard-thought ideas in order to conform to the norms of society and decency.

This and the rest of your post is irrelevant then to the thread. It is illogically constructed. For instance your statement then begs the question how many errors would be acceptable to your 'taste'? Which errors don't you like, and which do you find acceptable? That's even leaving aside your unsupported notion that there are errors. Then you don't miss out on bringing out a range of un-supported stock-standard anti-Christian statements such as....

There are many errors in interpretation, there is the fact it was written 300 years after the fact, etc, etc. They aren't standard stock responses, they are what a lot of people feel. There is the fact that it is proven that genisis is just plain wrong, adam and eve is wrong, want a list?

Even one that is used in the fiction that has become very popular at the moment "The Da Vinci Code". You ask a question based on a premise you're not substantiated.

He brings up a valid point of some bibles who teach differently and why we as lay people don't study them. They wouldn't be our normal teaching, just supplemental material. Is that irrational?

And this too is not only irrelevant to the thread but totally superfluous to an attempt to address myself and my beliefs; as I am not a western Christian.

Good for you?

I am fully aware of 'gospels' that are left out. Start a thread on it. Visit www.earlychrisitanwritings.com that has a fairly impressive list. Note the word 'random' in the phrase 'randomly left out gospels' it contradicts the notion you began with of a conspiracy that of itself implies a concerted effort. So in an effort to 'plan' (or 'conspire') to dupe the public, they 'randomly' left out gospels; implying also that some gospels left in, unintentionally.

No, I think we will stick it in this thread because you opened the door by asking for an examination of faith. They weren't randomly left out, they were left out because the current Church didn't agree with what was said in it. But that little fact doesn't make them irrelevant. It wasn't random, it was on purpose to keep the teachings all the same, which in a sense "duped" the public by not giving them all the information.

If you want to actually address the thread, please do. If you want to bring up any support (in a 'constructed argument') please start a thread and do so.

I'll adress the thread glady.

The problem with today's Christian is that they are what we like to call "cafeteria-Christians" a term that is usually associated with Catholics. They pick and choose what they want to believe, which is appaling to the more conservative of the Church. The Clash between liberalism and Christianity is not one I usually like to get involved in, one of the reasons I left the church in fact. Liberalism calls for the acceptance of people as they are, and Christianity does not differ, accepting the homosexuals as people, but not approving of their lifestyle and actions from that lifestyle. Now, that is where there is an impass. Some see the Church's not willing to compromise as a backing away of their acceptance of the homosexual population. But I see it this way. The Church cannot and should not allow homosexual marriage, however, what they can do, is bless a loving and committed marriage in the place of a marriage ceremony, something that could be a compromise. It would be a large step for the Church to do this, and probably an impossible one. The gay couple can get legally married and there would not be any problem within the church. It will just take work and not this Pope to accomplish it. It is a logical step from acceptance imo.

Welcome to Debate Politics!! Thought I should say that.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Re: A quick guide to debating.

Just adressing Christians...how bout the perspective of a past Catholic, will that do? It is relevant in a thread like this because Christians have to reconcile the fact that not everyone agrees with them and that they may have to change their less hard-thought ideas in order to conform to the norms of society and decency.

So Christians should change their ideas because the society around them believes differently than they do? But then does that mean that Christians should begin to believe that there is not a God?

There are many errors in interpretation, there is the fact it was written 300 years after the fact, etc, etc. They aren't standard stock responses, they are what a lot of people feel. There is the fact that it is proven that genisis is just plain wrong, adam and eve is wrong, want a list?

Errors in interpretation? You mean for instance the "camel through the eye of a needle" may actually mean a seperate type of small opening. Or the issue of yom meaning a day or a period of time undefined? Granted, these are small interpetation issues, but you have that in any piece of literature that is being translated. Hell, there are words in the Cantebury Tales that we still have no clue what the mean. And it was written in English. But does that mean that the Cantebury Tales are therefore full of errors and therefore you can't begin to get a message from it due to a few words? Of course not. Furthermore, the Hebrew and Greek versions of the Bible are still available, so if you read from them can we agree that there will be no translation issues? As far as the 300 years later bit, that's incorrect. They began within the lifespan of the followers of Christ. And for a culture that practices oral tradition, that is not a glaring problem. Assuming that these men did write these gospels in their own hand, do you really think that they forgot about what happened with Christ over the course of fifty plus years? Unlikely. Genisis has been proven wrong? By whom? Adam and Eve have been proven wrong? By whom? Unless you've got a time machine, there is no way of tracking the origin of man, sorry it just doesn't work that way.

They weren't randomly left out, they were left out because the current Church didn't agree with what was said in it. But that little fact doesn't make them irrelevant. It wasn't random, it was on purpose to keep the teachings all the same, which in a sense "duped" the public by not giving them all the information.

Well, that is not entirely accurate. The whole conspiracy theory of leaving out books simply because the Church was afraid of them is quite humorous to me. Especially since this theory only arose very recently, whereas all of this took place how many hundreds of years ago? The stipulations towards the canon were pre-stated in examining each book of gospel. They were each looked at, and based on applicability, manuscript agreeance, historical accuracy, and other such factors, they were voted on. It makes sense that they got together and did this, so that the story was accurately portrayed, the manuscripts were all concorded so that only the most applicable, truthful, and relevent gospels were presented as one canon. It is not as though these other manuscripts or gospels just magically dissapeared so that the public could never hear them or have access to them. And we have access to them now. They're no big secret. Anyone who likes can read them and take what they like from them. But after reading quite a few of them, it quickly becomes apparent why these books were omitted, and it is certainly not because of conspiracy.
The term cafeteria Christian is an invention of the Catholic Church out of spite. They claim that if one reads the Bible, and understands it differently than the Catholic Church does, that they are picking and choosing what they believe. And the reality is, that as with any literature, it is read differently by everyone. Some read that since Jesus loved everyone equally we ought to concentrate on love. Others read that because homosexuality might be sinful that we should not allow homosexual marriage within the Church. It is not nearly as open ended as Catholics would like to portray. We are still bound by the Word, and we are still bound by the Holy Spirit, so why then is it wrong that one Christian gets one thing out of a text while a different Christian may get something else from that same text?

 

[Montalban]

Which evolution?

Note I addressed this post to Christians. It is about a conflict I see between Christian ethics/morals and modernist ones that allow homosexuality to be accepted. Some people wear little red hats, too. This statement would also not be relevant to a thread such as this.

Just addressing Christians...how bout the perspective of a past Catholic, will that do?

In a sense I posted that incorrectly. This is indeed an open forum for any to enter the debate. However a non-Christian telling me that many people don't believe in Christianity seems a bit absurd. However, welcome to this thread.

It is relevant in a thread like this because Christians have to reconcile the fact that not everyone agrees with them and that they may have to change their less hard-thought ideas in order to conform to the norms of society and decency.

Are you saying Christians aren't hard-thinking? Or, not decent?

There are many errors in interpretation, there is the fact it was written 300 years after the fact, etc, etc.

This is incorrect. You mistake the date of compilation of the anthology of Christian writings, which is the Bible, and the writing of those works themselves. It is akin to me saying that an anthology of Shakespeare's works (printed in 1982) means that some of his works are only 23 years old. Had you noticed the non-partisan web-site www.earlychristianwritings.com and visited it, you would see considered dates given for the composition of various books.

They aren't standard stock responses, they are what a lot of people feel.

What people feel and what 'is' are sometimes different'

There is the fact that it is proven that genesis is just plain wrong, Adam and eve is wrong, want a list?

What has been proven wrong about Genesis? Without going too far off-topic, which evolutionary theory do you believe in? What has been proved by evolution is 'that it happened'.
There's not even one form of 'science'.
there's Nazi Science
Marxist Science
Feminist Science
Capitalist Science
various Nationalist Sciences
Finnish nationalist science! (see http://www.hf-fak.uib.no/smi/paj/isotalo.html)
Indian (see http://www.ljudmila.org/nettime/zkp4/08.htm)
Chinese
various attempts at religious-Sciences
Pythaogrean Science
Christian (Creationist) Science
Islamic Science
(some of these are pseudo sciences, depending upon your a priori understandings of normative science)

Each one of these will use science to further their own ends, and they will each 'succeed' because they can all find the evidences to back them up.

The Chinese are quick to show the prominent role China played in our evolution. There is evidence that we evolved in Africa, or that we evolved elsewhere. http://www.chineseprehistory.org/beard.htm suggests that man arose in China, not Africa!* (or rather an ancestor of man arose there)

http://www.chineseprehistory.org//index.htm is the introduction to this site. It is evidence of the nature of evidence, wholly subjective; that Chinese nationalism is behind these particular pieces of 'scientific evidence.' This increases the over-all number of different forms of science there are.

“In Marxism, groups are more important than individuals. Capitalists view nature as competitive, whereas these Marxist critics tend to view it as being much more cooperative.”
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/reviews/hull_sociobiology.html

Darwin's own views on evolution were dominated by his own Victorian social attitudes, thus:
Darwin postulated that females are ''coy,'' mating rarely and choosing their mates carefully, presumably betting their odds on the males with the best genes to contribute to their offspring. For their part, males are ''ardent'' and promiscuous, and fight amongst themselves for female partners. Later theories added that males are promiscuous because they have less to lose by making babies - unlike eggs, sperm are plentiful and small. Plus, females usually do most of the work to raise the offspring”
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-02/su-sag021003.php

See also
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/report/news/2003/february19/aaassocialselection219.html

“In the mid-nineteenth century, social Darwinists invoked evolutionary biology to argue that a woman was a man whose evolution - both physical and mental - had been arrested in a primitive stage. In this same period, doctors used their authority as scientists to discourage women's attempts to gain access to higher education. Women's intellectual development, it was argued, would proceed only at great cost to reproductive development. As the brain developed, so the logic went, the ovaries shrivel. In the twentieth century, scientists have given modern dress to these prejudices. Arguments for women's different (and inferior) nature have been based on hormonal research, brain lateralization, and sociobiology.?

Londa Schiebinger, “History and Philosophy”, in Sex and Scientific Inquiry, eds. Sandra Harding and Jean F. O'Barr, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), p. 26-27.
Quoted at: http://www.dean.sbc.edu/bart.html

It is simply a matter of faith for you to assume that there's only one 'evolution' and that it is un-sullied by the biases of the all too human scientists involved.
However, this will I'm sure, lead to too many distractions from the topic at hand.

Further, you line of reasoning is dubious again for another reason. The Bible teaches against murder. By your standard of belief laws on 'murder' can equally be thrown out too?

He brings up a valid point of some bibles who teach differently and why we as lay people don't study them. They wouldn't be our normal teaching, just supplemental material. Is that irrational?

If I have a Bible, and my church has kept it for 1,700 years and some time later someone re-works the Bible (even though my version still exists), the very fact that there is a different version from mine does not prove my version is in error.

And this too is not only irrelevant to the thread but totally superfluous to an attempt to address myself and my beliefs; as I am not a western Christian.

Good for you?

You miss the point. He raises some objections based on what he believes the Catholic Church has done, automatically assuming that this church is itself normative, and representative of all Christianity. My Church's traditions go back to Jesus. It is a similar argument to the one made about the 'versions' of the Bible above. My church goes back to the time of Pentecost...33AD. That other versions of Christianity have arisen subsequent to then does not negate my church's teachings. Thus when I say we've always taught that homosexuality is wrong it make no relevance to point out some hundreds of years later another church arose and 'may have' suppressed some teachings. (I say 'may have' because he's still not substantiated the claim; neither have you).
end part 1

 

[Montalban]

Part two

I am fully aware of 'gospels' that are left out. Start a thread on it. Visit www.earlychrisitanwritings.com that has a fairly impressive list. Note the word 'random' in the phrase 'randomly left out gospels' it contradicts the notion you began with of a conspiracy that of itself implies a concerted effort. So in an effort to 'plan' (or 'conspire') to dupe the public, they 'randomly' left out gospels; implying also that some gospels left in, unintentionally.

No, I think we will stick it in this thread because you opened the door by asking for an examination of faith. They weren't randomly left out, they were left out because the current Church didn't agree with what was said in it. But that little fact doesn't make them irrelevant. It wasn't random, it was on purpose to keep the teachings all the same, which in a sense "duped" the public by not giving them all the information.

This statement of yours shows a blatantly western-orientated perspective of 'the church'. For you 'the church' means the Catholic Church. The Orthodox Church is as old. We have maintained the teachings of Christ since the time of the Apostles.
On another aspect your statement is illogical. That 'the Church' didn't agree to certain books does of itself not make the churches actions false. You simply assume it to be so.

If you want to actually address the thread, please do. If you want to bring up any support (in a 'constructed argument') please start a thread and do so. I'll address the thread gladly.

The problem with today's Christian is that they are what we like to call "cafeteria-Christians" a term that is usually associated with Catholics.

Again with the Catholics?

They pick and choose what they want to believe, which is appalling to the more conservative of the Church.

Indeed so, even for my church. The 'picking and choosing' by individuals is not Biblical. The Bible didn't write itself. Look, on one hand you're arguing against selection of works, by the church, but in favour of it, by individuals. So, it's not 'selection' that is an issue, but 'the church'. (in this case we are dealing with the "Catholic Church")

The Clash between liberalism and Christianity is not one I usually like to get involved in, one of the reasons I left the church in fact. Liberalism calls for the acceptance of people as they are, and Christianity does not differ, accepting the homosexuals as people, but not approving of their lifestyle and actions from that lifestyle.

Do you support bestiality? This isn't meant to be flippant, but many arguments used by liberals in support of homosexuality can be made in support of bestiality; to show how actually selective liberals are in their applications of their rules.
a) it doesn't harm any person
b) if it's done in private, why should it concern you.

By the way I had this argument with a friend of mine who is homosexual. He said that the animal does not 'consent'. I asked him if he was a vegetarian. He replied in the negative. I then said well the animal doesn't consent to being eaten, either.

Now, that is where there is an impasse.

I agree. That is the statement I made in the opening post. There must be a clash of ideas. You (if you were a Christian) must choose a side.

Some see the Church's not willing to compromise as a backing away of their acceptance of the homosexual population. But I see it this way. The Church cannot and should not allow homosexual marriage, however, what they can do, is bless a loving and committed marriage in the place of a marriage ceremony, something that could be a compromise. It would be a large step for the Church to do this, and probably an impossible one. The gay couple can get legally married and there would not be any problem within the church. It will just take work and not this Pope to accomplish it. It is a logical step from acceptance imo.

If the law of the land is that homosexual relationships are 'legal' and so on, so be it. I will protest away, as is my right.

Welcome to Debate Politics! Thought I should say that.

Thank you very much. It's good to be here. By the way, Happy Easter. (We Orthodox have a different date for Easter - that is the original way of calculating it; but to westerners, even non-Christians 'Easter is the time the Western churches celebrate it).

 

[Arch Enemy]

Re: A quick guide to debating.

Errors in interpretation? You mean for instance the "camel through the eye of a needle" may actually mean a seperate type of small opening. Or the issue of yom meaning a day or a period of time undefined?

No, I'm talking about the whole "Hell" misconception, that's undoubtly a horrible misconception.

Hell, there are words in the Cantebury Tales that we still have no clue what the mean. And it was written in English.

Don't be so sure, The Canterbury Tales was written in an older version of English, more along the lines of a Germanic language.. there is no reason for some of the words not be to able to be translated into English, seeing as how it's a dead language.

do you really think that they forgot about what happened with Christ over the course of fifty plus years? Unlikely

Actually, 30 Years of teaching.

Genisis has been proven wrong? By whom? Adam and Eve have been proven wrong? By whom? Unless you've got a time machine, there is no way of tracking the origin of man, sorry it just doesn't work that way.

Explain to me how so many people came from only two people? Including different races and how we're all not deformed because of the inbreeding which would have occured.

Well, that is not entirely accurate. The whole conspiracy theory of leaving out books simply because the Church was afraid of them is quite humorous to me. Especially since this theory only arose very recently, whereas all of this took place how many hundreds of years ago?

I don't know you tell me how many hundreds of years.

 

[Arch Enemy]

I am not too knowledgeable about the traditions and the beliefs of the Western Church, enlighten me (American?)

I am officially a Southern Baptist, but over the years I've accumulated my own views and ideals on the Christian religion.

here's a nice section about Christianity Rotten's Library

don't stray too far from that site, rotten is notorious for it's terrible stories and gruesome pictures.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Re: A quick guide to debating.

No, I'm talking about the whole "Hell" misconception, that's undoubtly a horrible misconception..

But none of that is Biblical. What is actually in the Bible has little to do with what the common person believes about hell. And frankly, my pastor has never claimed that hell is as it is percieved by the common public, but rather offers what is in the Bible.

Don't be so sure, The Canterbury Tales was written in an older version of English, more along the lines of a Germanic language.. there is no reason for some of the words not be to able to be translated into English, seeing as how it's a dead language.

Oh believe me, I am very aware of Middle English and the Cantebury Tales. I just finished my Chaucer class this semster, and we read all of his texts in Middle English. But we still don't know what some of the words he personally used mean, because they do not seem specific in context. Some guess at what they might mean, they use contextual clues (as one does in any interpretation, including that of the Bible) but because they do that, does it mean that the message is error? Not really.

Explain to me how so many people came from only two people? Including different races and how we're all not deformed because of the inbreeding which would have occured

How do you suppose evolution preposes this? You realize that evolution does not teach that animals evolved as a group together, but rather one different branch at a time. So, even through the theory of macroevolution, there would still have to be an original man and an original woman.

 

[ShamMol]

This statement of yours shows a blatantly western-orientated perspective of 'the church'. For you 'the church' means the Catholic Church. The Orthodox Church is as old. We have maintained the teachings of Christ since the time of the Apostles.
On another aspect your statement is illogical. That 'the Church' didn't agree to certain books does of itself not make the churches actions false. You simply assume it to be so.

Meh. One Christian is the same as another one to me. You all follow the bible, you all hold basically the same beliefs with the exception of a few. And btw, I don't assume, that is what was taught to me by the Jesuits, a class which I actually paid attention to. When a new book comes up, they looked at it, evaluated it, and usually pushed it to the side because it wasn't Christian enough. That is what happened, but an informed Christian should read those so that they can be informed about what the ENTIRE word of the Lord is.

By the way I had this argument with a friend of mine who is homosexual. He said that the animal does not 'consent'. I asked him if he was a vegetarian. He replied in the negative. I then said well the animal doesn't consent to being eaten, either.

I would say the same thing-I say two adults in a stable, loving, caring, nuturing, whatever you want to call it, relationship. And to the eating of an animal thing-We are the top of the food chain and in nature, the top eats the other animals...that's just the way it works.

I agree. That is the statement I made in the opening post. There must be a clash of ideas. You (if you were a Christian) must choose a side. If the law of the land is that homosexual relationships are 'legal' and so on, so be it. I will protest away, as is my right.

Yes, it is your right to protest gay marriage, just as it is my right to call people who do so a bigot who does not support equal rights for their fellow man (I won't do that unless you say something really bad).

Thank you very much. It's good to be here. By the way, Happy Easter. (We Orthodox have a different date for Easter - that is the original way of calculating it; but to westerners, even non-Christians 'Easter is the time the Western churches celebrate it).

I didn't know that, and actually I should have because one of my friends belongs to and Eastern Christian church and I didn't know, I will have to ask her.

I guess that I will talk about sodom...you know how that is used primarily as the basis for not accepting homosexual life. But I was at a Jewish service and the Rabbi spoke on that. He is known as a very conservative one for the area I am in and I was fascinated by what he said, considering the bible was written by the Jews, I was just wondering if they had the same interpretation. Guess what? They didn't. He interpreted it as God being angry for not opening their arms to their fellow man, not the subsequent acts, or was it previous acts...I honestly don't remember, this was about 2 years ago. Just interesting that this interpretation goes compeletely against Christianity's teaching of it.

 

[Arch Enemy]

I am not too knowledgeable about the traditions and the beliefs of the Western Church, enlighten me (American?)

I am officially a Southern Baptist, but over the years I've accumulated my own views and ideals on the Christian religion.

here's a nice section about Christianity Rotten's Library

don't stray too far from that site, rotten is notorious for it's terrible stories and gruesome pictures.

 

[ShamMol]

Re: Which evolution?

Are you saying Christians aren't hard-thinking? Or, not decent?

I am so tempted to say that they are not decent for their views on homosexuality, but I don't believe that in my heart. When I said hard-thought, I meant ingrained.

This is incorrect. You mistake the date of compilation of the anthology of Christian writings, which is the Bible, and the writing of those works themselves. It is akin to me saying that an anthology of Shakespeare's works (printed in 1982) means that some of his works are only 23 years old. Had you noticed the non-partisan web-site www.earlychristianwritings.com and visited it, you would see considered dates given for the composition of various books.

Ok, that's one out of...yeah, that's what I thought. The gospels weren't written until after he had been dead for a significant amount of time. Most of it was written by people who had never met Jesus. You see where I am coming from here?

What people feel and what 'is' are sometimes different'

Let me rephrase. It is what a lot of people believe, something that Church-goers know because their faith sure isn't a definite truth.

What has been proven wrong about Genesis? Without going too far off-topic, which evolutionary theory do you believe in? What has been proved by evolution is 'that it happened'.
There's not even one form of 'science'.
there's Nazi Science
Marxist Science
Feminist Science
Capitalist Science
various Nationalist Sciences
Finnish nationalist science! (see http://www.hf-fak.uib.no/smi/paj/isotalo.html)
Indian (see http://www.ljudmila.org/nettime/zkp4/08.htm)
Chinese
various attempts at religious-Sciences
Pythaogrean Science
Christian (Creationist) Science
Islamic Science
(some of these are pseudo sciences, depending upon your a priori understandings of normative science)

Each one of these will use science to further their own ends, and they will each 'succeed' because they can all find the evidences to back them up.

Here is a crash course in what I believe. And I will use the pejorative (can't spell that word, lol) science, not the specific one because if you had to quote a specific science each time you spoke, you would go insane. Darwain's theory on evolution is what I believe. That has been your crash course in what kind of evolution I believe in.

The Chinese are quick to show the prominent role China played in our evolution. There is evidence that we evolved in Africa, or that we evolved elsewhere. http://www.chineseprehistory.org/beard.htm suggests that man arose in China, not Africa!* (or rather an ancestor of man arose there)

Great. I really could care less where I came from, but I know that my species didn't appear as a full human. We evolved into that. Thus, the story in Genisis...not correct.

http://www.chineseprehistory.org//index.htm is the introduction to this site. It is evidence of the nature of evidence, wholly subjective; that Chinese nationalism is behind these particular pieces of 'scientific evidence.' This increases the over-all number of different forms of science there are.

Yes, there are many sciences, but only one man who provided the theory that is taught universally as the model of evolution (model is not specific facts hint hint).

Darwin's own views on evolution were dominated by his own Victorian social attitudes, thus:
Darwin postulated that females are ''coy,'' mating rarely and choosing their mates carefully, presumably betting their odds on the males with the best genes to contribute to their offspring. For their part, males are ''ardent'' and promiscuous, and fight amongst themselves for female partners. Later theories added that males are promiscuous because they have less to lose by making babies - unlike eggs, sperm are plentiful and small. Plus, females usually do most of the work to raise the offspring”
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-02/su-sag021003.php

That seems to be pretty darn correct and it is what I believe. Everyone is biased by something. For example, you are biased by your Christian beliefs. I am biased by my appreciation for the need for equality.

“In the mid-nineteenth century, social Darwinists invoked evolutionary biology to argue that a woman was a man whose evolution - both physical and mental - had been arrested in a primitive stage. In this same period, doctors used their authority as scientists to discourage women's attempts to gain access to higher education. Women's intellectual development, it was argued, would proceed only at great cost to reproductive development. As the brain developed, so the logic went, the ovaries shrivel. In the twentieth century, scientists have given modern dress to these prejudices. Arguments for women's different (and inferior) nature have been based on hormonal research, brain lateralization, and sociobiology.?

As my history teacher said one class: "Darwain would have been appalled by what people used his theory to prove." You have to realize that at that time, it was ok to feel those feelings while now we understand the differences and likenesses between all races and gender.

Londa Schiebinger, “History and Philosophy”, in Sex and Scientific Inquiry, eds. Sandra Harding and Jean F. O'Barr, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), p. 26-27.
Quoted at: http://www.dean.sbc.edu/bart.html

I don't know exactly what you want me to get out of that...

It is simply a matter of faith for you to assume that there's only one 'evolution' and that it is un-sullied by the biases of the all too human scientists involved.
However, this will I'm sure, lead to too many distractions from the topic at hand.

yes, let's get back to the topic.

Further, you line of reasoning is dubious again for another reason. The Bible teaches against murder. By your standard of belief laws on 'murder' can equally be thrown out too?

I don't know what you mean by this...I would argue that murder is against the equality for all and the dignity in all men.

If I have a Bible, and my church has kept it for 1,700 years and some time later someone re-works the Bible (even though my version still exists), the very fact that there is a different version from mine does not prove my version is in error.

Ok, but shouldn't you read all the texts to be an informed Christian and not just simply accept what is handed to you? that is what real learning is-going out and searching for the truth, just not simply accepting what is given.

You miss the point. He raises some objections based on what he believes the Catholic Church has done, automatically assuming that this church is itself normative, and representative of all Christianity. My Church's traditions go back to Jesus. It is a similar argument to the one made about the 'versions' of the Bible above. My church goes back to the time of Pentecost...33AD. That other versions of Christianity have arisen subsequent to then does not negate my church's teachings. Thus when I say we've always taught that homosexuality is wrong it make no relevance to point out some hundreds of years later another church arose and 'may have' suppressed some teachings. (I say 'may have' because he's still not substantiated the claim; neither have you).

I do not see the Church as all Christianity, I see it as worse. I do not doubt your Church's teaching and their importance to you, but are there possible other interpretations to the views that you hold thanks to that bible. Yes, there are, and I think I even mentioned one.

 

[Montalban]

Re: Which evolution?

Are you saying Christians aren't hard-thinking? Or, not decent?

I am so tempted to say that they are not decent for their views on homosexuality, but I don't believe that in my heart. When I said hard-thought, I meant ingrained.

Ok, that's one out of...yeah, that's what I thought. The gospels weren't written until after he had been dead for a significant amount of time. Most of it was written by people who had never met Jesus. You see where I am coming from here?

Is there going to be some point in which you introduce fact into your post, or do you wish to continue going with what you feel?

What people feel and what 'is' are sometimes different'

Let me rephrase. It is what a lot of people believe, something that Church-goers know because their faith sure isn't a definite truth.

So, you believe in indefinite truths?

I don't know exactly what you want me to get out of that...

It is a common belief of many people I've met (who are irrationally anti-religious) that they believe in a dichotomy of beliefs; faith -v- reason, belief -v- truth, religion -v- science.

Further, you line of reasoning is dubious again for another reason. The Bible teaches against murder. By your standard of belief laws on 'murder' can equally be thrown out too?

I don't know what you mean by this...

Your basis for rejecting the church's stance on homosexuality was in part on what you claim to be an error filled book. In essence a stance on a moral issue is negated by (perceived) flaws in the Bible. I was just interested to know if you therefore throw out all the churches moral issues.

I would argue that murder is against the equality for all and the dignity in all men.

And women? Why is it you take this stance? Some could argue (since you're trying for a relativist sense of morality) that living in poverty or poor health is not dignified. It is in fact one of the arguments current for euthanasia.

If I have a Bible, and my church has kept it for 1,700 years and some time later someone re-works the Bible (even though my version still exists), the very fact that there is a different version from mine does not prove my version is in error.

Ok, but shouldn't you read all the texts to be an informed Christian and not just simply accept what is handed to you?

I have read a number of non-Christian (rejected Gospels). Further not all the Gospels not included in the Bible are 'rejected' altogether. My church accepts the Didache, the Epistle of St. Clement of Rome, the Epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch etc.
This means that you too must have read them all and rejected them.

that is what real learning is-going out and searching for the truth, just not simply accepting what is given.

That's simply not true. Just as there is no one scientist versed in all aspects of science there comes a point where we must have a reasoned faith in the knowledge of others. Your opinions of your own nation (if you have one), would these be based on your reading of every law of your nation and state? It is an absurd test you call me to undertake. I would bet you don't live by the same requirements.

Quote:
You miss the point. He raises some objections based on what he believes the Catholic Church has done, automatically assuming that this church is itself normative, and representative of all Christianity. My Church's traditions go back to Jesus. It is a similar argument to the one made about the 'versions' of the Bible above. My church goes back to the time of Pentecost...33AD. That other versions of Christianity have arisen subsequent to then does not negate my church's teachings. Thus when I say we've always taught that homosexuality is wrong it make no relevance to point out some hundreds of years later another church arose and 'may have' suppressed some teachings. (I say 'may have' because he's still not substantiated the claim; neither have you).

I do not see the Church as all Christianity,

The Catholic Church is not 'the Church'. That is the point I am making. It is very easy to be in a position where one thinks all of one's own experiences are normative. Hence the USA doesn't usually refer to the "American Civil War" but just "The Civil War" as if it is known that you're dealing with this particular one, and not the Spanish, the English or whatever. I have now pointed out in serval posts the fact that my church dates from the same birth as the Catholic. You continue to do so despite my best efforts to show you in error.

I see it as worse. I do not doubt your Church's teaching and their importance to you, but are there possible other interpretations to the views that you hold thanks to that bible. Yes, there are, and I think I even mentioned one.

Let's recap.

You reject 'the Church'. By which you mean "the Roman Catholic Church. In this it is implied here that (by your own test) not only have not only read all the Bible and all the Catholic works not therein contained (they also accept the Epistles I mentioned earlier), but you're fully versed in the catechism, canon law, church history, etc.
Based on this extensive learning of the Church you have moved to a position of such knowledge that you reject their teachings - well some anyway, because you accept their proscription against murder (perhaps not their reasonings). And, you've accepted evolution based on a further extensive reading on the biological and other sciences.

All of this has lead you to believe that homosexuality is okay.

 

[Montalban]

The absence of thought

Meh. One Christian is the same as another one to me.

It's hard to gauge whether you're being flippant or pushing awfully close to making a very poor generalisation.

I would say the same thing-I say two adults in a stable, loving, caring, nuturing, whatever you want to call it, relationship. And to the eating of an animal thing-We are the top of the food chain and in nature, the top eats the other animals...that's just the way it works.

Yet people can have them for pets. You've not really addressed this issue.

Yes, it is your right to protest gay marriage, just as it is my right to call people who do so a bigot who does not support equal rights for their fellow man (I won't do that unless you say something really bad).
I didn't know that, and actually I should have because one of my friends belongs to and Eastern Christian church and I didn't know, I will have to ask her.

Again its hard to gauge you. Some people might appear very flippant. The same words might appear to someone as being very stupid, especially when they talk of bigotry in the same post about 'you Christians are all the same'. Its not always easy to tell.

I guess that I will talk about sodom...you know how that is used primarily as the basis for not accepting homosexual life. But I was at a Jewish service and the Rabbi spoke on that. He is known as a very conservative one for the area I am in and I was fascinated by what he said, considering the bible was written by the Jews, I was just wondering if they had the same interpretation. Guess what? They didn't. He interpreted it as God being angry for not opening their arms to their fellow man, not the subsequent acts, or was it previous acts...I honestly don't remember, this was about 2 years ago. Just interesting that this interpretation goes compeletely against Christianity's teaching of it.

Again with this post; in context of other posts in this thread. Its hard to gauge. One finds someone talking about the Bible being written by 'the Church', heavily mistaken, heavily edited, then the same Bible is 'written by the Jews' and even though it's the same passage, you accept one person's interpretation as being representative for all Jews? Man oh man, your posts are all over the place... as if the "Christian" church basis its rejection on homosexuality on one passage of the Bible, anyway.

 

[Montalban]

Re: A quick guide to debating.

So Christians should change their ideas because the society around them believes differently than they do? But then does that mean that Christians should begin to believe that there is not a God?

Your post is well-thought. This is an attribute I've yet to see on other posts in this thread.

 

[ShamMol]

Re: The absence of thought

Hm...interesting pm.

I've debated a lot of people and though you're not the worst, you're pretty bad.

It would help if you construct a reasoned argument.

Hmm....let's see, ah f*ck it.

 

[ShamMol]

Re: The absence of thought

It's hard to gauge whether you're being flippant or pushing awfully close to making a very poor generalisation.

Yet people can have them for pets. You've not really addressed this issue.

Yeah, you compare human relationships to ones between animals and men...right...You expect me to say that is alright? It isn't because it isn't two concious people in a committed relationship. That is the essence of a relationship. A dog and a man cannot have that type of relationship, all they can have is sex.

Again its hard to gauge you.

Its hard to gauge. One finds someone talking about the Bible being written by 'the Church', heavily mistaken, heavily edited, then the same Bible is 'written by the Jews' and even though it's the same passage, you accept one person's interpretation as being representative for all Jews? Man oh man, your posts are all over the place... as if the "Christian" church basis its rejection on homosexuality on one passage of the Bible, anyway.

It's hard to gauge me...whoop-di-doo. I respond to what you write, that is what I do. I put in different perspectives so that you realize what else is out there. After summarily rejecting all my responses, you can do whatever you want, even send me a nasty pm. Oops, you did that. Heck, Fant hasn't done that yet, I congratulate you. So now for what you want, cold hard facts.

You want the Christian basis? You got it. (Source

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.... Do not defile yourselves with any of these things,...lest the land vomit you out also when you defile it, as it vomited out the nations that were before you (Leviticus 18:22-30).

If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them (Leviticus 20:13).

Genesis 19:1-11 now comes into view.

Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally.” So Lot went out to them through the doorway, shut the door behind him, and said, “Please, my brethren, do not do so wickedly! See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish; only do nothing to these men, since this is the reason they have come under the shadow of my roof.” And they said, “Stand back!” Then they said, “This one came in to sojourn, and he keeps acting as a judge; now we will deal worse with you than with them.” So they pressed hard against the man Lot, and came near to break down the door. But the men reached out their hands and pulled Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. And they struck the men who were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small and great, so that they became weary trying to find the door (vss. 4-11).

Those are the two areas where most Christians associate their views on homosexuality. I posted that interpretation of Sodom because I thought you might be interested to find out someone had a different perspective and interpretation of that event. That is the essence of debating-you are not always right. Is it possible that his interpreatation and not yours is the correct one?

 

[Montalban]

The absence of thought continues

Yeah, you compare human relationships to ones between animals and men...right...You expect me to say that is alright? It isn't because it isn't two concious (sic) people in a committed relationship. That is the essence of a relationship. A dog and a man cannot have that type of relationship, all they can have is sex.

There are so many errors in your statement.
Bestiality is not restricted to men, but I take your point, even if your constructs are sexist.
I don't compare homosexual 'relationships' with bestiality in the sense of the word 'relationship' as you use it. In fact even those who practice sex with animals, non-human partners, inanimate objects etc would not do so.
Let us just for a moment look at what else you imply... you'd be against homosexual 'relationships' that are solely for sex? You'd only support those that actually involve a 'relationship' (commitment?) ?
Of course you wouldn't be, therefore the objection to 'bestiality' based on the fact that it involves no 'commitment' is null and void.
The other part that it involves 'non-human' incapable of reciprocating love would then mean you're against all men and women who practice some kind of solo sex, such as with a blow-up, a vibrator, etc. This is the path your stance must lead to. They are in it solely for their own sexual gratification... only having sex with a blow-up doll is not illegal. Are you now going to say...
a) you're against sex unless there's some kind of commitment (a relationship)
b) you're against sex that is solely for sexual gratification of one partner?

It's hard to gauge me...whoop-di-doo.

It is indeed. At no stage do you really address facts over misunderstandings of the nature of the Bible, books selected and rejected etc.
Even when you try to criticise my church you miss the mark when I point out that I don't belong to 'the Church' (by which you mean the Catholic Church). Even when I've pointed this out, you still don't follow this and continue to talk of 'the Church', thus continuing to attack an institution I have nothing to do with. In essence you just write what you feel to be true, and leave it at that... with a few flippant remarks added to the mix.

I respond to what you write, that is what I do. I put in different perspectives so that you realize what else is out there.

I am aware that people don't always know what they write about.

You want the Christian basis? You got it

Why did you post these references? You need to tie it in to an actual constructed argument of why you are introducing these references.

Those are the two areas where most Christians associate their views on homosexuality. I posted that interpretation of Sodom because I thought you might be interested to find out someone had a different perspective and interpretation of that event. That is the essence of debating-you are not always right. Is it possible that his interpreatation (sic) and not yours is the correct one?

Indeed I am not always right. And indeed the essence of debate involves opposing views. However just having an opposing view does not make for a debate. Having a constructed opposing view makes for a debate. Saying that someone disagrees with me, therefore I might be wrong is itself an erroneous stance to make. One person who doesn't like pizza doesn't make it 'wrong' the millions who do

The very fact that you find other references to homosexuality in the Bible (even the Old Testament) might suggest that you are not aware that this undermines your beliefs. You at once state you know of a guy somewhere who says "Sodom" doesn't refer to the homosexual act, now you cite other Biblical references that condone homosexuality. Thus at once you're saying "Hey, the Christians 'might' be wrong, because some guy says this..." and then counter this yourself by showing other Biblical references prohibiting homosexuality. That's why in fact I still don't know why you cited these references as they help my case, not yours.

 

[MrBob]

I'm not sure if this counts as derailing the thread, but I'd like to post about the original topic, you know, choosing between liberal and Christian beliefs. I am a Christian ( a preacher's kid in fact) and I am socially a liberal, as long as it doesn't cost me money I really don't see how allowing homosexuals to marry is against Christian beliefs.

Worshipping the sun is against Christian beliefs, I hope we can all agree to this. If there was a bill brought up to congress about banning the worship of the sun, I personally would not support it. My reasons for not supporting it has nothing to do with my worshipping the sun (I don't), but rather my belief in the right to various freedoms. Fortunately, my personal Christian beliefs don't interfere with my belief in these freedoms. I've read the bible a time or two, and gone to church my whole life. I've never heard that as a Christian I should have the right to legally decide how other people live based on my own morality. I do recall Christ saying things like (and this is not an exact quote, but I'll look it up if anyone feels the need to challenge it) "look to the log in your own eye before worrying about the mote of dust in your neighbors"

But more importantly, I live in a country that has a seperation between church and state. I also belong to faith that believes in this same thing ( "Give unto Ceasar what is Ceasars" ). I don't see how these things conflict.

So having taken this long circuitous route to giving an answer to your original question, I fail to see why being a Christian would stop me from supporting gay marriages. I may not want to do it myself, but that doesn't mean I should fail to support others who wish to.

 

[Schweddy]

Welcome to Debate Politics!

 

[MrBob]

Thanks Vauge

 

[walrus]

Reconciling gay marriage as a Christian and an American has been a torturous affair. On the one hand I believe there is little doubt that homosexuality is forbidden in the Bible. On the other I tend to believe socially "lest thou harm none, do as thou wilst".

As I see it there are (for the sake of this discussion) three components to marriage. The first is a purely legal contract between two people and the state. This contract handles the disposition of property, certain duties and obligations the two share, etc. I can find no moral basis for objecting to a legal contract which only affects the two people involved.

The second component is the emotional and physical "contract" the two make with each other. It is a personal commitment of fidelity, care, and love. Again, I can find no moral basis to object to this. If you wish to proclaim your love and devotion to man, woman, flora or fauna that is between you and the object of your affection.

The third component is the sacred vow between a man, a woman, and God. I do not believe that God sanctifies this covenant between members of the same sex. This seems fairly clear in the Bible. I may be wrong, but that is between me and God - so please don't respond to this pointing out that other people don't believe the same way I do. I realize that. Most people believed Christopher Columbus was going to sail off the edge of the world, that didn't make it so.

That said, it is clear that a marriage can exist without the third component. Two people can go to the Justice of the Peace and enter into a legal and emotional contract with each other, and I honestly don't think the world will be that much the worse for it. However, if my church announced that it was performing a gay marriage I would leave it. That is the limits of my rights as a Christian and as an American. I personally would never attend or support a church or sect which allowed gay marriage.

a couple of things I had to respond to:

I am so tempted to say that they are not decent for their views on homosexuality, but I don't believe that in my heart. When I said hard-thought, I meant ingrained.

So your views are what? fluid? It's always funny when someone accuses someone else of being close-minded for not changing their minds and agreeing with them.

Ok, that's one out of...yeah, that's what I thought. The gospels weren't written until after he had been dead for a significant amount of time. Most of it was written by people who had never met Jesus. You see where I am coming from here?

How many biographies of George Washington were written while he was alive? The gospels most likely were begun to be assembled as the Apostles began to die. As long as the Apostles were alive, it wasn't as neccessary to write their stories down.

That seems to be pretty darn correct and it is what I believe. Everyone is biased by something. For example, you are biased by your Christian beliefs. I am biased by my appreciation for the need for equality

No, you are biased by your contempt for the beliefs of others.

Great. I really could care less where I came from, but I know that my species didn't appear as a full human. We evolved into that. Thus, the story in Genisis...not correct.

And you know this how? Personal research you conducted? Read it in a book you say? And you just took what they wrote on faith? Did you read all of the alternative theories, as you demand Christians must?

Ok, but shouldn't you read all the texts to be an informed Christian and not just simply accept what is handed to you? that is what real learning is-going out and searching for the truth, just not simply accepting what is given.

So, are you an informed agnostic? By your own standard, in order to be so must you give the views of Christians weight equal to your own? How is your personal quest for eternal truth going? Ya never know, you may be the one who figures out the ultimate question to Life, the Universe, and Everything!

 

[Rev.]

So having taken this long circuitous route to giving an answer to your original question, I fail to see why being a Christian would stop me from supporting gay marriages. I may not want to do it myself, but that doesn't mean I should fail to support others who wish to.

How do you mean "support?"

 

[Fantasea]

So having taken this long circuitous route to giving an answer to your original question, I fail to see why being a Christian would stop me from supporting gay marriages. I may not want to do it myself, but that doesn't mean I should fail to support others who wish to.

In pre-Civil War times, this is precisely the view expressed by many with respect to slavery. "Of course, while I would never own slaves, I would never deny you the right to do so." Could they be considered anything but pro-slavery?

Today, there are those who say, "While I would never abort a human child, I would never deny you the right to do so." Can they be considered anything but pro-death?

A person who considers himself a Christian in full communion with his church does not have the liberty to support gay marriages. The Ten Commandments are not optional.