|
Beliefs
Sept 21, 2006 16:24:06 GMT -5
Post by NASH7777 on Sept 21, 2006 16:24:06 GMT -5
I'm sticking with my theory cause it answers everything, makes sense, and can out-do anything anyone else has ever came with to me. I was hoping to see other's views on the universe and maybe have them add or edit to my theory, but I don't think they can...
|
|
|
Beliefs
Sept 21, 2006 16:28:56 GMT -5
Post by thetruecoolness on Sept 21, 2006 16:28:56 GMT -5
Very good, but like I edited in, not a problem with homosexuality, a problem with how the majority of them act. So homosexuality is still not the core problem. Just like being a teenager is not the cause of drug abuse, or sexual promiscuity. That is all I'm saying.
Nash, why ask a question that has no answer. Why define a problem in such a way, if you expect from the beginning to get no answer, you probably won't. My rebuttal would be that locally there are tons of contadictions (wars and such don't start over nothing), and I don't see how this cannot extend up to the top. I think your theory is mainly a cop out to having an actual belief, but I'll think of something more in depth later. You could always get on AIM and talk to Ves, he's always up for a good debate, though he's usually not on until late.
|
|
|
Beliefs
Sept 21, 2006 18:48:29 GMT -5
Post by BloodKnight on Sept 21, 2006 18:48:29 GMT -5
Anyone else read Thiaoouba Prophecy? That's a good book, it really makes you scratch your head, in terms of what you think is real. Even though a lot of the book seemed false to me, it put pieces together on a few subjects that surprisingly made perfect sense once you thought about them. People who tried to prove the book wrong, well, couldn't. The Freedom of Choice is a good book too. Anyone who's interested in beliefs may want to check them out. Anyway, where was I? Oh yeah... you're all wrong, especially kenny. Kenny, you're just weird.
|
|
|
Beliefs
Sept 22, 2006 3:28:19 GMT -5
Post by Bigfoot on Sept 22, 2006 3:28:19 GMT -5
I'm sticking with my theory cause it answers everything, makes sense, and can out-do anything anyone else has ever came with to me. I was hoping to see other's views on the universe and maybe have them add or edit to my theory, but I don't think they can... Once again dude, your own opinion. Everything could be as simple as (omg I'm gonna say it) you die then your gone forever. Just because your religion makes sense with it. But to be honest, I just think that your just trying to make yourself feel easier because your afraid of death. If life does exist after death, doesn't make sense to me at this point at my life. I just think that what you do in this existince matters. I aint against religion like some, aside from the ignorance that comes within it, I think that most poeple should follow a religion so they can go through life with a good sense of morality. If I ever have kids, I would definitly bring religion back into the home, but I would also teach my kids to be tolerant of what the religion is ignorant against.
|
|
|
Beliefs
Sept 22, 2006 5:53:07 GMT -5
Post by christi on Sept 22, 2006 5:53:07 GMT -5
"he that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone..." (john 8:7)
|
|
|
Beliefs
Sept 22, 2006 6:51:37 GMT -5
Post by Doan the Nado on Sept 22, 2006 6:51:37 GMT -5
A few things... first of all While I will agree that Homosexuals are disenfranchised, I think that this is highly inaccurate and mildly offensive. I'm sorry to offend you, Ves. I actually did not mean the Nazi treatment of Jews in the death camps, but the mindset in Germany that preceded that, where one thing that helped get Hitler elected was his popular notion that various German problems were the fault of the Jews. I was not trying to imply that we are treating gays the same way that Jews were treated in WWII Germany, but merely that our views regarding them are just as old-fashioned as the way Jews were viewed in pre-Hitler Germany and the way blacks were viewed in pre- (and to some extent post-) Civil War America. I should have been more careful. I appreciated your post very much, and I wish it was the case that the majority of Christians I have met feel the same way that you do. Next, the big one: ...Here is some info from the Christian Research Institute about how dangerous the Homosexual lifestyle is.... So what if it is? Even if their lifestyle is more dangerous, that is a choice they have made, and unlike cigarette smoking, where secondhand smoke can kill others, the "dangerous homosexual lifestyle" is going to kill no one but the person leading it. Steve Irwin, Evil Knievel, the cast of Jackass, young soldiers in Iraq, and countless others all lead dangerous lifestyles, and the general populace (including the majority of Christians) is not trying to stop them. I don't understand this notion of protecting someone from themselves, and especially only under certain circumstances. As far as the article you presented, it would probably receive a very low grade in any college course. First of all, the sources you pointed us to are all older than the mid-1990s (I believe the most recent was 1992). Some even go back to the '40s. Do you really think that presents an accurate picture of current knowledge? There is undoubtedly more recent research on the issue, and yet they have chosen such a small, outdated subset that it is clear that they have considered only those sources which support their viewpoint. It is quite likely that some of those studies they are basing their report on have since been refuted or proven invalid. Beyond the sources, I will attempt to point out some glaring faults in the article. No "unbiased" article should ever make such statements. Things like "constantly" and "all the time" and such are vast overgeneralizations that cannot truly be argued, since they reference no actual quantity. What is it trying to say? That every gay every second of the day asserts (to whom?) that they are normal and healthy? It's just an ambiguous, directed comment with no merit. A few issues: what if I don't agree that promiscuity is unhealthy? What if I believe that being very careful while being promiscuous can be perfectly healthy (and quite fun!)? How can you define "homosexuality as typically practiced"? Typically practiced by the majority of homosexuals in the 1940s-1990s? When you make comments like that, you definitely need to have a reference to a specific source. Again, this operates on the assumption that promiscuity is bad. Moreover, there is no indication that this was an unbiased sample. The person conducting the study could have easily gone to a place which is known as a meeting place for "gays who are looking..." and conducted this study, where the results would not at all be surprising. WTF kind of statement is that? So what if that lady thinks that is the case? Maybe she has had some bad experiences in lesbian relationships. If a heterosexual woman has been through numerous unsuccessful relationships with men, she would certainly feel the same way about the "lasting relationship" in general. Again, too general, but even more disturbing, "the vast preponderance" implies that not all evidence is negative, yet they do not even consider the other viewpoint. An unbiased argument at least considers and may attempt to refute (with new findings of their own) counter-evidence. ...and it goes on to explain various practices in detail. First of all, he says right there that "none of the following practices is unique to homosexuals. As for them being "typical", perhaps they are typical of the patients he has seen, which obviously is only a small portion of the total homosexual population. If I am not having any sexual problems, I am not going to see a doctor about my sex life. Likewise with gays: most of the gay patients he sees are those engaging in the described practices. This does not at all represent an unbiased sample. Futhermore, what is the purpose of all this description? For an article that is trying to prove that the gay lifestyle is unhealthy, it seems that much of these items are only added for the shock value. Why mention oral sex if you're not going to show why it's unhealthy? It does go on to talk about physical damage to the rectum, but I'm willing to bet that there are at least as many heterosexual couples having anal sex as there are homosexual couples, so that is really a moot point. Sometimes when you want to express love for an individual, you will take risks; that is life. Current when? At least 15 years ago. Back when AIDS was first discovered, it was largely viewed as a homosexual problem, but it has since become more general, a problem for everyone. There is now much more extensive testing and protection for all individuals which surely allows people to make informed, healthy decisions about their sexual partners. Another pointless comment to try to add substance to their article without doing any real research. "Hmm... I've ran out of things to say, but I haven't really said much at all. Here we go: 'there is so much more I could talk about, but...' ". Yeah, I think you get the picture. I already showed why this is an unfair assertion, when much of the reason behind the suicide could be seen as a result of the guilt imposed by those who tell them that the gay lifestyle is wrong. Again, recent when? Yes, because it is unreliable and clearly biased. Not to say the secular media is not biased, but articles like this do not merit mention. Well, I have a lot to say on things about being open-minded and such, but that will have to wait for another post.
|
|
|
Beliefs
Sept 22, 2006 7:25:37 GMT -5
Post by NASH7777 on Sept 22, 2006 7:25:37 GMT -5
I think you took me wrong Bigfoot.... I don't have a religion currently. All I believe comes from the simple logic, either there is nothing or there is everything being that if there something it automatically spawns everything, And we are just a part of that. What happens when we die doesn't really matter... and everyone's beliefs exist somewhere in infinity yet are bound by it.
Yaaay omniousness!!!
|
|
kennyken
RPGM2 Helper
superboy teaser video is on youtube right now
Posts: 184
|
Beliefs
Sept 22, 2006 13:50:18 GMT -5
Post by kennyken on Sept 22, 2006 13:50:18 GMT -5
doan, I don't know if you didn't have time to respond or didn't see it, but here is my response to your rebuttal. Covey admits homosexual lifestyle is “dangerous,” needs “policing” February 25, 2005 BETWEEN THE LINES (homosexual newsweekly) Detroit, Michigan February 24, 2005 www.pridesource.com/article.shtml?article=11952§ion=news I hope you did not conveniently ignore it. [glow=red,2,300]Anyway, where was I? Oh yeah... you're all wrong, especially kenny. Kenny, you're just weird[/glow] yeah, probably here's some more food for thought since a lot of you sound like you already hate me, I'll go all in.************* Does Homosexuality demonstrate that the bible is antiquated and irrelevant? A popular sentiment today is that the Bible is increasingly irrelevant in a modern age of scientific enlightenment. Thus, when the Scripture’s condemnation of homosexuality is referenced it is not uncommon to see expressions of polite exasperation etched on the faces of the masses. After all, the Bible not only condemns homosexuality but also clearly teaches that Sabbath breakers must be put to death (Exod. 35:2). First, it should be noted that while Sabbath breaking had serious ramifications within ancient Israel, it is not a precedent for executing people today. Not only are we no longer under the civil and ceremonial laws of a Jewish theocratic form of government, but as the apostle Paul explains, the symbolism of the law has been fulfilled in Christ (Gal. 3:13–14). In his letter to the Colossian Christians, Paul underscores the Christian’s freedom from adherence to Sabbath laws by pointing out that “these are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ” (Col. 2:17 NIV). Thus, there is an obvious difference between enduring moral principles regarding homosexuality and temporary civil and ceremonial laws relegated to a particular historical context. Furthermore, we would do well to recognize that the God of the Bible does not condemn homosexuality in an arbitrary and capricious fashion; rather, He carefully defines the borders of human sexuality so that our joy may be complete. It does not require an advanced degree in physiology to appreciate the fact that the human body is not designed for homosexual relationships. Spurious slogans and sound bites do not change the scientific reality that homosexual relationships are devastating not only from a psychological but also from a physiological perspective. Finally, far from being irrelevant and antiquated, the Bible’s warnings regarding homosexuality are eerily relevant and up to date. In the book of Romans, Paul aptly describes both the perversion and the penalty: “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” (Rom. 1:26–27 NIV, emphasis added). It would be difficult to miss the relationship between Paul’s words and the current health care holocaust. More people already have died worldwide from AIDS than the United States of America has lost in all its wars combined. This is but the tip of an insidious iceberg. The homosexual lifestyle causes a host of complications including hemorrhoids, prostate damage, and infectious fissures. Even that merely scratches the surface. Nonviral infections transmitted through homosexual activity include gonorrhea, chlamydia, and syphilis. Viral infections involve condylomata, herpes, and hepatitis A and B. While there are attendant moral and medical problems with sexual promiscuity in general, it would be homophobic in the extreme to obscure the scientific realities concerning homosexuality. It is a hate crime of unparalleled proportions to attempt to keep a whole segment of the population in the dark concerning such issues. Thus, far from demonstrating that the Bible is out of step with the times, its warnings regarding homosexuality demonstrate that it is as relevant today as it was in the beginning. — Hank Hanegraaff ***************** Hank's my boy!!
|
|
|
Beliefs
Sept 22, 2006 14:25:17 GMT -5
Post by Doan the Nado on Sept 22, 2006 14:25:17 GMT -5
Yeah, I had intended to reply to that (and several other and others' comments) as well. So let me start from where I left off. I am only going to say anything about posts which stick out to me, so if I haven't mentioned a certain post, either I agree with it, or I feel that I have already discussed it fully enough. Liberal tolerance is a sham. Although portrayed by its advocates as an open, tolerant, and neutral perspective, it is a dogma whose proponents tolerate no rivals. Those of us who are concerned with presenting and defending our faith in a post-Christian culture must be aware of this sort of challenge, one that masquerades as open, tolerant, and liberating, but in reality is dogmatic, partisan, and coercive. This is an interesting quote, but I cannot help but feel that it is off-base. It is obviously the opinion of someone who does not exhibit "liberal tolerance", and therefore the author of the quote does not know the thinking of a liberally tolerant individual. My question is, does he actually say anything? He makes some accusations about tolerance, calling it a "sham" and a "dogma", yet he offers no reasons for his statements. A dogma is "a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle". If championing the idea of contemplating all ideas fairly and equally is considered a dogma, then I am happy to be dogmatic. "Liberally tolerant" individuals merely endeavor to let sleeping dogs lie and to listen to all sides of an argument before making their own decisions. This is in stark contrast to religious zealots (I'm not calling anyone here a "zealot", but I hope everyone agrees that they are out there), who try to convert others to their beliefs without any real reason to (except proclaimed "love" for that invidividual), and who dogmatically hold their own beliefs under the assumption that everything they have been told by their religious officials is the absolute truth, so anyone else's opinion is unimportant. On the opposite end of the spectrum is the absolute follower, who will believe anything that anyone tells them, and change their mind with the weather. Liberal tolerance lies somewhere between these extremes: such an individual has their own belief system and believes that each individual is entitled to his or her own beliefs as well. A social liberal also believes that everyone should be able to live their lives the way they want unless it infringes on someone else's ability to do so. That sounds a lot to me like "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". A liberal individual typically has core beliefs that center on treating people fairly and respecting others. This is what typically never changes. On the fringes of those beliefs is a "gray area", where various issues are not clear. In my experience, most liberals listen to the opinions of others, look for themselves at empirical evidence, add in their own hypotheses, and then make a judgement for themselves on what is right. How can that be worse than simply believing what you have been told? Wow, that took longer than expected, and now it's off to my next class. I will resume this topic later.
|
|
|
Beliefs
Sept 22, 2006 15:30:16 GMT -5
Post by nerussentia on Sept 22, 2006 15:30:16 GMT -5
My beliefs are composed of religions from the old ages. Paganism and thing related. Many stereotype Satanism like its a group of destructive people bent on killing mankind, but you couldn't be more wrong. If you want to listen then sit down and have some coffee please as I explain my lifestyle and beliefs and how they both intersect. Now Paganism (mostly thought to be anti-christian folks, but really don't care) is a religion not at all based on witchcraft. Yes many pagans such as I do practice herbal remedies, astral projection, and the arcane arts. There is multiple gods and goddesses unlike wicca where there is one of each. I tried wicca, but paganism in general seemed to suit me better. I do not believe in heaven, hell, god, satan, whoever. I do believe in Lucifer (the archangel, not the devil), Antichrist, Jesus Christ, and many others. I belive we all have a choice of reincarnation, wondering the earth as a spirit, or living in the Dead Realm as my coven likes to call it. Now Satanism fits in, but not what you're thinking. One of my best friends is a full blown Satanist and he's not all "kill everyone and spill the blood" kind of person. They don't even believe in that ... "then what makes them satanic?" well its because they sin and don't repent and don't care. Thats what classifies them satanic. They don't burn churches, don't kill infants, don't terrorize christians. I was raised Catholic, but couldn't stand it so reversed my baptism. The priest hesitated, but I compelled him to the max. There is no seven deadly sins to me... Smoking to a catholic is gluttony (hamrful to oneself), but I smoke a pack a day and so to my parents I am a glutton. I basically like to believe I draw all life and power from nature around me and that mother nature is giving me love and keeping me here.
|
|
|
Beliefs
Sept 22, 2006 18:36:10 GMT -5
Post by Doan the Nado on Sept 22, 2006 18:36:10 GMT -5
So my thoughts, there is absolute truth out there somewhere but I feel we are too confined by our physical bodies to know anything more than it exists. Really it is impossible to experience something outside of our sensory limitations, and even then we still have how our brain works to contend with. So really everthing we do or think is in some sense subjective. Things maybe be practically objective, aka facts, if believed by a large enough population. But it is important to note facts are disputable. I agree that there must be an absolute truth, in that history is absolute: it either happened or it didn't. Of course, 1984 argues that history only exists in our minds and that if we can convince everything of a different history and destroy all evidence, then we have changed history. I disagree, and think this is simply a notion that is based on a certain definition of history. True historians are trying to uncover the truth, and that is in physical, impartial evidence such as fossil records. What has already happened is immutable, and represents one aspect of absolute truth. Of course, you weren't really talking about that aspect of absolute truth, but I think it brings up a good point. I think that we can know the absolute truth. The problem is that we cannot be sure that we know the truth. That is, on some certain issue facing our society, there is likely someone in the world (or more than one person) who knows the absolute right thing that should be done. The problem is recognizing it. I have just seen too many times where some clever person has said "Hey, this is what should be done," and it made so much sense that there was no doubt that it was the right course of action. On that note, I believe that the truth is out there, and part of the goal of life is to seek that truth. On a related note, by narrowing your (not you, TTC, but anyone) viewpoint to a single belief and not considering all sides, you hamper your ability to seek the absolute truth, instead believing a truth that was written down thousands of years ago and translated numerous times. Moreover, there is a distinct possibility that it was all created by man, anyways, and while the ideas may have been very wise and true at the time, much has changed in our society in the intervening years (we can now safely eat pork, can't we?). This is a good point, and it indicates to me that there is some merit in a topic like this, as long as it stays civil and remains in the form of an open debate. I will come back to this shortly... Each person is gifted with but one life, and with that life they are free to do whatever they please. I don't support murder, rape, robbing, etc. What I do support is people sticking with what they believe in, enforcing it upon themselves, and not trying to sway others into it, and them living their lives to the upmost. I can't stand those who try pushing opinions, ideas, religions, beliefs, or anything of the sort onto another. If a person decides to use the same ideas or what not on their own terms, super, go them! Very nice, doyleman. I couldn't agree more with this notion. By imposing artificial, pointless restrictions on those who believe differently than you do, you are not improving anyone's life. You are simply hampering someone else's ability to live their life the way they would like to, when that lifestyle is doing no real harm to anyone else. One good example of this that I like to think of is the Native Americans. In my opinion, they led a very noble, good life: they respected nature, lived in harmony with it, many were largely peaceful, and they had an altogether fulfilling life. Then English and others came and began colonizing and trying to convert these "pagans", showing that they were the true barbarians by stealing their land and starting fights with them. Look at how we are living today, and at how the American Indians lived 500 years ago, and ask yourself who was living the more moral, better life? That is just one consequence of a group of people imposing their beliefs on another. Truth is truth, I know that's hard to swallow in this post modern era of relativism and with the sad state of education(run by feminist and feminized males) Do you really expect us to take you seriously with a statement like that? You say that education is "run by feminist and feminized males": what does that have to do with relativism, for one, and why would you make a statement like that anyways when it has no grounding in the truth? I had no teachers in high school who were "feminists"; on the contrary, they largely held traditional beliefs. While education is in a sad state, that is largely intentional, and is part of the educational bureaucracy that was set up at the beginning of the 20th century. "the president of Columbia's teacher's college, Dean Russell, in 1908, in the keynote speech to the NEA, said that there was a tremendous danger that too many leader's would be produced, and it would cause a collapse in the system." That is a quote from teacher John Taylor Gatto from a radio interview on We the People radio. I highly recommend reading that transcript, following the "Back" link, and reading the other article. The things he says about education are very insightful and make a lot of sense, not that they have a whole lot to do with the debate at hand. Wow, where to begin? First of all, I have been a college student for five years now, and I do not believe that I have been indoctrinated with any beliefs. I took a class in Philosophy where we read "The Republic" and talked about how Justice may be "the good", and what the ideal government would be. I had a Greek History class last spring where we talked about the various philosophies of ancient Greece, and one of them was relativism. The professor basically shot down the idea by saying "a poisonous food is deadly no matter what you may think it is", and went on to point out the philosophies that actually made sense. One thing that I have learned not only in college but in my interactions everywhere is the importance of openmindedness and respect. In your days on this earth, unless you live in a hole or a convent, you will encounter thousands, or even millions of people who have different customs, beliefs, and behavior than you do. There are hundreds of religions in the world, and even in Christianity, there are dozens of divisions. This amounts to the fact that your belief system represents that of perhaps 0.1% of the world's population, but likely much less. Moreover, you likely believe the same thing your parents believed, or the same thing that the majority of your local society believes. That being said, what if you were born somewhere else, in an entirely different situation? What I'm trying to say is that you basically have a 1 in 1000 chance (at best) of believing what you believe. What is so special about you that makes you right and those other 999 people wrong. It is ideas like this that motivate tolerance for all cultures and religions, even in spite of following your own beliefs. Taken a little farther, one can understand the mindset of an agnostic/atheist: with tens of thousands of different belief systems, what is the chance that you will choose the right one that will get you into Heaven? Definitely less than 1%. I would rather do what I think is right, think things through for myself, treat everyone with respect (or avoid them if they don't respect me), and hope for the best, rather than trying to find an existing belief system that "works for me" and will get me into Heaven. Okay, therein lies the problem. There is a huge difference between relativism and tolerance. When the hypothetical teacher claims that "no one has the truth", she is clearly following the relativistic viewpoint, which is very old-fashioned (it came long before Christianity), and which most true intellects do not believe. There are obviously absolute truths: the speed of light in a vacuum in our universe is always 3 x 10^8 m/s or 186,000 mi/s, 1 ft is always 12 inches, and so on. Again, relativism and tolerance are two different things. When you are tolerant but not relativistic, you believe that someone somewhere likely knows the true good for any given situation, but that there is a distinct possibility that you are not that person. In order to claim that you are that person, you should have solid evidence. See how this doesn't even seem like an argument anymore? Obviously, a tolerant person would believe that a fellow student may hold the truth, and listening to them is certainly worth their time. A strict believer has no reason to believe that what they have been told is wrong, so they would be the ones who are likely to ignore them; as for relativism, I'm not really sure. I can see why they might not listen, but on the other hand, if everything is relative, shouldn't you experience everything before choosing your own beliefs? That is, food taste is accepted as relative, but when someone says that a dish is really good, you will likely listen and try it out yourself to see what you think. Any good relativist, in my mind, would do the same. Whoa, whoa, whoa, here we go. You have completely converted the idea of relativism into one of tolerance. As I have mentioned, that are nothing close to the same thing, and by presenting an argument against relativism, you have done nothing to keep me from being tolerant. Who is "they"? Us? The fact that we are listening to you and debating with you indicates that we are interested in your viewpoint. The problem is not that I don't believe such a case is possible, it's just that I haven't seen any solid evidence, any "carefully wrought case" to show me that the homosexual lifestyle is damaging society as a whole. Comments like this make me lose interest in what you're saying and sound a lot like right-wing propaganda. Homophobia can be translated into "fear of homosexuals". How is this a made up word? I mean, it is really a bastardization of "homosexualphobia", since "homophobia" literally means "fear of same", but there are hundreds of bastardizations like that in our language, and moreover, every word is made up anyways. As for "the liberal left" throwing it around, the phrase "liberal left" is a phrase the conservatives like to say to discount anything they don't believe in. The idea that there is a "liberal left" and "conservative right" is stupid anyways (although I have used it a bit here, myself). In most countries, there are more than two political parties, and even more, there is a huge difference between being socially conservative and being economically conservative. The Democrats in our country are actually pretty socially and economically moderate, while the Republicans slant more towards being conservative on both counts. We don't really have any liberalism in power whatsoever, at least in my opinion. A couple questions: it says that Covey is the "Executive Director, Midwest AIDS Prevention Project and City Councilman". Is he gay? Does he lead a gay lifestyle? The article may appear in homosexual newsweekly to show gays the opinion that outsiders have of their culture, not of the true nature of their lifestyle. I for one highly doubt that a Michigan City Councilman is gay, but I could be wrong. Strangely enough, even if Craig Covey is a respected member of the gay community, the article still does nothing for me except to show that gays are more responsible than we give them credit for. When someone steps up and says, "Hey, we're doing something wrong here, let's fix it," that is a courageous, responsible thing to do. It surely seems quite the opposite of dangerous. Remember when quoting the Bible that it has been translated numerous times. There have been documented instances of things being both taken out and added, either accidentally or on purpose. Even if the original Bible is God's truth, who's to say that some Pope didn't have an agenda, or that "homosexual" was actually a mistranslation? The things you mention (isolation, etc) would not be an issue whatsoever if homosexuality was not frowned upon. If you love a woman, you can pursue her, and if she loves you back, you can spend your lives together without being chastised. If you are gay, and you have found another man that you truly love, and he loves you back, you have to make a conscious decision to go against society's derision and current laws in order to be together. Are the negative things you mentioned a result of homosexuality, or a result of intolerant individuals preventing someone from living the life that makes them happy? As for "living outside God's will", it seems more to me that the problem is "living outside the rule of those who are in power". I do not obey God's will (actually, I believe that hardly anyone does), and I am quite happy at present. The reason my life is fine is that I'm not doing anything that is viewed by society as being outside the scope of "normal" behavior. Please consider your cause-and-effect here, as I believe it is a bit flawed. Your post that follows, TTC, has many good points in it, too many to point out. I especially liked your description of why human opinions must be subjective, and also that the weakest argument is the unchallenged one. Anyway, where was I? Oh yeah... you're all wrong, especially kenny. Kenny, you're just weird. BloodKnight: that is highly unacceptable here. I wish I had gotten to it sooner, as I would have mentioned it long ago. Calling someone weird or "especially wrong" in a post about beliefs is highly insensitive and only leads to hurt feelings and anger. Please avoid this in the future. here's some more food for thought since a lot of you sound like you already hate me, I'll go all in. I, personally, have not seen any hate at all. I have seen people who disagreed with your viewpoint and argued against it, but I have seen no real hate. To claim that someone who opposes you hates you is both accusatory and actually somewhat fascist. This is a problem with the current state of politics in America, where dissent is sometimes viewed as anti-patriotic or even criminal. Wait a minute here. I still do not understand this perceived difference between one thing in the Bible which should no longer hold and another that should. What does the Bible say about divorce? I think divorce has had a much more profound impact on our society than homosexuality has. The divorce rate floats somewhere around 40-50% of all marriages ( link), and coming from a divorced family, I can certainly attest to the psychological stresses that come from such a situation. And yet we hear nothing about the evils of divorce. Why is that? It is because an English King (someone in power) several hundred years ago said that it was okay, so it must be. Besides, with all those divorced people (and actually conservative states have a 27% higher rate), any condemnation of divorce would certainly see people lashing back. Do you still think that the issue of homosexuals in America is a moral one, or is it just another tactic by an increasingly oppressive government who is interested mainly in maintaining the status quo? Wow, so our merciful, forgiving God is punishing people on Earth for their acts? So someone who marries and then copulates with an individual with AIDS is receving God's wrath? AIDS is a punishment from God? The fact is that bad things happen to good people all the time, and it is easy to point at one thing and say that it is punishment for living wrongly, and then use that as a reason for your belief that such a life is wrong. No Cleveland sports team has won a championship in over 50 years: God must not be happy with Cleveland. Steve Irwin died in a freak accident: he must have been a homosexual abortionist. Seriously, who decides what is punishment and what is simply life on Earth carrying on as usual? And the vast majority of those people are heterosexual. In fact, a huge percentage of those deaths are in Africa, where there is sub-par health and education about the danger of AIDS, and where homosexuality is very, very low (sorry, no numbers, but you can check for yourself). Furthermore, the AIDS virus has been extensively studied and its roots have been traced back to animals a long ways back: it is no different from a virus like the West Nile Virus which has simply evolved to the point that it could survive in a human host in the same manner that it began in some animal somewhere. Sorry, but I don't see the God in that, and I think that argument is bogus.
|
|
|
Beliefs
Sept 23, 2006 1:08:23 GMT -5
Post by Bigfoot on Sept 23, 2006 1:08:23 GMT -5
We should just close this topic and not make a religion/beliefs topic again. We don't need it here.
|
|
|
Beliefs
Sept 23, 2006 11:16:14 GMT -5
Post by BloodKnight on Sept 23, 2006 11:16:14 GMT -5
Forgive me Doan, for I did not know that blatant humor wasn't acceptable. I'll remember that.
Let's ditch that for a more mature, aggressive and debatable tone.
I don't see homosexuality as being wrong. I do see it however, as a "dead-end" type of lifestyle, one that does not harbor long-term enrichment for many reasons. That does not mean I find it "unnatural", because I've met people who had learned spiritual lessons as a result of being gay, to TRULY love and accept their fellow man, and I'm personally proud to find such people, regardless of their preferences.
I think gay people(and many confused) should take their lives and reflect on what they do what they do. They should see their preferences not as a category in some book or an excuse from their choices, but an opportunity to learn what it truly means to love everyone, as Christ has done. I believe that, people who "bash" such a lifestyle aren't looking at the whole picture, as a bunch of people who are confused about life, isn't everyone guilty of that?
I believe the bible is nothing more but a mistranslation of messages from higher powers. I think Christ was trying to teach us the power of consciousness(when he rose from the dead), to accept everyone and to grow beyond what we think is possible, to the point where gaining power is not an objective, but a duty in order to help others in the world. Unfortunately, few texts agree with this and in turn, twist various messages to suit the communities in charge at the time of translation. When you think with a clear and loving mind, the true messages appear in the bible. But as with all man-made text, you must be objective as they were made by humans.
When I see someone cite a source from any medium without an objective opinion, I think they've been swayed. A lot of conditions are created with many factors and to limit such perception to one or few is absurd. As they say, death begins in the colon.
When I look at what people posted here, I think that what we have here is a pile of clay with a few golden nuggets laid in. I find many of these beliefs to be dry, without clarity. But I also think that if we all were to come together, we could come up with many concepts with which could enrich all our lives. I see that as being very unlikely.
|
|
|
Beliefs
Sept 30, 2006 23:46:05 GMT -5
Post by nerussentia on Sept 30, 2006 23:46:05 GMT -5
Who knew that religion made such a big impact on our lives? No one thinks about it at all until it is brought up like here. It influences us and we never realize it. We're fighting and arguing constantly and using facts that mankind hypothesized, but never theorized or proved right. What you believe is you're belief. You are yourself, I am myself.
|
|
|
Post by realitybites on Oct 1, 2006 0:16:31 GMT -5
Well putting my two cents in, not much to say, im a little mad about the homosexuality thing for my father is gay, and he is a great man. And saying that he lives a "dangerous lifestyle" kinda makes me pissed off, I say we should not have anymore religion topics(Im also Jewish too, don't practice it but my relatives where in the holocaust. To compare the horrific things my great aunts and uncles had to go through with the present lifestyles is wrong in my opinon, even though yes it is true homosexuals do not have the ability to have a same sex marriage, plus in my opinon Christians make up things to try to convert even thoug h I see nothing wrong with someone liking the same sex.And uhh frankly I don't see how homosexuality is really the jews of are time, I only know a limited few who really give two s about a lifestyle.) So I say NO more RELIGION topics, its too personal and a little offending to some,a little me right now, actually im very agiatated right now. Just my two cents
|
|
|
Post by BloodKnight on Oct 1, 2006 0:47:39 GMT -5
There are very few people who can actually discuss this kind of stuff without blowing up. But that's how people are I guess.
|
|
|
Post by Rodak on Oct 1, 2006 5:55:15 GMT -5
You should see what would have happened if I came in and started talking about how ALL religion is Destructive and breeds intolerance!!
Monotheism is a [censored] idea!!!
It just doesn't make sense!!!
And what about all these so called Religious Holidays?
They were stolen from the Pagans!! (I fancy myself a Born Again Pagan!)
Why do you think Easter and Christmas are near the solstices??
It helped to convert the Pagans who already celebrated these things!
I could go on.
But I won't.
Yes I will.
The Book of Tao states this:
There is Something that has existed since long before This Universe began, and will continue to exist long after it is gone.
I do not know what it is.
But I shall call it Tao.
And Hail it as Supreme.
Now THAT's the way to approach these things!
I would not hail it as Supreme just for being old, but I like the rest!!
|
|
|
Beliefs
Oct 1, 2006 17:48:56 GMT -5
Post by vespuleth on Oct 1, 2006 17:48:56 GMT -5
I was supposed to respond to this a long time ago. I forgot. perhaps I will in the future. Perhaps I won't. I will say a few things now.
First, I think that wrestling with religion is a necessary and unavoidable part of any community, even an online one. Your fooling yourself if you think we can say 'no one ever talk about what they believe'. Belief is an intricate part of a functional life; if your belief's don't affect the way you live, then you probably don't believe them. That being said, people will eventually come to the discussion of belief to work to understand why people do what they do. It's a part of relating. It's a part of adulthood. It's a part of diversity. You will have to talk to people about belief in life, and you will even have to agree to disagree with some.
Second, and more pointedly toward Rodak:
Ponder this quote (it's actually an old buddhist quote):
God made man in his own image--man returned the favor.
Just figured you might like that. I know I do. I could be totally wrong.
Peace.
|
|
|
Beliefs
Oct 1, 2006 18:47:47 GMT -5
Post by nerussentia on Oct 1, 2006 18:47:47 GMT -5
You should see what would have happened if I came in and started talking about how ALL religion is Destructive and breeds intolerance!! Monotheism is a [censored] idea!!! It just doesn't make sense!!! And what about all these so called Religious Holidays? They were stolen from the Pagans!! (I fancy myself a Born Again Pagan!) Why do you think Easter and Christmas are near the solstices?? It helped to convert the Pagans who already celebrated these things! I could go on. But I won't. Yes I will. The Book of Tao states this: There is Something that has existed since long before This Universe began, and will continue to exist long after it is gone.
I do not know what it is.
But I shall call it Tao.
And Hail it as Supreme.
Now THAT's the way to approach these things! I would not hail it as Supreme just for being old, but I like the rest!! I'd love to find out that I was reincarnated a while back. Even as a child Catholicism never seemed to stike me well... Believable. Many may believe that these so called "God and Christ" ruled the earth with an iron fist and struck down those who deny them, but my beliefs are "Don't repent, live life and be happy" whether its a bad lifestyle or not. I don't like to convert others either. I just speak my words. Also people speak of ancient "books" or "bibles", but the original copies were lost a long time ago, so wheres the proof anything happened at all. If you're offended by my words, I apologize and feel free to flame me as much as you please.
|
|
|
Beliefs
Oct 1, 2006 21:19:08 GMT -5
Post by NASH7777 on Oct 1, 2006 21:19:08 GMT -5
I say we should not have anymore religion topics This topic was not really to be a religion topic. It was for me to see where most people stand. Not for people to argue about this and that. I wanted to see what religion or beliefs we had, and what influences caused us to have them. I'm sorry some have taken this outta hand.
|
|
|
Post by thetruecoolness on Oct 2, 2006 2:17:49 GMT -5
Well you find out quite a lot more that way, than everyone just sharing their beliefs. Most of us will comfortably go around keeping out beliefs until they are challenged. I know I welcome challenges to my beliefs, though at some point I will more than likely reach a conclusion with the person to agree to disagree, but sometimes someone else's beliefs will alter mine (though only if I feel it's correct as well).
Now of course what one must be careful of in arguments/debates is to not do what Drew did, make them personal. This is where things stop being friendly debates and turn into wars and such. It's ok to defend your belief but don't take all evidence against your belief as a personal attack on your character. Just because someone finds a flaw in your belief system does not mean it is not the right choice for you.
So I think it's fine to keep this discussion as long as everyone remembers we are discussing the beliefs and their merits to ourselves, not the people believing them. I know it's a hard thing to do as many of us feel our beliefs are what define us, but that is really not the case. Beliefs merely define who we are at a certain time, as beliefs are malleable and can change, and probably should. Most of our beliefs come from our current knowledge and understanding of the world, so taking on new knowledge, or different perspectives on life can change our beliefs, or strengthen the ones we have.
So talking about beliefs should be nothing to get offended over, it's just one person perspective on the world. We should try to keep this conversation at the philosophical and logical level, and try not to let emotion enter into the discussion as that is normally where animosity, and dejection come into play. Really what we are all trying to get out is the base principles that make up our life, what is really behind things. Like the study that homosexuality is a dangerous lifestyle. A couple of people observed that homosexuals have this list of things that normal healthy people didn't (now not all of them, but a statistically significant amount, meaning at least majority + 1 more than likely). But they neglected to look at why, or at least to acknowledge, they did not want to dig deeper. If they would have they would have seen that popularized homosexual practices are dangerous, not being homosexual in and of itself. As it would be hard to deny that sodomy is not unhealthy, just as it would be difficult to say that promiscuity is without it's health risks. But to attach this to only homosexuals would be not getting to the root cause of this unhealthiness, which many people who are not homosexual also participate in.
So beliefs are something to be shared and talked about, and debated. They really shouldn't be something to yell at people over, or fight over. I think Dogma put it best when they said don't have a belief, have an idea.
This is also does not to lead to healthy discussion "If you're offended by my words, I apologize and feel free to flame me as much as you please.". So no one should get offended by what is said here, if you don't like what someone said feel free to defend your belief citing evidence and logical conclusions from that evidence. Really it is hard to have real discussion if everyone is afraid of offending everyone else. Obviously it would be blind to think that no one will feel hurt by someone else's belief, but you also must be fair to them to give them the right to believe what they do, as long as it is not because someone else told them so, or just because. Believing things for these reasons is not really belief at all, but blind following.
So I think it is fine to have this discussion as long as we can remain mature about it, or maybe even better than that. Also you must expect people to have rebuttals to your ideas, as it is foolish to think everyone will have the same beliefs as there are as many beliefs as there are people.
So just remember to keep a cool head in here, don't flame anyone as this is a discussion about beliefs, not the people who believe them. Remember, Political Correctness is the death of real debate, and freedom.
|
|
|
Post by Bigfoot on Oct 2, 2006 3:32:16 GMT -5
Very nice post TTC, I'll think I will clean up my behavior a bit. Sorry if I offended anyone. I have a tendancy to act before I think. Anyways I just want to clear up what my beliefs really are. Honestly, all my life, I was pretty much in the center of everything. I pretty much fit in everywhere, and in everything. While everyone was in there "click", I just hung out with poeple from each "group". I was never identified as something, I was just always myself. And my view on religion is not a deep one, its quite simple. I just think that religion is used to be a good person, or whatever kind of person that whatever certain religion models you to be. Quite honestly I don't think I need religion for this. I will look to myself on what I think is right or wrong. And no, I don't think being a christian, morman, or whatever doesn't give you that option. I'm not much of a deep thinker, but if there is a god that would banish me just because my views on life are different that what he views on how humanity should live, then thats a god I wouldn't want to live with. In my views, I see many problems and discomforts with many religions, and I just feel more comfortable with my own beliefs. *now heres where the real bigfoot talk comes in.* I wouldn't call myself an athiest, since most athiests I know are all "Where was God during hurricane katrina? Where was God when my sister died!? See there is no God.* Bla bla bla.... Honestly, do you want God to wipe your ass or hold your when you pee? Its statements like that which I find utterly retarded. Another reason I don't conisider myself an athiest, because athiests believe there is no God, and that isn't my case. I just don't think about it, because honestly, I have better things to do than to worry about where I'm gonna go where I die. Quite honestly, the concept of Christianity is a brilliant one! They give you the idea (note the word idea, not belief) that all poeple who do not believe or know of Jesus goes to hell... Great way to spread the word of Jesus. I hate it when poeple go all deep into what "they" believe, because usually I think its...... kinda gay.... Just note that my beliefs aren't a deep ones, and one I don't even think about it until something like this pops up.
|
|
|
Post by Rodak on Oct 2, 2006 5:28:58 GMT -5
Nic Quote, Vespuleth!
I can't say that I agree with any anthropomorphizing of god, but it is one step closer to open mindedness than most religions!
You know me, though...
I STILL support a Total Ban on All ORGANIZED Religion!
TAX THE CHURCHES!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Beliefs
Oct 6, 2006 15:35:53 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2006 15:35:53 GMT -5
"I wouldn't call myself an athiest, since most athiests I know are all "Where was God during hurricane katrina? Where was God when my sister died!? See there is no God.* Bla bla bla.... Honestly, do you want God to wipe your ass or hold your when you pee? Its statements like that which I find utterly retarded."
Wait till it happens to you then see if that's how you feel.
|
|
|
Beliefs
Oct 6, 2006 16:57:32 GMT -5
Post by Bigfoot on Oct 6, 2006 16:57:32 GMT -5
That will never be the case. Because I don't even have a heavy dependancy on God in the first place. I'd find more reasonable things to blame, like the actual murderers, natural disasters, etc. The actual cause.
Do I believe if there was a God would he put a stop to all the wrong in the world? No, I'm sorry Will, but I think most poeple need a more realistic stance on issues like this. We all know about your ill disease, and I have no intention of provoking you when I say what you quoted.
|
|