does religion/God give people a voice?

[Eman Resu]

Why this demand for an absolute? You can have a sense of justice and mercy without an absolute. We do live in a world of moral relativism, and justice changes all the time, new laws are made. But relativism doesn't mean bad, indeed in the West laws have mostly improved. There has to be more than logic and good stories, there has to be empirical confirmation.


Why? Medieval man had no empirical confirmation of gravity, yet he didn't simply float away into space. Why "must" there be empirical confirmation? That's the equal to saying, "there must be Faith." Both arguments are at once meaningless and absolute.

For some, there must be empirical confirmation; for others, there must be Faith. Neither conflicts with the other, from the Big Bang forward. It's as easy to say that God created the Big Bang - and hence the physical universe - as it is to say, "it happened by accident." An accident is what happens when some fool is texting while driving his chariot, and he runs over a physicist; creation (or "Creation" if one prefers) is another matter entirely. Speaking of "matter" since it can't be created by forces known empirically (even I remember the law of conservation of matter), something beyond the "natural" explicable world must have created it. When we rule out the Loch Ness Monster, the Tooth Fairy, and the Honest Barrister, we're left with only one option: God.

[mal4mac]

Because if there is no absolute than no belief is better than another one. It just can't be in a world of moral relativism. To say one thing is better than another is an absolute statement. Then, beliefs are neither good nor bad. They're relative. Why would you ever want to live in a world where murder or rape is neither good nor bad?

"The sun is going to rise tomorrow" is a relative belief. A cosmic disaster might destroy the earth before tomorrow. But, like everyone else, I certainly live my life as if I'm going to see another day. In a similar way, I hold rape and murder to be wrong, and changing my mind about that is going to be as hard as changing my mind about the sun not rising tomorrow. All beliefs are relative, but that's no reason not to hold them very strongly.

[SentimentalSlop]

"The sun is going to rise tomorrow" is a relative belief. A cosmic disaster might destroy the earth before tomorrow. But, like everyone else, I certainly live my life as if I'm going to see another day. In a similar way, I hold rape and murder to be wrong, and changing my mind about that is going to be as hard as changing my mind about the sun not rising tomorrow. All beliefs are relative, but that's no reason not to hold them very strongly.

You hold rape and murder to be wrong, good for you. But there are people out there who find all sorts of logical reasons why rape and murder are not wrong. What are you going to say to those people?

[cacian]

[QUOTE=cacian;1242782]

1) Animal and human instincts are similar a lot of the time, but we must be stronger than our instincts.

2) You're being vague. What doesn't make sense?

3) The whole victim thing is entirely untrue, by the way.

4) Usually the simplest answer is the right one.

let's rephrase that as instinct is different from that of a human. if you cannot see it then i cannot help you. ou must help yourself. may be the bible can shed some light on it.

[mal4mac]

Why? Medieval man had no empirical confirmation of gravity, yet he didn't simply float away into space. Why "must" there be empirical confirmation?

To be effective we need good theories, and we can only see that these theories are good by using empirical methods. Medieval man couldn't float away into space because he had bad theories, modern man could, using spacecraft, because he had good theories.



For some, there must be empirical confirmation; for others, there must be Faith. Neither conflicts with the other, from the Big Bang forward. It's as easy to say that God created the Big Bang - and hence the physical universe - as it is to say, "it happened by accident."

To say "God caused the Big Bang" is to cut short the possibility of further scientific investigation, such as the speculative theories of "universe from nothing", "multiverse", and so on. The church has always tried to put a halt to scientific speculation, trying to shut up Galileo because the Earth "must" be still, or Darwin because God "must" be the designer. The Roman catholic church is a bit cleverer than tea party fundies, these days, but here you reveal it is still encouraging scientific backwardness by suggesting God "must" have caused the Big Bang. If you then say "God caused whatever the physicists eventually discover that came before the Big Bang", then you are still left with an enigma: what caused God?

[cacian]

[QUOTE=cacian;1242782]

1) Animal and human instincts are similar a lot of the time, but we must be stronger than our instincts.

2) You're being vague. What doesn't make sense?

3) The whole victim thing is entirely untrue, by the way.

4) Usually the simplest answer is the right one.

let's just rephrase that again an animal instinct is different from that of a human. if you cannot see that then I cannot help you.
you must help yourself or check with the bible.

usually the simplest answer is the correct one. whether it is right or not is another matter. right or wrong is neither here or there.
and as the saying goes: it is for me to know and it is for you to find out.
that is the correct way to any answer. right has nothing to do with it you may as well ask whether the question is the right one too in which case my answer is does it really matter? I have asked it and that is good enough.
so does religion give people a voice? the answer is no it does not.
that is a question with a correct answer.

[Eman Resu]

To be effective we need good theories, and we can only see that these theories are good by using empirical methods. Medieval man couldn't float away into space because he had bad theories, modern man could, using spacecraft, because he had good theories.



To say "God caused the Big Bang" is to cut short the possibility of further scientific investigation, such as the speculative theories of "universe from nothing", "multiverse", and so on. The church has always tried to put a halt to scientific speculation, trying to shut up Galileo because the Earth "must" be still, or Darwin because God "must" be the designer. The Roman catholic church is a bit cleverer than tea party fundies, these days, but here you reveal it is still encouraging scientific backwardness by suggesting God "must" have caused the Big Bang. If you then say "God caused whatever the physicists eventually discover that came before the Big Bang", then you are still left with an enigma: what caused God?

Causation is the bailiwick of science; "God always was, and always will be," is the Christian answer to the multiverse extrapolation.

Just remember that Galileo was absolved - after 359 years of fire and brimstone, suddenly, in 1992

*POOF*

wings and an harp.














Y'ask me, I'd have held out for Guinness; Harp's just too light for my tastes.

[mal4mac]

You hold rape and murder to be wrong, good for you. But there are people out there who find all sorts of logical reasons why rape and murder are not wrong. What are you going to say to those people?

I'd avoid them, and wouldn't give them a platform, if I had a platform. If they tried to put their nasty views into action I'd lock 'em up. These people were around in Christian societies, whatever you had to say wasn't effective.

[mal4mac]

Causation is the bailiwick of science; "God always was, and always will be," is the Christian answer to the multiverse extrapolation.

I can see "Universe always was, and always will be," as a reasonable extrapolation beyond the multiverse hypothesis, but why bring God into it?

[mal4mac]

Light interlude:

There was a preacher who fell in the ocean and he couldn't swim. When a boat came by, the captain yelled, "Do you need help, sir?" The preacher calmly said "No, God will save me." A little later, another boat came by and a fisherman asked, "Hey, do you need help?" The preacher replied again, "No God will save me." Eventually the preacher drowned & went to heaven. The preacher asked God, "Why didn't you save me?" God replied, "Fool, I sent you two boats!"

[SentimentalSlop]

I'd avoid them, and wouldn't give them a platform, if I had a platform. If they tried to put their nasty views into action I'd lock 'em up. These people were around in Christian societies, whatever you had to say wasn't effective.

So you'd just avoid the problem and throw them in prison? Not that they shouldn't be in prison, but problems need to be addressed in order to prevent further incidences.

Such people have always been around. Christians have changed the hearts of many, but some people don't want to listen. How can you get through to someone if they don't even want to participate?

[Eman Resu]

I can see the "Universe always was, and always will be," as a reasonable extrapolation beyond the multiverse hypothesis, by why bring God into it?

Why not? He put us here; the least we can do is invite Him to the party.

;)

[SentimentalSlop]

I can see the "Universe always was, and always will be," as a reasonable extrapolation beyond the multiverse hypothesis, by why bring God into it?

The universe might not always be here, and maybe the other universes may eventually go away, too. But Christians believe God is immortality. He has no beginning or end, but material things do.

[cacian]

Why not? He put us here; the least we can do is invite Him to the party.

;)

true but then maybe god has his own entourage and folks on earth are just mere second class citizens . god does look down on humans and humans look up right?

[SentimentalSlop]

[QUOTE=SentimentalSlop;1242784]

let's just rephrase that again an animal instinct is different from that of a human. if you cannot see that then I cannot help you.
you must help yourself or check with the bible.

usually the simplest answer is the correct one. whether it is right or not is another matter. right or wrong is neither here or there.
and as the saying goes: it is for me to know and it is for you to find out.
that is the correct way to any answer. right has nothing to do with it you may as well ask whether the question is the right one too in which case my answer is does it really matter? I have asked it and that is good enough.
so does religion give people a voice? the answer is no it does not.
that is a question with a correct answer.

1) Of course there are differences, but there are also similarities.

2) How does religion not give people a voice? Please explain. It gives me my voice, a better voice than I had before.

[cafolini]

Why not? He put us here; the least we can do is invite Him to the party.

;)

LOL
It's also the best we can do.

[mona amon]

Volya asks you valid questions. Why not show him Christian respect and address them Sentimental.

Btw Jesus told the people in his sermon on the mount that the old laws would not be changed. So the OT is not obsolete at all and all Christians are therefore hypocrites for not following the word of God.

This is exactly my point about cherry picking. NEWSFLASH: if the OT no longer applies, why the hell do you folk keep quoting the parts that suit you from it????

But you won't kill a homosexual....

I realize that this is from many pages back and that the discussion has moved on (at least as far as any God discussion ever moves on), but I wanted to try and clear up some of the OT/NT confusion -

Most of the confusion arises because of the highly diplomatic way in which the question is handled. No pastoral authority ever wants to come and say straight out that we do not follow the Old Testament any more, probably because Jesus himself was very diplomatic about it. Christianity, like Jainism, buddhism, Sikhism etc is a reformist religion. Jesus himself had no wish to supplant his own religion, Judaism, with a new faith. What he set out to do was to reform, or at least to disseminate his own passionate beliefs, and he did not want to be executed for blasphemy before he had even begun, and in the end he was crucified for just that, but not before he'd had his say. Anyway, I'm NOT trying to be God's spokesperson, like so many others here and in the wide world are doing. That's for each person to decide on their own. We are not living in the dark ages, when only a few learned people had access to the scriptures, and tried to impose their own (often idiotic) interpretation on a gullible public. The Bible is now free for all - literally, with online access and The Gideons and all that.

So, Matthew 5, 17 - “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." - so he starts off with a professed respect for the law, and in the same paragraph starts showing disdain for the Pharisees and interpreters of the law. As the sermon proceeds, he subtly disregards the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" OT laws and substitutes instead his own gospel of mercy and forgiveness. By the end of his life, he'd be proclaiming that He is the fulfillment of the law, the Lord of the Sabboth, The Son of Man, The Christ, the prophesied Messiah.

After all this, if we (those of us who profess to be Christians) insist on being bound by the law, we are like the foolish Galatians whom Paul upbraids so passionately, comparing those who are still under the law to slaves, and telling them that if they want to be enslaved by the law, then Jesus was crucified and died in vain.

Then why is the OT still a part of the Bible? Well, the question of why certain books were chosen for inclusion in the Bible is itself a complicated one and I do not know much about it, but even Christians do not all follow the same books (the Roman Catholic Bible has more books than the one followed by Protestants, for instance), but certainly no one is bound to follow every word in the Bible. That would be impossible anyway, in a work so complex and contradictory.

Secondly, Jesus was Jewish, so we need to know his background in order to understand his teachings. The OT is the root from which Christianity sprung, and roots are important.

Thirdly, Jesus himself and many Christians believe that Jesus's coming was a fulfillment of certain Old Testament prophecies, so that's reason enough to include it.

And most important, there are lots of good things in the OT which Jesus himself never challenged, like the Ten commandments. So there is wheat there as well as tares, and if you try to uproot the tares you could uproot the wheat as well. (Jesus's quote, but in a different context)


Who are you to say that I can't act upon my beliefs? I do everyday.

The OT justified the killing of active homosexuals because it is a sin to act upon such desires, but Christ came not to eradicate the idea that active homosexuality is sinful, but to show mercy to sinners and offer them another way to heaven that is actually possible.

If Christ never said anything for, against, or about homosexuality and indeed never mentioned it at all, how can you conclude that he regarded it as a sin?

[mal4mac]

If Christ never said anything for, against, or about homosexuality and indeed never mentioned it at all, how can you conclude that he regarded it as a sin?

You quoted the passage:

Matthew 5, 17 - “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

From what you say, by abolishing "eye for an eye" he actually contradicted his statement that "not the smallest letter... will disappear from the Law", but if we are as generous as we can be, and assume he actually meant "not the smallest letter, except for the bits I explicitly contradict", then by not saying anything about homosexuality he is tacitly backing the Law on homosexuality as it stands. This, of course, makes him complicit with some of the worst excesses of the Old Testament ogre, and explains why burning heretics & witches could so easily become part of Christian practice, and why Roman Emperors (of all people!) could so easily take up the Christian faith.

[SentimentalSlop]

If Christ never said anything for, against, or about homosexuality and indeed never mentioned it at all, how can you conclude that he regarded it as a sin?

Because he never once mentions marriage consisting of two men or two women. Nowhere in the Bible is it mentioned as such. He mentions it solely as a man/woman relationship.

19 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. 2 Large crowds followed him, and he cured them there.

3 Some Pharisees came to him, and to test him they asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?” 8 He said to them, “It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.”[a]

10 His disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 But he said to them, “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”

[Delta40]

I think it is very convenient to use what Jesus says as a basis for argument as well as what Jesus doesn't say as a basis for argument.

Furthermore, Any God that had to do anything is not omnipotent so having no choice but to put a tree in the garden of Eden completely discredits his almighty power.

Add to that the annoying fact how Christians can answer for God's actions some of the time and not for others.

Constant inconsistencies all the way through

[SentimentalSlop]

Furthermore, Any God that had to do anything is not omnipotent so having no choice but to put a tree in the garden of Eden completely discredits his almighty power.


He didn't have to do anything. Why are you making that argument?

[Delta40]

You said he had to so he wouldn't look like a tyrant.

[SentimentalSlop]

You said he had to so he wouldn't look like a tyrant.

Yeah, so as not to be a tyrant, but he didn't have to choose to give us a choice in the matter. He could have just not even bothered if he really wanted to.

[cafolini]

I think it is very convenient to use what Jesus says as a basis for argument as well as what Jesus doesn't say as a basis for argument.

Furthermore, Any God that had to do anything is not omnipotent so having no choice but to put a tree in the garden of Eden completely discredits his almighty power.

Add to that the annoying fact how Christians can answer for God's actions some of the time and not for others.

Constant inconsistencies all the way through

Yes. And you will kindly tell us what Jesus doesn't say. Right? ROFLMAO

[Delta40]

Yeah, so as not to be a tyrant, but he didn't have to choose to give us a choice in the matter. He could have just not even bothered if he really wanted to.

Lol. He told you that did he?

[Delta40]

Yes. And you will kindly tell us what Jesus doesn't say. Right? ROFLMAO

I don't have a book to read between the lines, pretend what is there, what isn't there and excuse the inexcusable by saying the real meaning was lost in translation!

[mal4mac]

...the least we can do is invite Him to the party.

;)

Nah. He never turns up.

[mal4mac]

He has no beginning or end, but material things do.

How do you know that? The universe might be eternal, many physicists think this might be the case, but they are waiting for the evidence.

[mal4mac]

3 Some Pharisees came to him, and to test him they asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’


So Jesus believes the Genesis account that man & woman sprang into instance through God's magical powers? I thought Roman Catholics accepted evolution?



5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?” 8 He said to them, “It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.”

Here Jesus actually outdoes the Old Testament God in daft science & stupid social practice! One flesh? Genetic analysis has shown that the flesh of men & women retain the same DNA footprint before and after marriage. How on Earth do they become one flesh? I know of several marriages that have become broken beyond repair, divorce is often the best & only solution.

[SentimentalSlop]

Lol. He told you that did he?

What other logical answer is there?


I don't have a book to read between the lines, pretend what is there, what isn't there and excuse the inexcusable by saying the real meaning was lost in translation!

Some things are last in translation, believe it or not.


How do you know that? The universe might be eternal, many physicists think this might be the case, but they are waiting for the evidence.

I'm going by Christian belief. I don't know it. I believe it.


So Jesus believes the Genesis account that man & woman sprang into instance through God's magical powers? I thought Roman Catholics accepted evolution?



Here Jesus actually outdoes the Old Testament God in daft science & stupid social practice! One flesh? Genetic analysis has shown that the flesh of men & women retain the same DNA footprint before and after marriage. How on Earth do they become one flesh? I know of several marriages that have become broken beyond repair, divorce is often the best & only solution.

We could have been. The Genesis story tells us that God first made the earth and the heavens, then there was light and darkness, land and water, the sun and the moon and the stars, then there was fish and other wildlife in the seas and birds, then there was land animals, and finally man and woman. How do we know what "days" really meant here? It could have been millions of years.

About the issue of "one flesh," this website does a pretty good job, I think, explaining the phrase. http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVanswers/2010/07-15.html

[Eman Resu]

Here Jesus actually outdoes the Old Testament God in daft science & stupid social practice!


I hope you're a better scientist than you are a person; actually choosing your words to offend serves nothing.

"And therefore as a stranger give it welcome."

[cafolini]

Faulkner wrote As I Lay Dying. Many of the people on this thread like to write As I Lay Farting, and with each fart they get riper.

[cacian]

I hope you're a better scientist than you are a person; actually choosing your words to offend serves nothing.

"And therefore as a stranger give it welcome."

give it welcome what? :)

[mal4mac]

I hope you're a better scientist than you are a person; actually choosing your words to offend serves nothing.

Oh dear, have you really descended to personal insults, have you run out of arguments? I didn't choose my words to offend, just expressed things as I saw them. If you choose to be offended at a robust argument against the pontifications of a fictional character, then that's up to you. Why so touchy? If you said that David Copperfield, one of my favourite fictional characters was daft, I'd think you were wrong, but I wouldn't be offended. You Christians get so touchy when JC isn't treated as the fount of all wisdom; what next after personal insults, burning heretics?

[Eman Resu]

If you choose to be offended at a robust argument


Really - you feel that, "Here Jesus actually outdoes the Old Testament God in daft science & stupid social practice," is an argument? This adds nothing to the initial question - "...does religion/God give people a voice..." and really only tends to call your own maturity into question.

[mal4mac]

The Genesis story tells us that God first made the earth and the heavens, then there was light and darkness, land and water, the sun and the moon and the stars, then there was fish and other wildlife in the seas and birds, then there was land animals, and finally man and woman. How do we know what "days" really meant here? It could have been millions of years.


But I thought that Roman Catholics accepted that this was just a story, and that science now gives the full picture, that's certainly what the last Pope thought. He said:

"According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5–4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution

[Eman Resu]

But I thought that Roman Catholics accepted that this was just a story, and that science now gives the full picture, that's certainly what the last Pope thought. He said:

"According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5–4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution


I believe that was Pope John Paul II, and not the last Pope, which was Pope Benedict XVI., but I could be mistaken.

[Eman Resu]

Yep - John Paul II, for the International Theological Commission; 2002, published in Communion and Stewardship, 2004. Didn't sound like Benedict; no German accent.

[mal4mac]

Yes, it comes from the document Communion and Stewardship, 2004, written by several people and submitted to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the President of the International Theological Commission, who gave permission for publication, before he became Pope Benedict XVI, during the reign of Pope John Paul II.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

[Eman Resu]

It comes from a document endorsed by Pope Benedict XVI, when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger, during the reign of Pope John Paul II.

Later endorsed by, as it would have been by all the Cardinals since it was ex cathedra, but the Roman Curia was still the province of John Paul at the time.

Doesn't matter, really; that's one of the great things about Wiki - it's the product of the average person. "One deviation below the mean," was, I believe, the phrasing of the most recent HEW report, referencing the measurement of IQ against the previous report (2000). That's certainly what I want as a reference tool - an encyclopedia written by folks with an average IQ of 85.

[cafolini]

Later endorsed by, as it would have been by all the Cardinals since it was ex cathedra, but the Roman Curia was still the province of John Paul at the time.

Doesn't matter, really; that's one of the great things about Wiki - it's the product of the average person. "One deviation below the mean," was, I believe, the phrasing of the most recent HEW report, referencing the measurement of IQ against the previous report (2000). That's certainly what I want as a reference tool - an encyclopedia written by folks with an average IQ of 85.

How could that be? They beat me by 5. I got 80.

BTW, did you know that the peace treaty between Argentina and Chile was executed in The Vatican supervised by John Paul? Argentinean constitution clearly stated that there was separation of church and state.

[Eman Resu]

How could that be? They beat me by 5. I got 80.

BTW, did you know that the peace treaty between Argentina and Chile was executed in The Vatican supervised by John Paul? Argentinean constitution clearly stated that there was separation of church and state.


Wasn't the Vatican invited to mediate the "Beagle conflict" by both Argentina and Chile, or was it simply that Argentina bowed to the Vatican's intercession because of the predominance of Roman Catholics there?

[cafolini]

Wasn't the Vatican invited to mediate the "Beagle conflict" by both Argentina and Chile, or was it simply that Argentina bowed to the Vatican's intercession because of the predominance of Roman Catholics there?

Yes that's what I'm talking about, the Beagle Conflict. Argentina took the initiative because of the predominance. Chile already had a good-sized Anglican element. But because the subject was peace, Chile rolled along on ethics.

However, beware that Argentina is very fascist and the Roman predominance might be a need for survival. The statistics are taken from government forms and applications for work where 98% of Argentineans will declare themselves Roman Catholics whether or not they go to church.

[mal4mac]

CIA fact books says for Argentina: nominally Roman Catholic 92% (less than 20% practicing).

The first papal visit to Britain in 1982 highlighted an infamous example of the Roman Catholic church siding with fascism. When the Vatican had agreed to the visit, they didn't foresee that war between Britain and Catholic Argentina would coincide with the papal visit. Normally the Vatican shrouds its political activities under the guise of religion and lofty pronouncements. On this occasion fast moving developments caught the Vatican off balance, and caught the pope making common cause with a sordid Latin American dictatorship.

http://www.wallsofjericho.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=33&Itemid=68#The Argentine military junta and the Catholic Church

[mona amon]

Because he never once mentions marriage consisting of two men or two women. Nowhere in the Bible is it mentioned as such. He mentions it solely as a man/woman relationship.

19 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. 2 Large crowds followed him, and he cured them there.

3 Some Pharisees came to him, and to test him they asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?” 8 He said to them, “It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.”[a]

10 His disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 But he said to them, “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”


Good grief, Jesus talks about marriage (which at that time was of course between man and woman) in answer to the Pharisees who were trying to trap him into admitting that he thought the divorce laws barbaric, and you conclude that he considered homosexuality a sin? Where on earth did that come from? This isn't even twisting Jesus's words, it's putting your own words into Jesus's mouth. No wonder the atheists are mocking us, if we substitute Jesus's gospel of love with the Gospel of Homophobia according to Sentimental Slop.

Beware of false prophets. A tree can be identified by the fruit it bears. If you are being taught anything that causes hatred, you can be sure that it came from man, and not from God. All the major religions that I know of preach preach mercy, love, compassion blah blah, and yet the believers are so ready to criminalize and find guilty large groups of people who never did them any harm - homosexuals, infidels, blasphemers, idolaters etc etc, and say God told them to do it. We have enough sin in this world without trying to find it in places where it doesn't exist.

Mal4mac, I'll answer your post #268 later. It is far more complicated than this one.

[mal4mac]

No wonder the atheists are mocking us, if we substitute Jesus's gospel of love with the Gospel of Homophobia according to Sentimental Slop.

We don't limit our mockery to the ideas of extremists, the ideas of moderates are just as irrational.

Why should I respect any unjustified beliefs? The tooth fairy is "all nice" but an adult belief structure that supports the actual existence of the nice little lady is, surely, open to extreme mockery. I actually see no difference between belief in the tooth fairy, Odin, and the divinity of Jesus Christ. Whether held by moderates or extremists I think belief in Yahweh is equally preposterous.

Religious faith is nothing more than a desperate marriage of hope and ignorance, even when held by moderates there is a terrible price to be paid for limiting the scope of reason in our dealings with other human beings. Religious moderation, insofar as it represents an attempt to hold on to what is still serviceable in orthodox religion, closes the door to more sophisticated approaches to spirituality and ethics.

Moderates do not want to kill or traduce anyone in the name of God, but they want us to keep using the word "God" as though we knew what it meant. They provide a soil in which extreme views can flourish, as illustrated by the heretic burning fraternity that emerged from the soil of meek and mild early Christians.

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Secular-Philosophies/The-Problem-With-Religious-Moderates.aspx

[Eman Resu]

Good grief, Jesus talks about marriage (which at that time was of course between man and woman)


Interesting - then Jesus must have had some thoughts on the laws of Matrimony and divorce too - both within and without Deuteronomy 24. I wonder why His Aramaic didn't include a suitable word for "union" since the Canaanites in general, and the residents of the Five Cities of the Plain in particular, used two wholly different words for relations between a man and a woman and relations of the same gender?

Given that during His Lifetime, both "marital" (i.e. monogamous) and extramarital (and pre-marital as well) relations were widely practised in the Five Cities, with their own tradition, and that elsewhere north of the Dead Sea, both homosexual and heterosexual "unions" were perfectly within the norm, as they had been with the earlier Greek civilisations who brought them, and the Roman civilisation which continued them in Jesus' place and time, I'm surprised - no... awed, in fact, that apparently - with absolute suddenness - "marriage" which traditionally in that locale employed the two (Hebrew and Aramaic) words meaning "union between two free people" had inexplicably evolved into being, "of course between man and woman."

Okay - I'm dumber than a rusty bucket of ping pong balls, so humour me here - how was it that a tradition of same-gender relations and relationships which reached back into Greek culture more than a millennium and three-quarters, and which came down to Roman society and was almost revered by Free Romans as a birthright for near six hundred years, suddenly became taboo, with "union" in the vernacular of the land, replaced by something which was "of course between man and woman?"

I guess my question really is, do we know the day and time when Rabbinic Law suddenly superseded two millennia of practise, and caused the definition of "union" which had previously been held to mean "union" from the Iberian coast, north through Gaul, across the whole of what is now Europe and eastern Asia to the very shore of the Caspian, then southward to Babelonia, and across the whole of the northern threshold of the African continent?

Odd... Rabbinic Law ("...a man lying with another as with a woman, or a woman lying with another as with a man...) had always (well, for the four thousand years preceding Jesus, anyway) been confined to Jewish culture, and suddenly it applied across an empire so vast that a man on horseback would take an hundred days to traverse it, and that "union" came to mean "of course between man and woman."

I'm with Johnny Carson on this one - "I did not know that."

;)

[Eman Resu]

Was there cable TV in "Eretz HaQodesh,"
Which broadcast the laws of the spirit and flesh?
Did millions of gay men suddenly shout
"This is now very wrong Bob - just pull that thing out?"

Did traditions of Plato and Xenophon too
Just fall by the wayside? Did it turn the Smurfs blue?
Did "erômenos" cease to mean "Loved" to the Greeks;
Did erastês declare, "we have turned enough cheeks?"

Was the Word spread by cell phones and radio waves
To the Freemen in Rome and to hermits in caves?
Not a chance - and this strange promulgation of views:
Could only have been through the BBC News.

[SentimentalSlop]

Good grief, Jesus talks about marriage (which at that time was of course between man and woman) in answer to the Pharisees who were trying to trap him into admitting that he thought the divorce laws barbaric, and you conclude that he considered homosexuality a sin? Where on earth did that come from? This isn't even twisting Jesus's words, it's putting your own words into Jesus's mouth. No wonder the atheists are mocking us, if we substitute Jesus's gospel of love with the Gospel of Homophobia according to Sentimental Slop.

Beware of false prophets. A tree can be identified by the fruit it bears. If you are being taught anything that causes hatred, you can be sure that it came from man, and not from God. All the major religions that I know of preach preach mercy, love, compassion blah blah, and yet the believers are so ready to criminalize and find guilty large groups of people who never did them any harm - homosexuals, infidels, blasphemers, idolaters etc etc, and say God told them to do it. We have enough sin in this world without trying to find it in places where it doesn't exist.

Mal4mac, I'll answer your post #268 later. It is far more complicated than this one.

You need to realize that Christ isn't all about mercy and compassion. He is also justice. If Jesus wanted to redefine His Father's definition of marriage, he would have done it, but he didn't. Having two men or two men in a committed relationship by some legal contract is not marriage. Having two men or two men "married" in some liberal church doesn't make it marriage. If you have such a problem with "homophobia," then why do you even want to follow Christianity? If the Father never liked homosexual acts, He doesn't like them now, and never will. If Christ's will is His Father's, and the Father and the Son are both One, why do you insist that Christ likes active homosexuality?

I'm not scared of gay people. I don't hate them, either. I'm not a homophobe, sorry.

[SentimentalSlop]

We don't limit our mockery to the ideas of extremists, the ideas of moderates are just as irrational.

Why should I respect any unjustified beliefs? The tooth fairy is "all nice" but an adult belief structure that supports the actual existence of the nice little lady is, surely, open to extreme mockery. I actually see no difference between belief in the tooth fairy, Odin, and the divinity of Jesus Christ. Whether held by moderates or extremists I think belief in Yahweh is equally preposterous.

Religious faith is nothing more than a desperate marriage of hope and ignorance, even when held by moderates there is a terrible price to be paid for limiting the scope of reason in our dealings with other human beings. Religious moderation, insofar as it represents an attempt to hold on to what is still serviceable in orthodox religion, closes the door to more sophisticated approaches to spirituality and ethics.

Moderates do not want to kill or traduce anyone in the name of God, but they want us to keep using the word "God" as though we knew what it meant. They provide a soil in which extreme views can flourish, as illustrated by the heretic burning fraternity that emerged from the soil of meek and mild early Christians.

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Secular-Philosophies/The-Problem-With-Religious-Moderates.aspx

Do you really want to live in a world where all there is is reason? I don't think you'd like the world for very long, if that were the case.

[cafolini]

What matters reason? It is a characteristic of the sober as much as of the insane. What matters is the mystery of God, the creator. He needs no reasons to act. We can only postulate his presence as The Mystery and pray that His Grace will be on our side. In God we trust.

[cacian]

You need to realize that Christ isn't all about mercy and compassion. He is also justice. If Jesus wanted to redefine His Father's definition of marriage, he would have done it, but he didn't. Having two men or two men in a committed relationship by some legal contract is not marriage. Having two men or two men "married" in some liberal church doesn't make it marriage. If you have such a problem with "homophobia," then why do you even want to follow Christianity? If the Father never liked homosexual acts, He doesn't like them now, and never will. If Christ's will is His Father's, and the Father and the Son are both One, why do you insist that Christ likes active homosexuality?

I'm not scared of gay people. I don't hate them, either. I'm not a homophobe, sorry.
it is astonishing how you could be so sure what Jesus thought about anything. you do not even know what he looks like. what is more concerning is the blind belief that you seem to display as if you met any of the people mentioned in the bible. you have never met Jesus and yet you seem to think that you know about what he thought then anyone else.
I find this blind belief rather scary. never be sure of anything.
nobody here in this forum has ever interacted of met any of these figures mentioned in the bible. no one knosw including you. your words are pure speculation bound to book called a bible.
the fact that you have swang from not bothering about gay to bothering is quite telling of your blind belief.
you ought to weigh your thoughts a bit more and think about what you are saying. remember it is a book and anything written could be as fictional as Alice in Wonderland.

[SentimentalSlop]

I believe in a lot of absolutes. When I used to think it was okay to not be sure of anything and not believe in any absolutes, that was when I didn't think at all, and that's dangerous. You seem to think that someone just put a Bible in front of me one day and commanded me to believe in what it said without questioning it. That is entirely wrong. It's not just wrong, but that kind of mentality is pretty stupid and I've never been taught to blindly believe in anything. I've always been taught to question religion. I rejected a lot of Catholic teachings for most of my life, or were ignorant of them, and I supported things that I thought little about. Now that I've been thinking about what I believe more and more, researching, asking questions, and receiving answers, I've started to form different opinions. If I were to go back and believe the things I used to believe, I feel I would just be lying to myself.

I don't know why you think that liberal religious and atheists somehow think more about what they believe than conservative Christians. That is absolute nonsense. You can be an atheist and think very little and still be celebrated as some smart individual because you have all the "right" ideas. You can be a liberal Christian who thinks about his faith very little and the same thing will happen. Once a Christian thinks long and hard about his faith and goes against the grain, then he's an idiot and a bigot. For all these people who think they like Jesus that are either religious or non-religious, they would call him an idiot in no time if he came back now and did the things he did and said the things he said 2000 years ago. People would hate him and tell him to "get with the times."

And yes, I've never met any of the people in the Bible, but I'm just looking at what's there in scripture. Homosexuality is never once condoned. Even if Christ never mentioned homosexuality, does that really matter? He never mentioned polygamy or pedophilia, but do you think he would be for that? As corny as this much overused phrase is, "What would Jesus do?", it's still a great idea to think about when trying to decide what's good and what's evil. If Christ told us what marriage is and what it is not, then why would he condone gay "marriage" if it's not even a marriage? Why would he condone two men or two women having sex if Christ told us that sex outside of marriage is a sin? I'm not just making stuff up. I'm just saying what is much more likely based in reading scripture. To say that he would be okay with it is a much bigger stretch than the former.

[Eman Resu]

He never mentioned polygamy


The commands in Titus and Timothy were both ordained through, "God whose word is truth," and "through His Son, the Saviour," and both Epistles state clearly that polygamy is banned for Deacons of the Church and for Elders only. Rabbinic Law prohibited the taking of more than one wife for a number of sects, but not for all, and throughout the Babylonian captivity, Jews of (nearly) all sects were encouraged in the practise of polygamy because of the attrition attached to Cyrus the Great's proclamations, if for no other reason than to keep Judaism alive, and once we reach fully back into the Old Testament, we begin with Lamech (Adah and Zillah), Abraham (Sarah, Hagar and Keturah and - depending upon how one translates the word "פילגש" under the Levite usage, innumerable other "wives" or "consorts") and an host of others who will bear out the long practise of polygamy both within and without the confines of the Church.

Polygamy is not a comparitor to be used with homosexuality under Canon Law at any point. "Is," as Boris would say, "bad logics, Natasha."

[SentimentalSlop]

I know it's not. I'm just saying, Christ didn't mention a lot of things, so that doesn't mean that whatever he didn't mention is all up for grabs. As for the other books in the NT, I can't argue with Cacian using those books, unfortunately. I have to stop at the gospels.

[Eman Resu]

I know it's not. I'm just saying, Christ didn't mention a lot of things, so that doesn't mean that whatever he didn't mention is all up for grabs. As for the other books in the NT, I can't argue with Cacian using those books, unfortunately. I have to stop at the gospels.


Without using the Bible or the Roman Catholic Church as citation sources - speaking just from your own knowledge or from your own Heart - can you explain the inherent "wrongness" of homosexuality?

[The Atheist]

I believe in a lot of absolutes.

How unusual in a christian.

[SentimentalSlop]

^I know you're being sarcastic, but it is starting to become unusual.


Without using the Bible or the Roman Catholic Church as citation sources - speaking just from your own knowledge or from your own Heart - can you explain the inherent "wrongness" of homosexuality?

It's not having same-sex attractions that are problematic, but the sex. Anal sex between two men (or man and woman, whatever. They do it, too) has a lot more health risks than vaginal sex. The vagina is naturally lubricated and therefore is much less prone to tearing. The vagina also has layers upon layers of cells that make sexually transmitted diseases hard to get through, while the anus only has one layer of thick cells. Therefore, the possibility of getting HIV and other diseases like Hepatitis is greatly increased. Not to mention that, generally speaking, a man and woman through normal vaginal sex can produce children and repopulate the world. Two men and two men cannot do this, no matter how much they try. The parts just don't fit and produce nothing.

[Eman Resu]

It's not having same-sex attractions that are problematic, but the sex. Anal sex between two men (or man and woman, whatever. They do it, too) has a lot more health risks than vaginal sex. The vagina is naturally lubricated and therefore is much less prone to tearing. The vagina also has layers upon layers of cells that make sexually transmitted diseases hard to get through, while the anus only has one layer of thick cells. Therefore, the possibility of getting HIV and other diseases like Hepatitis is greatly increased.

Being a nurse or a physician exposes those people to far more virulent diseases on a daily basis, and medical researchers are even more at risk than medical practitioners. By this token, then, should we not outlaw Medicine and medical research because of the hazards thereunto attendant?

[SentimentalSlop]

No, of course not. Medicine and medical research are good things. It aims to alleviate the suffering of individuals all across the world.

[Eman Resu]

No, of course not. Medicine and medical research are good things. It aims to alleviate the suffering of individuals all across the world.

You told us not three breaths ago that the "aim" didn't matter - only the possibility of catching some dread disease was important. Which is it?

[SentimentalSlop]

I don't quite understand what you're asking.

[Eman Resu]

I don't quite understand what you're asking.


Of course you understand - that's what makes the whole of it so unsavoury. There's not a single moral nor ethical argument which can be made against same-gender relationships - only responses like "the ick factor" and "they'll catch some dread disease." There are 200 million overweight Americans who'll end up costing taxpayers trillions of dollars in unnecessary health care, and somehow a debate still rages over same-gender Marriage.

Man, I must be dumber than ol' Persephone's Mother.

[SentimentalSlop]

No, I genuinely didn't understand your question.

I am against active homosexuality for religious and non-religious reasons. If someone gets a sexual disease, I believe they should be cared for, gay or straight.

[Eman Resu]

No, I genuinely didn't understand your question.

I am against active homosexuality for religious and non-religious reasons. If someone gets a sexual disease, I believe they should be cared for, gay or straight.


Since the world's number one problem is overpopulation, and since Catholics don't believe in contraception, do you think that all Catholics should be 1.) sterilised or 2,) euthanised?

This logic is precisely the same as you used in failing to answer the question I asked earlier, in Post 306.

[SentimentalSlop]

1) Overpopulation is not the world's number one problem. That is an absolutely ridiculous argument.

2) Neither.

3) I didn't fail answering your question. My answer was simple biology.

[OrphanPip]

It's not having same-sex attractions that are problematic, but the sex. Anal sex between two men (or man and woman, whatever. They do it, too) has a lot more health risks than vaginal sex. The vagina is naturally lubricated and therefore is much less prone to tearing. The vagina also has layers upon layers of cells that make sexually transmitted diseases hard to get through, while the anus only has one layer of thick cells. Therefore, the possibility of getting HIV and other diseases like Hepatitis is greatly increased. Not to mention that, generally speaking, a man and woman through normal vaginal sex can produce children and repopulate the world. Two men and two men cannot do this, no matter how much they try. The parts just don't fit and produce nothing.

Well there are more problems with this than even Eman has pointed out. First of all, what about two gay men who do not have anal sex, the risk of injury during sex would be less than that of vaginal sex between a man and a woman, is their relationship now acceptable? Furthermore, if two people do not have HIV or Hepatitis the risk of contracting it from anal sex between them is the same as the risk between two heterosexual people, or for that matter less than the risk for the general population.

Also, trust me as someone who has a degree in microbiology and immunology, the vagina does not have "layers upon layers of cells" that make sexually transmitted diseases harder to transmit. According to the CDC, the risk of transmission for HIV for insertive anal sex is lower than that for receptive-vaginal sex, and the risk for anal-receptive sex is only 0.5% higher than receptive-vaginal sex. The different risk of transmission are practically irrelevant.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/policies/law/risk.html

[Eman Resu]

Also, trust me as someone who has a degree in microbiology and immunology, the vagina does not have "layers upon layers of cells" that make sexually transmitted diseases harder to transmit.

Pish and drivel. Let's ask a Priest - he'll know the answer.

[cacian]

Also, trust me as someone who has a degree in microbiology and immunology, the vagina does not have "layers upon layers of cells" that make sexually transmitted diseases harder to transmit.it is a cell and therefore it should not transmit but propel that is the role of a cell.
blood however transmits that the only cell that does. it is because it is sticky it is has globin in it that is sugar. and sugar sticks and what's sticks flicks.
any transmitting of any disease is through blood. cells on their own do not. it takes blood to sake flock.
transmission is quicker when it is same blood less when it is not.
it biogrades when in contact with same blood it does not flow.
see it under the microscope. it likes and it does not. and it degrades not being able to make up its mind
but when it does it become immuned weak because it looses concentrate of its same type now it has two of the same type. it slows down. it sickles. that is what sickles disease is . two of the same type blood. instead of carrying one type it carries two the same type. that is foreign to blood makeup. abnormal is another word.
blood is not thicker then water. water is. blood does not mix well. water does if flushes as well as lushes.
it makes thin thicker and thicker thin.

[cacian]

Pish and drivel. Let's ask a Priest - he'll know the answer.

let's not ask the priest. he is too busy telling Jesus made wine from water after that he cannot have on hand on medical science surely not,

[Volya]

it is a cell and therefore it should not transmit but propel that is the role of a cell.
blood however transmits that the only cell that does. it is because it is sticky it is has globin in it that is sugar. and sugar sticks and what's sticks flicks.
any transmitting of any disease is through blood. cells on their own do not. it takes blood to sake flock.
transmission is quicker when it is same blood less when it is not.
it biogrades when in contact with same blood it does not flow.
see it under the microscope. it likes and it does not. and it degrades not being able to make up its mind
but when it does it become immuned weak because it looses concentrate of its same type now it has two of the same type. it slows down. it sickles. that is what sickles disease is . two of the same type blood. instead of carrying of type it carries of the same type. that is foreign to blood makeup. abnormal is another word.
blood is not thicker then water. water is. blood does not mix well. water does if flushes as well as lushes.
it makes thin thicker and thicker thin.

I recommend you pick up a Biology textbook.

[cacian]

I recommend you pick up a Biology textbook.

I have I studied biology too. I did not touch on micro though.
why? what is it you do not agree with Volya? :)

[SentimentalSlop]

Well there are more problems with this than even Eman has pointed out. First of all, what about two gay men who do not have anal sex, the risk of injury during sex would be less than that of vaginal sex between a man and a woman, is their relationship now acceptable? Furthermore, if two people do not have HIV or Hepatitis the risk of contracting it from anal sex between them is the same as the risk between two heterosexual people, or for that matter less than the risk for the general population.

Also, trust me as someone who has a degree in microbiology and immunology, the vagina does not have "layers upon layers of cells" that make sexually transmitted diseases harder to transmit. According to the CDC, the risk of transmission for HIV for insertive anal sex is lower than that for receptive-vaginal sex, and the risk for anal-receptive sex is only 0.5% higher than receptive-vaginal sex. The different risk of transmission are practically irrelevant.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/policies/law/risk.html

1) If two people from one gender (no matter who the people are) cannot produce anything while having sex, isn't nature telling us that it's simply not meant to be?

2) And by the way, if you don't believe in God you can do whatever you want. It's all on the table.

And this website says otherwise: http://www.aidsmap.com/HIV-transmission-risk-during-anal-sex-18-times-higher-than-during-vaginal-sex/page/1446187/

[mal4mac]

Pish and drivel. Let's ask a Priest - he'll know the answer.

... from practical experience.

[cacian]

1) If two people from one gender (no matter who the people are) cannot produce anything while having sex, isn't nature telling us that it's simply not meant to be?
that is nothing to do with it. man does not fall pregnant either. two men one man it is the same idea. where are you going with this?

[Eman Resu]

1) If two people from one gender (no matter who the people are) cannot produce anything while having sex, isn't nature telling us that it's simply not meant to be?

The world population when I entered university was 3.5 billion; forty-five years later, it's 7 billion.

In the northeast United States - according to a U.S. Department of Agriculture report released in August 2013 - the projected cost to raise a child to age 18 or Grade 12 stands at $446,100.00 without the assumption of private education. Add in college costs through age 22, and the price doubles - or quadruples if your child gets into the ivy league. If you're the sort of Parents who want to provide postgrad studies, add one third to one half again. In the lower third of any projection which includes a Bachelor's degree, expect that you'll have to provide about $750k over 22 years per child - in other words, if you have three children, be prepared to sock away about two hundred grand a year. Again, for the Big Leagues, double that. Certainly not an impossible task, but it means getting all your ducks in a row before you decide that it's time to get married and start increasing the population.

Now put down the Bible and go read John Brunner's Stand On Zanzibar. After that, go to New Delhi - not for lunch at the Park Hotel, but to Zaffrabad - and take a long walk through the villages to see what overcrowding and the attendant poverty really look like up close. Then you can come home and think up names for your five not-yet-born children, and come up with a budget that includes saving $19,000.00 a week for the next 25 years to feed, clothe and house them, and to provide them with an education which will allow them to thrive in a world whose population will then be nearly 10 billion souls.

[Eman Resu]

... from practical experience.


Being aligned with a religion depends entirely upon whether or not one makes the choice to think for herself or himself. Being Roman Catholic didn't make me shrug my shoulders after my D.Phil was conferred - I stayed in school just like any good atheist would have. "Having" religion - and the basis for the choices one makes being grounded in the physical world - are two wholly different character traits. Einstein once remarked that he didn't, "share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth," but he did pretty well anyway.

[SentimentalSlop]

The world population when I entered university was 3.5 billion; forty-five years later, it's 7 billion.

In the northeast United States - according to a U.S. Department of Agriculture report released in August 2013 - the projected cost to raise a child to age 18 or Grade 12 stands at $446,100.00 without the assumption of private education. Add in college costs through age 22, and the price doubles - or quadruples if your child gets into the ivy league. If you're the sort of Parents who want to provide postgrad studies, add one third to one half again. In the lower third of any projection which includes a Bachelor's degree, expect that you'll have to provide about $750k over 22 years per child - in other words, if you have three children, be prepared to sock away about two hundred grand a year. Again, for the Big Leagues, double that. Certainly not an impossible task, but it means getting all your ducks in a row before you decide that it's time to get married and start increasing the population.

Now put down the Bible and go read John Brunner's Stand On Zanzibar. After that, go to New Delhi - not for lunch at the Park Hotel, but to Zaffrabad - and take a long walk through the villages to see what overcrowding and the attendant poverty really look like up close. Then you can come home and think up names for your five not-yet-born children, and come up with a budget that includes saving $19,000.00 a week for the next 25 years to feed, clothe and house them, and to provide them with an education which will allow them to thrive in a world whose population will then be nearly 10 billion souls.



It's not like we're going to run out of land to live on. We have plenty of that. We're also developing new forms of farming and agriculture, making it possible to grow crops where we never thought possible on smaller pieces of land. If people would just use what they need and not live their lives in excess, there would be plenty of food and resources for everyone.

I think those numbers are nonsense. My mom and dad raised 5 children (mostly my mom though) and they never saved 19000 dollars a week, and three of us went to private school. I know lots of parents who raised multiple kids and there is no way in hell they had jobs so extravagant that they could save that kind of money.

And why should I put down my Bible? There's no reason to do that.

[OrphanPip]

1) If two people from one gender (no matter who the people are) cannot produce anything while having sex, isn't nature telling us that it's simply not meant to be?

No, "nature" may speak to you, but it doesn't tell me anything. The unnaturalness argument is ridiculous because it relies on whatever arbitrary barrier between the natural and unnatural your personal biases decide to land on. All human behaviour is natural, because humans are part of nature. What do you mean by nature? If you mean part of the material world, then gay people are certainly part of that. If you mean as occurring among animals and humans in an environment removed from the influence of society, then homosexuality is still demonstrably part of nature. If you mean something teleological about purposes of sex as ordained by some creator, well then we're onto arbitrary biases, and any one who has had sex could tell you it's not too hard to think of other reasons for it besides reproduction.




2) And by the way, if you don't believe in God you can do whatever you want. It's all on the table.

And this website says otherwise: http://www.aidsmap.com/HIV-transmission-risk-during-anal-sex-18-times-higher-than-during-vaginal-sex/page/1446187/

Even if you take there higher incidence rates from those studies, the difference is still negligible given how small the incidence rates are in absolute terms. As the CDC data shows, a infection rate of 10 in 10,000 is 5 times less than a 50 in 10,000 rate, but it's still a rather negligible difference.

The focus on the kind of sex people are having is a failure of HIV/AIDS prevention programs, since HIV infection is most correlated with economic status and race in the Western world than it is with anal sex. The majority of new infections in the US are among African American and Hispanic women and MSM, which suggests that issues of education, stability and access to care are more important than any kind of sex people are having. After all, the HIV epidemic in Africa was hardly caused by anal sex, HIV spreads for a number of reasons but the negligible increased risk of anal sex is not a major contributing factor.

[Eman Resu]

I think those numbers are nonsense.


Of course you do - they're not in the Bible.

The top prep schools in the U.S. are all over $50k per academic year; better colleges and universities higher still. Let's do just eight years times $55k as a mid-range. Use the standard formula for educational projections - 2x current inflation - and we add three percent per annum just as we'd figure the APR on a loan. As you can readily see, we're a few dollars short of a million bucks for those eight years alone. Mark 8:18.

[Eman Resu]

And why should I put down my Bible? There's no reason to do that.


Basing your Life on a single book? That almost makes one wish it was Galaxy Quest instead.

[cafolini]

The actual problem with the gay subject is in the meaning of the word marriage. There is no patri and no matri. There is no marriage. It should be called only a legal relationship and fully accepted as such. And it should have all the legal rights of any actual relationship. The word marriage is not appropriate, but the relationship is so.

[Eman Resu]

As this thread has reached now nearly to one third of a thousand posts, it gives one pause to consider which is more "important" - a vehicle providing someone with a voice, or one which provides the voice of Reason? Please vote now in the unofficial poll!

□ Balance is everything.

□ Shut up; I'm trying to read Hosea 4:6.

□ Bananas in pajamas are coming down the stairs.

[cacian]

As this thread has reached now nearly to one third of a thousand posts, it gives one pause to consider which is more "important" - a vehicle providing someone with a voice, or one which provides the voice of Reason? Please vote now in the unofficial poll!

□ Balance is everything.

□ Shut up; I'm trying to read Hosea 4:6.

□ Bananas in pajamas are coming down the stairs.

I voted: bananas in pyjamas coming down the stairs only because I seen them on telly :D

[Eman Resu]

The actual problem with the gay subject is in the meaning of the word marriage. There is no patri and no matri. There is no marriage. It should be called only a legal relationship and fully accepted as such. And it should have all the legal rights of any actual relationship.

Agreed in principle - any civil union between consenting adults should be recognised, and should be accorded any benefits otherwise reserved for "married" couples.






The word marriage is not appropriate, but the relationship is so.

The words "Holy Matrimony" when viewed as being Sacramental are certainly not appropriate, but the English word "marriage" as taken from the Middle French, and beforehand, from the Latin "marito," had, by about 1375, already ceased to mean "a dowried agreement" even within the legal confines of the Quittances de Dots, and the vernacular use of "married" was widespread by the end of the Medieval period, including in English language legal documents regarding the joining of two properties (e.g. "the court hereby does marry one half hide of land with these boundaries to this adjoining parcel..."), and today the word "married" is applied to any two objects not originally together - "a marriage of a first edition book and a later dustwrapper" as a very common usage. If we can see a book and a dustwrapper as being "married" perhaps we could concede that two women or two men might likewise be seen as being "married?"

[cacian]

The word marriage is not appropriate, but the relationship is so.you can't have a marriage without a relationship but you can have a relationship without a marriage which means marriage is neither here or there.
relationship comes first of course.
holy matrimony or not it boils down to having a relationship first.

[Eman Resu]

you can't have a marriage without a relationship


If you mean a physical relationship, this isn't true; many Catholic Orders consider their Nuns as being, quite literally, the "Wives of Christ."

[cafolini]

It's not like we're going to run out of land to live on. We have plenty of that. We're also developing new forms of farming and agriculture, making it possible to grow crops where we never thought possible on smaller pieces of land. If people would just use what they need and not live their lives in excess, there would be plenty of food and resources for everyone.

I think those numbers are nonsense. My mom and dad raised 5 children (mostly my mom though) and they never saved 19000 dollars a week, and three of us went to private school. I know lots of parents who raised multiple kids and there is no way in hell they had jobs so extravagant that they could save that kind of money.

And why should I put down my Bible? There's no reason to do that.

Correct. Forget the brainless pricks. We already won this argument many times.

[cacian]

If you mean a physical relationship, this isn't true; many Catholic Orders consider their Nuns as being, quite literally, the "Wives of Christ."

oh my. are they? a marriage without physical contact. I feel sorry for Jesus.

[SentimentalSlop]

Of course you do - they're not in the Bible.

The top prep schools in the U.S. are all over $50k per academic year; better colleges and universities higher still. Let's do just eight years times $55k as a mid-range. Use the standard formula for educational projections - 2x current inflation - and we add three percent per annum just as we'd figure the APR on a loan. As you can readily see, we're a few dollars short of a million bucks for those eight years alone. Mark 8:18.

You're 40 years older than me, so don't be acting like a snot.

And why does someone have to go to the "top" schools? Why can't they just settle for a local one? That's what I did, and tuition is cheap. Not only that, but my tuition is paid for with grants. If you're a good student, usually the government or private sources will help lend the money. It's also a good idea as well (if you're going to blow tons of money on tuition) to major in something that will pay a lot so you're not in debt all your life. I just don't get the people who major in creative writing or women's studies and wonder why they can't find a job.

I don't even know why I'm talking about this. It has nothing to do with the thread...

[Eman Resu]

And why does someone have to go to the "top" schools? Why can't they just settle

Hopefully, you'll learn before Life grows too old why one should never "settle."

[cafolini]

Agreed in principle - any civil union between consenting adults should be recognised, and should be accorded any benefits otherwise reserved for "married" couples.







The words "Holy Matrimony" when viewed as being Sacramental are certainly not appropriate, but the English word "marriage" as taken from the Middle French, and beforehand, from the Latin "marito," had, by about 1375, already ceased to mean "a dowried agreement" even within the legal confines of the Quittances de Dots, and the vernacular use of "married" was widespread by the end of the Medieval period, including in English language legal documents regarding the joining of two properties (e.g. "the court hereby does marry one half hide of land with these boundaries to this adjoining parcel..."), and today the word "married" is applied to any two objects not originally together - "a marriage of a first edition book and a later dustwrapper" as a very common usage. If we can see a book and a dustwrapper as being "married" perhaps we could concede that two women or two men might likewise be seen as being "married?"

Every word no matter what it is will have several synonyms. But synonyms are tied to contexts. The marriage of straw and manure, for example, in growing garlic. But the marriage of two people is Biblical and that’s its genuine context.

[Eman Resu]

Every word no matter what it is will have several synonyms. But synonyms are tied to contexts. The marriage of straw and manure, for example, in growing garlic. But the marriage of two people is Biblical and that’s its genuine context.


Biblical? How is that? Exodus was revealed to Moses, as near as we can tell, some time between 1440 and 1400 BCE. The Third Tablet of Urukagina, which has long passages regarding marital laws and monogamy statutes, was written a thousand years before Exodus. Please explain to us how marriage is, "Biblical and that’s its genuine context." Please - no time machine paradoxes, although the standard answer, "I fell asleep during Mesopotamian History class" will be accepted.

.

[SentimentalSlop]

As Christians, we believe marriage is a sacrament instituted by God, and he should be present in that relationship. It's like a love triangle. God is at the top, and man and woman at the bottom.

[Eman Resu]

As Christians, we believe marriage is a sacrament instituted by God, and he should be present in that relationship. It's like a love triangle. God is at the top, and man and woman at the bottom.

Wrong; dead wrong. Baptists are Christians, and beyond not even using the word "Sacrament" for the two ordinances which they recognise, "marriage" certainly isn't one of them. Back to Sunday school for you until you can tell the difference between a Catholic and a Christian.

[mal4mac]

Wrong; dead wrong. Baptists are Christians, and beyond not even using the word "Sacrament" for the two ordinances which they recognise, "marriage" certainly isn't one of them. Back to Sunday school for you until you can tell the difference between a Catholic and a Christian.

One of the variant meanings of sacrament is "a thing of mysterious and sacred significance; a religious symbol". So you can say, "they used peyote as a sacrament". Back to infant school for you until you can use a dictionary.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/sacrament

[mal4mac]

As Christians, we believe marriage is a sacrament instituted by God, and he should be present in that relationship. It's like a love triangle. God is at the top, and man and woman at the bottom.

Fundamentalist Mormons allow polygamy, trendy Anglicans allow marriage for gays, so I'm afraid you are still heading for Sunday school to learn not to speak for all Christians.

[mona amon]

You need to realize that Christ isn't all about mercy and compassion. He is also justice. If Jesus wanted to redefine His Father's definition of marriage, he would have done it, but he didn't. Having two men or two men in a committed relationship by some legal contract is not marriage. Having two men or two men "married" in some liberal church doesn't make it marriage. If you have such a problem with "homophobia," then why do you even want to follow Christianity? If the Father never liked homosexual acts, He doesn't like them now, and never will. If Christ's will is His Father's, and the Father and the Son are both One, why do you insist that Christ likes active homosexuality?

I'm not scared of gay people. I don't hate them, either. I'm not a homophobe, sorry.

I'm not calling you a homophobe, Sentimentalslop. If someone thinks something is a sin, that's an opinion which they have every right to, as long as they don't try to 'punish' the 'sinner' or incite others to do so. However, it does become a Gospel of Homophobia if an institution like the Church teaches its members that homosexuality is sinful, thereby equating it with cheating, stealing, adultery and so on.



If you have such a problem with "homophobia," then why do you even want to follow Christianity?

I'm a christian because I believe in Christ and his teachings, and I guess being baptised when I was a baby did help. :) Are you suggesting that only people who support Homophobia can become christians? I hope not, but that's what your statement sounds like.


If the Father never liked homosexual acts, He doesn't like them now, and never will. If Christ's will is His Father's, and the Father and the Son are both One, why do you insist that Christ likes active homosexuality?


Well 'the Father' used to be pleased with the aroma of burning animal sacrifices, but that's no longer the case, or at any rate no one's giving it to him anymore. Just this morning I came across a passage in Numbers where God orders a man to be put to death for the horrible crime of collecting wood on the Sabbath. He doesn't seem to be like that anymore. There is no religion on earth today that insists on following the 613 commandments of Old Testament law. As a christian, I feel bound only to follow Christ's teachings, including the reiterated Ten Commandments (reiterated by Jesus I mean), and by doing so I will know what the Will of the father is, since, as you say, Christ's will and his Father's are the same.

As for insisting that Christ "liked active homosexuality", I'm doing nothing of the sort. I do not know what his thoughts about it were, since he never talked about the subject, and I do not presume to guess what he thought about it. I use my own judgement in this case, just as I have to do with any issue which he never mentioned like slavery, human rights, pedophilia, etc.


As this thread has reached now nearly to one third of a thousand posts, it gives one pause to consider which is more "important" - a vehicle providing someone with a voice, or one which provides the voice of Reason? Please vote now in the unofficial poll!

□ Balance is everything.

□ Shut up; I'm trying to read Hosea 4:6.

□ Bananas in pajamas are coming down the stairs.

Bananas in pyjamas of course! :banana::banana::banana:

[cacian]

As Christians, we believe marriage is a sacrament instituted by God, and he should be present in that relationship. It's like a love triangle. God is at the top, and man and woman at the bottom.

the ''as christians we believe'' this and that is misplaced. the ''We'' do not believe anything . THey tell you what to believe. there is a difference there.

[Eman Resu]

One of the variant meanings of sacrament is "a thing of mysterious and sacred significance; a religious symbol". So you can say, "they used peyote as a sacrament". Back to infant school for you until you can use a dictionary.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/sacrament



Go back. Actually read post 345, then look at your own link, retained above.

Capitalised, "when it forms part of the proper noun as in 'Catholic Sacraments.' " Your reading comprehension needs work, and as a "scientist" you need to be able to distinguish between upper and lower cases so you don't confuse things like "Γ" - the complex propagation constant, and "γ" - electrical conductivity. Back to Grade 0 grammar studies, chav.

[Eman Resu]

Bananas in pyjamas of course! :banana::banana::banana:


Given the consideration that B1 and B2 are well known for, "coming down the stairs," I'd expect that soon they'll have earned the Vatican's ferendæ sententiæ censure as well. Enjoy them while you can, before the decretum is intoned: "banana; pajama; scala; anathema."

[mal4mac]

Go back...

No. You go back, actually read post 344, then look at your own response.

You stand accused of inappropriate capitalisation, how do you plead?

[cafolini]

Biblical? How is that? Exodus was revealed to Moses, as near as we can tell, some time between 1440 and 1400 BCE. The Third Tablet of Urukagina, which has long passages regarding marital laws and monogamy statutes, was written a thousand years before Exodus. Please explain to us how marriage is, "Biblical and that’s its genuine context." Please - no time machine paradoxes, although the standard answer, "I fell asleep during Mesopotamian History class" will be accepted.

.

I have seen you come round and round using meanings to destroy meanings; the same brainless illness as Cacian's. I am now closing this insane circularity of absolute instability, where democracy could not survive. You don't have what it takes to moderate this subject. Enough.

[Eman Resu]

As for insisting that Christ "liked active homosexuality", I'm doing nothing of the sort. I do not know what his thoughts about it were, since he never talked about the subject, and I do not presume to guess what he thought about it.


Now you're back to 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10; I hope you've written a letter to the "translators" of the New English Bible, thanking them for slipping the word "homosexual" into those two verses where never before it had appeared before the 1946 publication of the NEB.

NEBbish - the language invented by the publishers of the New English Bible.

[SentimentalSlop]

Wrong; dead wrong. Baptists are Christians, and beyond not even using the word "Sacrament" for the two ordinances which they recognise, "marriage" certainly isn't one of them. Back to Sunday school for you until you can tell the difference between a Catholic and a Christian.

Catholics are Christians. Why are you talking about them as if they're different things?

[cafolini]

Catholics are Christians. Why are you talking about them as if they're different things?

You are correct. All Catholics are Christians. And Baptists are also Christians. However, it would be foolish not to recognize the difference between Roman Catholics and Anglican Catholics. The latter are mostly represented by the Episcopalian Church. Research it. As I said many times, I am here to post conclusions only.

[mona amon]

Now you're back to 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10;

Not me! Christ didn't write 1 Corinthians or 1 Timothy, and as Paul himself reminds us in 1 Corinthians 1:13, I was not baptized in the name of Paul.