<p>;)</p>
<p>It's like my friend says, "If you can't laugh at life every now and then, what the hell are we doing here?"</p>
<p>Fides, I am actually Catholic, and I have not really noticed that anyone mistakes me for born-again. I think what you are talking about can be attributed to politics, because of abortion and stem cell research, many Catholics identify more with Republicans, and thus the religious right that opposes abortion and stem-cell research for the same reasons Catholics do -because the Bible says so, and the Bible is the word of God...to them, at least. </p>
<p>I still don't really agree that Fides is any more rational than other religious folks I have enountered, maybe later on in the thread, but, Fides, some of the stuff you were saying early on (I can copy and paste if you have forgotten) was NOT very rational or logical.</p>
<p>"Bible.(Correct me if im wrong and please provide evidence. Without them your arguement is useless)
Being gay is a sin and God would never FORCE someone to be gay. That would make God unloving and unjust which is agianst his nature. Therefore sexuality IS a choice and therefore homosexuals CAN become heterosexuals."</p>
<p>Respectfully, krn, I would have to disagree here, on several counts:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I don't have evidence at my fingertips that I can share with you, but I will do research and see what I can find. I do know, however, that I have read scientific debates about the nature of homosexuality, and from what I've read (which, admittedly, is not that much) there does tend to be some predisposing factors. 2 of my son's friends are gay; both of whom we have known since they were about 8-10 years old. It was obvious even at that early age. No way did they CHOOSE their orientation. Admittedly, these are just a couple of cases, but I myself watched these kids grow up, and I'm telling you, they were gay as children.</p></li>
<li><p>The entire argument that homosexuality is 'wrong' based on what it said in the bible is flawed. As OP pointed out, it is using circular logic. If one believes that science will eventually catch up with God's truth, then there should be no conflict between science and faith. However, science is showing that many people ARE 'born gay.' Therefore, your above argument dissolves.</p></li>
<li><p>People are free to believe in the bible, of course, but they don't have the right to impose their beliefs on others, imho. They have no right to point the finger at gays. Gays are not hurting anyone! I contend that, if someone believes it is wrong to be gay, then, quite simply, don't be gay! (and then they will find out how hard it is; if it truly is a 'choice' they shouldn't have too much trouble.)</p></li>
</ol>
<p>"I still don't really agree that Fides is any more rational than other religious folks I have enountered"</p>
<p>Well, I just had an arduous ordeal with someone else on this forum who, I can assure you, was FAR more critical and irrational than Fides. Hey, I actually like sparring with Fides, because he is good-natured about it even when we disagree!</p>
<p>"Fides, I am actually Catholic, and I have not really noticed that anyone mistakes me for born-again. I think what you are talking about can be attributed to politics, because of abortion and stem cell research, many Catholics identify more with Republicans, and thus the religious right that opposes abortion and stem-cell research for the same reasons Catholics do -because the Bible says so, and the Bible is the word of God...to them, at least."</p>
<p>True. It's funny, though, because until very recently -- coinciding with the rise of a new and more extreme form of secular liberalism and an anti-Christian attitude in many Democratic circles, which have largely coincided with the Bush presidency -- the Democratic Party owned the Catholic vote. Catholics voting Democrat and Protestants voting Republican was the way it was for decades. (Notice the striking number of Democratic congressmen, governors, and senators who are Catholic, at least nominally.) Blue states, such as New York and Mass., were Catholic strongholds; red states, like Texas, were heavily Protestant. </p>
<p>This is neither here or there, but the problem, I think, is that the Democratic Party took the Catholic vote for granted. They didn't forsee Catholics jumping ship over such trivialities as religion and moral values. In a very real way, this was what tipped the scales in favor of Bush in the last two elections. This is the Democratic Party's "religion problem." And it's going to take a lot to get the Catholic vote back. Getting even more aggressively secular and liberal regarding moral issues and more anti-Christian -- which a great many Democrats are doing as a kind of rebellion against the Bush presidency -- is just going to alienate Catholic voters even more.</p>
<p>Good points, Fides. I personally know a lot of people who voted for bush just because of the abortion issue. They admitted to not even looking at the other issues at all.</p>
<p>(Ironically, I voted against bush because of the abortion issue, among others. Statistically there are more abortions when there are welfare cuts.)</p>
<p>The best argument against homosexuality is based on Kant's Categorical Imperative.</p>
<p>I believe in reincarnation for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that I remember some of my past lives. I cannot prove that to anyone of course, any more than I can prove that I fell off my bike at age 10. My memories are my own. (Many people DO have such memories, however. Check out the many books on the subject.) <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/002-5970522-5421614?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=reincarnation&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go%5B/url%5D">http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/002-5970522-5421614?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=reincarnation&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go</a></p>
<p>The philosophy of reincarnation is superior, imo, to the 'heaven and hell' doctrine for many reasons. Pertaining to our discussion, I submit:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Reincarnation is a far more merciful doctrine. It is supported by the 'as you sow, so shall you reap' and many other scriptures in the bible. It opens the possibility that God will allow humans more than just one short lifetime to 'get it together.' It offers a plan of mercy. Do not make the mistake, as so many do, of thinking 'oh it doesn't matter what I do because I'll get another chance.' On the contrary, each moment plants the seeds for tomorrow, and there is justice in the end.</p></li>
<li><p>It explains the phenomenon of homosexuality. According to the Gnostic Christians, each of us has lived many lifetimes as a male, and many lifetimes as a female. Usually, we live about a dozen or so lifetimes as one sex, then we switch over for awhile to the other sex. This is to experience both polarities, which is important to the soul's development. Well, it's that transitional lifetime that is the sticky one. After many lifetimes as a female, it might take 1 or 2 lifetimes to switch over to male (and vice versa); hence, a lifetime in which there is gender confusion. The person truly does identify with the other sex because that is the sex s/he had for so long. Any hormonal and/or genetic predispositions are but a reflection of what's going on at the soul level.</p></li>
<li><p>If this philosophy is true, then we have ALL been gay at one time or another. And, while not the 'norm' it is within the parameters of normal. Therefore, we ought not to be so quick to judge people who are currently in the difficult situation of transitioning, when we ourselves have been there before and will surely be there again.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Something to consider with an open mind. It does offer some explanations.</p>
<p>People who follow a certain faith turn to it, in situations like this, in search of answers. People who believe in God believe, obviously believe in whatever is written in the Holy Book that comes with that Religion.
I believe in God and I turn to Him whenever I need answers on something in which people's opinions are so opposed, as in this situation.
Some people may not be able to understand it; but if a person truly believes in his or her faith or Religion and in what it says and teaches, then they would not even consider doubting it.
I for one believe that homosexuality is a sin, God said it; so I believe it. Now before any of you start saying: "That's not proof that it is a sin; it's only your opinion"; consider what I said earlier. If a person's faith is strong enough, then there is no room for any kind of doubt.
Do not get me wrong, I'm not saying that people should blindly accept whatever their Religion decrees. I for one disagree with a few things in my Religion; I go to someone trustworthy to give me an objective opinion on the matter and to tell me why a certain thing is so. Almost every time I've done so, there was something convincing to dispell all doubts that I had previously. But what I just said is only in case I see something that I might find "unreasonable". I do NOT find "being gay is a sin" as something unreasonable. I think it's perfectly reasonable. If I had any doubts; I'd be the first in line to seek "enlightenment".</p>
<p>
[quote]
Some people may not be able to understand it; but if a person truly believes in his or her faith or Religion and in what it says and teaches, then they would not even consider doubting it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But questioning and doubting your faith makes it stronger...it drives you to study it more and gain a better understanding of it. Unquestioning faith is dangerous.</p>
<p>This thread brings the LOL.</p>
<p>Your faith is strong enough to lead you to believe that homosexuality is a sin; on the basis of what you believe is right, per God's word. It still falls under circular reasoning; just because you don't doubt doesn't mean your reasoning is weak.</p>
<p>Where does your belief stop? Do you wish to impose your view on others? I.E support legislation outlawing homosexual relations/marriages?</p>
<p>"Who said that I think homosexuals are going to Hell? I certainly didn't. Just because I believe that homosexual acts are sinful does not mean that I think homosexuals are going to Hell, any more than I think straight people who engage in sinful sexual behavior are going to Hell (both are very close to equal in my book). Personally, I like to think that God is a little more merciful than that."</p>
<p>So, where do your views stop?</p>
<p>"Good points, Fides. I personally know a lot of people who voted for bush just because of the abortion issue. They admitted to not even looking at the other issues at all."</p>
<p>That's coming from the Church heirarchy in a big way these days. Bishops are really cracking down on their parish priests to emphasize official Church teaching on abortion, euthanasia, and gay marriage in their homilies when election dates roll around. </p>
<p>I support it. At the end of the day it is up to the faithful to (seriously) examine their own consciences on these matters before they go to the polls, but there are a surprising number of Catholics who just aren't clear on where the Church stands on some of these issues. It is the Church's responsibility to communicate its teachings to the laity. </p>
<p>I actually gritted my teeth and voted for a non-religious pro-choice candidate in the last Canadian federal election, instead of his pro-life Catholic rival. Canada's electorial system is quite complicated, but I'll try to briefly explain my reason. In Canada, the public doesn't actually vote directly for the prime minister, but for a representative member of parliament in their local region. The political party with the most MP's elected across the country wins control of the House of Commons, and that party's leader becomes (or remains) prime minister. I'm a staunch supporter of the Conservative Party of Canada and its leader Stephen Harper (pro-life, pro-family) for all the right Church-approved reasons, and so naturally I wanted him to win and the Liberal Party leader Paul Martin (pro-choice, anti-family) to lose. However, oddly, the Conservative Party candidate in my area happened to be pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, etc; the Liberal Party candidate, even more oddly, was openly pro-life and pro-family, and a Catholic to boot! (This is a rarity beyond words in today's Liberal Party.) So, I was faced with a moral quandary. Do I vote for the pro-life/pro-family candidate and thus further the chances of the pro-choice/anti-family Paul Martin (the man RESPONSIBLE for gay marriage in Canada) being re-elected as prime minister and furthering the damage of the moral fabric of my country, or do I vote for the pro-choice/anti-family candidate and thus further the chances of the pro-life/pro-family Stephen Harper becoming prime minister, who aimed to repair some of the damage? </p>
<p>I still don't know if I did the morally right thing as a faithful Catholic voter, but I chose to look at the big picture.</p>
<p>"If one believes that science will eventually catch up with God's truth, then there should be no conflict between science and faith." Agreed.</p>
<p>The anecdote of your son's gay friends has two flaws. How was "It was obvious even at that early age."???<br>
You said you knew them from 8-10 years am I right? Now bash me all you want about my next comment, but something could have happen before to influence them. Yes I agree that they're young.
Science has flaws. The bible does not. So then what is your interpretation of Romans 1:27?</p>
<p>"27In 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."</p>
<p>PERSONALLY. who cares. just let everyone live there lifes. and if gays will or will not be punished in the after life we'll find out. just leave it alone</p>
<p>
[quote]
Science has flaws. The bible does not.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh...wow. You should crack your Bible open a little more often, hun. Contradictions = flaws in my mind, and after reading the Bible several times from cover to cover, I used simple logic to at least come to the conclusion that, if it's the word of God, He must have stuttered a few times or something. For instance:</p>
<p>What was the color of the robe placed on Jesus during his trial?</p>
<p>scarlet - Matthew 27:28</p>
<p>purple John 19:2</p>
<p>That is just a basic contradiction. It is certainly not an attempt to prove the message of the Bible wrong, but to me, if a book is infallible, it won't contradict itself - ever. There are plenty more if you're interested...just yahoo "biblical contradictions." </p>
<p>I don't want to start an argument over this as I don't care enough to keep up with one. I just like to point little fallacies out to those that are naive enough to say science has flaws but the Bible doesn't.</p>
<p>fendey if you dont care why do you care if we care? GTFO</p>
<p>brand ur a retard</p>
<p>"By comparison with the account in Matthew 27:3-8, it is evident that Judas "purchased" this field only indirectly. He threw down his blood money (the thirty pieces of silver paid him for betraying Jesus) in front of the chief priests, who used it to buy the field called Aceldama (Acts 1:19), or "the field of blood" (Matthew 27:8). He then hanged himself, apparently in the same field, but bungled the attempt, actually dying as described in this verse." source: ("The Defenders Study Bible", pg 1177)</p>
<p>does that explain it? why dont YOU learn to interpret.</p>
<p>kmpsych - you're not very good at debating if the first thing you must do is throw out an insult. You should check that post again, as I realize people always have ways of "interpreting" the Bible. I gave you another example that is crystal clear and impossible to merely explain away. </p>
<p>Like I said, I'm not going to argue with you about it. The fact that, as soon as you get the chance, you call me a retard, and then say that science has flaws but the Bible is perfect, is enough to demonstrate your intelligence to everyone reading this thread.</p>
<p>Good day.</p>
<p>Look at each account again and reread them slowly.......you will find that at 3 different times they placed 3 different robes on Jesus.......
1. Matt. 27:27
Then the SOLDIERS of the governor took Jesus into the common hall and gathered unto him the whole band of soldiers.
And they STRIPPED him and put on him a scarlet robe.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Luke 23:11
And Herod with his men of war set him at nought, and mocked him, and arrayed him in a "GORGEOUS ROBE" and sent him again to Pilate.</p></li>
<li><p>John 19:1-2
Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him.
And the soldiers plaited a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and they put on him a PURPLE ROBE.
(Mark corresponds with John)</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Scarlet is red
Purple is purple
Gorgeous Robe is WHITE</p>