Unless you are murdering to protect your family and yourself from a crazy serial killing madman who is coming at you with his chainsaw revving.regardless of if you are christian or not, murder is still wrong, no matter what.
natedrummer95
Hypothetical situation: God doesnt exist...
This topic is locked from further discussion.
I do not disagree. However, that does not mean the homosexual is required to participate in sexual acts. Also, just as many are also prone to alcoholism, they are not required to partake. ...And don't take the alcoholism comparison farther than I'm intending...[QUOTE="mindstorm"][QUOTE="Lindsosaurus"]
not to interject, but there are actual chemical differences in the brain when it comes to homosexuality. Basically, women's and men's brains light up differently when it comes to attraction. Gay men's brains light up in the same areas as womens do. That alone makes it hard for me to agree with the Christian belief that homosexuality is a sin. That idea is one of the things I hate the most about Christianity, no offense...it just really bothers me.
Lindsosaurus
I dont see why they should have to deny themselves intimacy with someone they love. I just don't understand why or how homosexuality is wrong, but that's just me.
Another important thing I forgot to mention. Homsexuality (despite its second part) is not only sexual desire but also feelings like love towards the same sex.
[QUOTE="mindstorm"]Homosexuality.Funky_LlamaWell, it's pretty hard (outside of Christianity) to make an argument that it's wrong, so personally I don't think it's surprising that many people dont object to it. Well, there are some arguments such as homosexuality is unnatural, no society is sustained by homosexual practices, and homosexual practices are a threat to lives due to diseases such as AIDS. I'm not trying to debate these arguments, I'm just stating that such arguments exist.
[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"] The Crusades, a multinational effort spanning over 40 countries and millions of men, would not have been possible without religion. Sure the actual cause was not religious in nature, but what made the war possible was definitely religion. Instead of a feud between the Byzantines and the Turks it grew into a giant cluster**** of hundreds of nations going at it in the name of God. clayronMy history on the subject is only basic. But couldn't the crusades have happened if any religion, at least one as seemingly large as Christianity, had banded together? But, my point is, its not the religion itself that was the cause of the crusades. People wanted that stuff to happen. People chose to go to war. People chose to kill, rape, and pillage. Jesus, as the bible portrays him, never advocates any of that.If the people in power didn't have religion in their grasp they wouldn't have been able to gain as many followers. People use religion to substantiate their claims and bring people together in a common hatred for another power. Sure there are other ways to do this but not one of them is as powerful as religion.
[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] That's simply not true. Science used empirical evidence to establish theories about the empirical universe, and is satidfied to make tentative theories based upon possibly flawed sense perception. Religion however uses empirical evidence to make metaphysical claims to an extent; furthermore religion neccesitates and aspect of arationality, as by definition metaphysical entities cannot be proven to exist empirically, and thus far all ontological attempts have failed. Religion is inherently arational to an extent as it requires faith; an arational phenomena. The same cannot be said for science.VandalvideoScience used what it PERCEIVED to be empirical evidence. For all we know, scientists are merely insane hobos like the religious people are contended to be. The fact of the matter is that; if we accept the premise that there are bodies independent from ideas (which we cannot prove) . If we accept the premise that science is right. Even with these premises, there is still room for religion to also be right. There have been studies that religion is a natural reaction based on bodily functions. Religion could be another perception just like all our other sensory perceptions, whicha re just as easily foolable. You can never establish that science is any more right than religion. The fact of the matter is that religion could very well be based on perceptions of another type, just as valid as that of the sensory perceptions. We cannot establish the sensory perceptions are any more valid. Your central assumption that we have bodies in the first place is unfounded. The sixth sense you taking about is a case of begging the question; you're using an unquantifiable, unempirical (is that a word?) 'sense' to assert the validity of religion which uses those very same unprovable and and unfalsifiable ideas. Also, scientists merely use the empirical evidence before them, using the perception of said evidence to establish scientific theories. There is no belief in it -- they merely accept what they see with their senses, which is what is the best that they can do. There is no delusion of the intellect involved, unlike religion. Also, your hobo analogy thing doesn't work, because every man, woman and child in this world can have the exact same observations that any scientist does -- the observations of the religious are isolated and cannot be validifed by every other person who inhabits this planet. This is the clear difference between religious observations (say of angels) and scientific ones.
[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="mindstorm"]Homosexuality.mindstormWell, it's pretty hard (outside of Christianity) to make an argument that it's wrong, so personally I don't think it's surprising that many people dont object to it. Well, there are some arguments such as homosexuality is unnatural, no society is sustained by homosexual practices, and homosexual practices are a threat to lives due to diseases such as AIDS. I'm not trying to debate these arguments, I'm just stating that such arguments exist. Mindstorm to make this less of a pain...could you briefly post the scripture regarding homosexuality? I know its reference a few times.
[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="mindstorm"]Homosexuality.mindstormWell, it's pretty hard (outside of Christianity) to make an argument that it's wrong, so personally I don't think it's surprising that many people dont object to it. Well, there are some arguments such as homosexuality is unnatural, no society is sustained by homosexual practices, and homosexual practices are a threat to lives due to diseases such as AIDS. I'm not trying to debate these arguments, I'm just stating that such arguments exist.The fact that they exist does not make them valid or even important to be brought up.
Unnatural: Lets not get started with how naturally we as a species live...
Societies cant be sustained: Well isnt that based on the fear that if homosexuality is acceptable it will spread and all will become gay Which is pretty stupid to believe by the way.
Spreading of STDs and AIDS: I wont even bother with this particular "argument" which is based on nothing but ignorance.
[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="mindstorm"]Homosexuality.mindstormWell, it's pretty hard (outside of Christianity) to make an argument that it's wrong, so personally I don't think it's surprising that many people dont object to it. Well, there are some arguments such as homosexuality is unnatural, no society is sustained by homosexual practices, and homosexual practices are a threat to lives due to diseases such as AIDS. I'm not trying to debate these arguments, I'm just stating that such arguments exist.Yus, but they're easily refuted by nylon, toilets etc., excess population growth making homosexuality actually helpful, and contraception. So I suppose you can make secular arguments that it's immoral, but not convincing ones.
[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="mindstorm"]Homosexuality.mindstormWell, it's pretty hard (outside of Christianity) to make an argument that it's wrong, so personally I don't think it's surprising that many people dont object to it. Well, there are some arguments such as homosexuality is unnatural, no society is sustained by homosexual practices, and homosexual practices are a threat to lives due to diseases such as AIDS. I'm not trying to debate these arguments, I'm just stating that such arguments exist.The homosexuality is unnatural argument is completely false. There are many occurrences of homosexuality going on in nature. And yet those animals doing those homosexual natural practices are getting along fine in their society and some of them are growing or would be growing without human intervention..
My history on the subject is only basic. But couldn't the crusades have happened if any religion, at least one as seemingly large as Christianity, had banded together? But, my point is, its not the religion itself that was the cause of the crusades. People wanted that stuff to happen. People chose to go to war. People chose to kill, rape, and pillage. Jesus, as the bible portrays him, never advocates any of that.If the people in power didn't have religion in their grasp they wouldn't have been able to gain as many followers. People use religion to substantiate their claims and bring people together in a common hatred for another power. Sure there are other ways to do this but not one of them is as powerful as religion. But is that the fault of religion?[QUOTE="clayron"][QUOTE="hamstergeddon"] The Crusades, a multinational effort spanning over 40 countries and millions of men, would not have been possible without religion. Sure the actual cause was not religious in nature, but what made the war possible was definitely religion. Instead of a feud between the Byzantines and the Turks it grew into a giant cluster**** of hundreds of nations going at it in the name of God. BumFluff122
Their belief lies in their assumption they have bodies, and what they are seeing is real. The fact of the matter is that they could be just as delusional as the religious people. I was playing nice by allowing your assumption of having a body. Now I will merely destroy it. We cannot know if we have a body. There isn't anything necsesarily superior about sight, smell, taste, touch, or hearing as that of the religious perceptions to phenomenon. If a monk has a constant feeling of god every time he sees a chipmunk on his window sill, then it is just as 'empirically valid' as anything a scientist would deduce from them seeing a pinball drop everytime they remove the peg supporting it. Your sensory perceptions are no bette than religious perceptions. PS: Good luck proving I see the same thing you do. For all you know, I could be seeing a unicorn right now.Also, scientists merely use the empirical evidence before them, using the perception of said evidence to establish scientific theories. There is no belief in it -- they merely accept what they see with their senses, which is what is the best that they can do. There is no delusion of the intellect involved, unlike religion. Also, your hobo analogy thing doesn't work, because every man, woman and child in this world can have the exact same observations that any scientist does -- the observations of the religious are isolated and cannot be validifed by every other person who inhabits this planet. This is the clear difference between religious observations (say of angels) and scientific ones.
Well, there are some arguments such as homosexuality is unnatural, no society is sustained by homosexual practices, and homosexual practices are a threat to lives due to diseases such as AIDS. I'm not trying to debate these arguments, I'm just stating that such arguments exist.The homosexuality is unnatural argument is completely false. There are many occurrences of homosexuality going on in nature. And yet those animals doing those homosexual natural practices are getting along fine in their society and some of them are growing or would be growing without human intervention.. In a recent review of the scientific literature Scientists have found the homosexual acts in the natural world are almost universal.[QUOTE="mindstorm"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Well, it's pretty hard (outside of Christianity) to make an argument that it's wrong, so personally I don't think it's surprising that many people dont object to it.BumFluff122
[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]If the people in power didn't have religion in their grasp they wouldn't have been able to gain as many followers. People use religion to substantiate their claims and bring people together in a common hatred for another power. Sure there are other ways to do this but not one of them is as powerful as religion. But is that the fault of religion?It's the fault of the people using those religious beliefs or religious texts to back their claims and therefor allow them to gain support for what they are doing. If religion wasn't as powerful as it was there probably would be a lot less hatred in the world.[QUOTE="clayron"] My history on the subject is only basic. But couldn't the crusades have happened if any religion, at least one as seemingly large as Christianity, had banded together? But, my point is, its not the religion itself that was the cause of the crusades. People wanted that stuff to happen. People chose to go to war. People chose to kill, rape, and pillage. Jesus, as the bible portrays him, never advocates any of that.clayron
And you know for certain your way is correct? Do not think I haven't thought much about the possibility of other belief systems being true as well as studied various beliefs. mindstorm
Clearly you haven't because you made the mistake of assuming one of them was right. If you did think it through you would have realized none of them are truer than the other, they all make similar claims based on similar 'evidence'. Fact is they are all man made, even if you believe it was handed down by God to human beings it is still being interpreted by limited human perception and re-translated over thousands of years.
There is faith and then there is blind gullibility, there is no right religion because they are all wrong, all human manufactured self delusions to keep people happy being ignorant. For you it has turned you into a self hating bigot who thinks all of humanity deserves to die for trivial actions that hurt no one but the temper of an invisible omnipresent father figure. Your fear of death is so strong that you have allowed yourself to buy into one of countless 'one true Gods' that managed to not disappear into history in hope to stave off the fear of death for a little while.
At the end of the day it all comes down to an intense fear of the four words 'we do not know', which I would rather admit than look to 2000 year old primitives for my morality.
[QUOTE="clayron"] Mindstorm to make this less of a pain...could you briefly post the scripture regarding homosexuality? I know its reference a few times.mindstormHere are some. Leviticus 22:18, "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." Romans 1:25-27, "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." 1 Corinthians 6:9, "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders."And the purpose of referencing them is.......?
Well, there are some arguments such as homosexuality is unnatural, no society is sustained by homosexual practices, and homosexual practices are a threat to lives due to diseases such as AIDS. I'm not trying to debate these arguments, I'm just stating that such arguments exist.mindstorm
Artificial insemination and adoption perfectly counter the "unnatural" argument. A society is properly sustained when its growth rate matches its death rate. Too much growth, and you run out of resources. Too much death, and extinction.
Heterosexuals are just as likely to carry and spread STD's as homosexuals. The only reason it can be more prevalent with homosexual couples, is due to the method of intercourse having a higher likely hood of injury and disease spread. With the proper use of protection and partner choice, all these things are avoidable, like with any heterosexual couple.
There is no argument against homosexuality that is sound. Homosexuality occurs in nature, in many different species. It is not limited to human beings. You can't "choose" to be straight and you can't "choose" to be gay So either being a "sin against God" is completely unfounded and outright wrong.
[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="mindstorm"] In excess, perhaps. Heterosexuality is needed for humanity to survive. Homosexuality is not.mindstormIn vitro.............. That doesn't work too well for a male couple does it?Just because a male couple is in a relationship together does not mean one of them couldn't give sperm to a sperm bank in order to inseminate a specific person. I'm fairly certain that if all humantiy was indeed homosexual that there would be sexual marriages between mena nd women as well as, at the same time, loving marriages between people fo the same sex. Society adapts.
Jesus was clearly a vampire. So yeah, I'd stake the bastard.
[QUOTE="mindstorm"] Well, there are some arguments such as homosexuality is unnatural, no society is sustained by homosexual practices, and homosexual practices are a threat to lives due to diseases such as AIDS. I'm not trying to debate these arguments, I'm just stating that such arguments exist.foxhound_fox
Artificial insemination and adoption perfectly counter the "unnatural" argument. A society is properly sustained when its growth rate matches its death rate. Too much growth, and you run out of resources. Too much death, and extinction.
Heterosexuals are just as likely to carry and spread STD's as homosexuals. The only reason it can be more prevalent with homosexual couples, is due to the method of intercourse having a higher likely hood of injury and disease spread. With the proper use of protection and partner choice, all these things are avoidable, like with any heterosexual couple.
There is no argument against homosexuality that is sound. Homosexuality occurs in nature, in many different species. It is not limited to human beings. You can't "choose" to be straight and you can't "choose" to be gay So either being a "sin against God" is completely unfounded and outright wrong. Well, no. Lesbian couples are far. far less likely to spread or contract STD's than even heterosexual couples.
[QUOTE="mindstorm"] And you know for certain your way is correct? Do not think I haven't thought much about the possibility of other belief systems being true as well as studied various beliefs. AnnoyedDragon
Clearly you haven't because you made the mistake of assuming one of them was right. If you did think it through you would have realized none of them are truer than the other, they all make similar claims based on similar 'evidence'. Fact is they are all man made, even if you believe it was handed down by God to human beings it is still being interpreted by limited human perception and re-translated over thousands of years.
There is faith and then there is blind gullibility, there is no right religion because they are all wrong, all human manufactured self delusions to keep people happy being ignorant. For you it has turned you into a self hating bigot who thinks all of humanity deserves to die for trivial actions that hurt no one but the temper of an invisible omnipresent father figure. Your fear of death is so strong that you have allowed yourself to buy into one of countless 'one true God's' that managed to not disappear into history in hope to stave off the fear of death for a little while.
At the end of the day it all comes down to an intense fear of the four words 'we do not know', which I would rather admit than look to 2000 year old primitives for my morality.
Yay for militant agnosticism... >_>
I do realize that I'm not omnipotent and thus am not always correct, however, I do not take such a Postmodern view of life that nothing can be known...
If religion wasn't as powerful as it was there probably would be a lot less hatred in the world.That where we will have to agree to disagree. Since I feel that religion, at least my own, does not explicitly promote hate. Intolerance? I see it at times. But not hate.BumFluff122
Yes, it does have its "Thou shall not"s, but all in all, religion is often structured in a way to be of a benefit to society.
Now people often take the teachings out of context and act in a way that is "insert a word that means 'a slap in the face'" to the religion, and worse they teach other people. Remember back in the day, the bible was written only in Latin. A beautifully, difficult language. And many people were illiterate, and for the most part, unintelligent - so wish I had a better word. They were taught the beliefs of clergymen, kings, and whathaveyou....so if the scripture is taken out of context, and hate becomes the message...the religion is not to blame. Its those people who are not true to the religion they serve. I am trying to be coherent but I think I may have rambled. Does that make sense...if not I can try to elaborate.
Well, it's pretty hard (outside of Christianity) to make an argument that it's wrong, so personally I don't think it's surprising that many people dont object to it.Actually the quran also advocates stoning of homosexuals...:( What is the passage? I have it right here.[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="mindstorm"]Homosexuality.Anonymous_2
Here are some. Leviticus 22:18, "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." Romans 1:25-27, "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." 1 Corinthians 6:9, "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders."And the purpose of referencing them is.......? Just to see what his beliefs are based on. It helps further the argument if you can see it...don't you think? Mindstorm, didn't Jesus pretty much eliminate the teachings of the OT?[QUOTE="mindstorm"][QUOTE="clayron"] Mindstorm to make this less of a pain...could you briefly post the scripture regarding homosexuality? I know its reference a few times.Teenaged
[QUOTE="Teenaged"]And the purpose of referencing them is.......? Just to see what his beliefs are based on. It helps further the argument if you can see it...don't you think? Mindstorm, didn't Jesus pretty much eliminate the teachings of the OT?Ah ok.[QUOTE="mindstorm"] Here are some. Leviticus 22:18, "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." Romans 1:25-27, "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." 1 Corinthians 6:9, "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders."clayron
(RED)Well thats what I knew as well... but the question comes as to why he did?
And that brings up the very possible answer that the Old Testament is not the infallible and unaltered word of God.
That where we will have to agree to disagree. Since I feel that religion, at least my own, does not explicitly promote hate. Intolerance? I see it at times. But not hate.[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]If religion wasn't as powerful as it was there probably would be a lot less hatred in the world.
clayron
Yes, it does have its "Thou shall not"s, but all in all, religion is often structured in a way to be of a benefit to society.
Now people often take the teachings out of context and act in a way that is "insert a word that means 'a slap in the face'" to the religion, and worse they teach other people. Remember back in the day, the bible was written only in Latin. A beautifully, difficult language. And many people were illiterate, and for the most part, unintelligent - so wish I had a better word. They were taught the beliefs of clergymen, kings, and whathaveyou....so if the scripture is taken out of context, and hate becomes the message...the religion is not to blame. Its those people who are not true to the religion they serve. I am trying to be coherent but I think I may have rambled. Does that make sense...if not I can try to elaborate.
You can disagree all you want but the fact is that people who hate can use religion to spread their hate. Many groups in the world do exactly this. Look at militant Islam. They are using religion as a crutch for their war and the hate against the west. The same thing has been true of Christianity in the past. The scripture is usually taken otu of context for such things but that still doesn't take away from the fact that people who are profoundly religious can be easier to manipulate given the right kind of manipulator due to the power of their beliefs.Well, it's pretty hard (outside of Christianity) to make an argument that it's wrong, so personally I don't think it's surprising that many people dont object to it.Actually the quran also advocates stoning of homosexuals...:(Eh, I meant a good argument.[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="mindstorm"]Homosexuality.Anonymous_2
The central point of religion is not whether if God really exists or not. Having some moral support and a life guideline is what is all about. Why take out something so important and that has given so many hopes and dreams?curonoBecause hopes and dreams hold us back.
Yay for militant agnosticism... >_>
I do realize that I'm not omnipotent and thus am not always correct, however, I do not take such a Postmodern view of life that nothing can be known...
mindstorm
Sure something can be known, if it's unknown lets go find out about it. Granted it can take hundreds of years, it was several millenia before we found out what actually made it rain, but we got there in the end.
That sort of thinking helped develop the understanding and technologies that are presently allowing us to communicate across the world in an instant. It is what has transformed our part of the world into what is practically paradise compared to the world the people who wrote the Bible lived in, it is quite useful as you can see.
I'm not going to tell you there is no God or there is no big truth, but you aren't going to get any closer to the truth buried in what is one of many different versions of a dusty old book, all claiming to be the one truth.
That where we will have to agree to disagree. Since I feel that religion, at least my own, does not explicitly promote hate. Intolerance? I see it at times. But not hate.[QUOTE="clayron"]
[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]If religion wasn't as powerful as it was there probably would be a lot less hatred in the world.
BumFluff122
Yes, it does have its "Thou shall not"s, but all in all, religion is often structured in a way to be of a benefit to society.
Now people often take the teachings out of context and act in a way that is "insert a word that means 'a slap in the face'" to the religion, and worse they teach other people. Remember back in the day, the bible was written only in Latin. A beautifully, difficult language. And many people were illiterate, and for the most part, unintelligent - so wish I had a better word. They were taught the beliefs of clergymen, kings, and whathaveyou....so if the scripture is taken out of context, and hate becomes the message...the religion is not to blame. Its those people who are not true to the religion they serve. I am trying to be coherent but I think I may have rambled. Does that make sense...if not I can try to elaborate.
You can disagree all you want but the fact is that people who hate can use religion to spread their hate. Many groups in the world do exactly this. Look at militant Islam. They are using religion as a crutch for their war and the hate against the west. The same thing has been true of Christianity in the past. The scripture is usually taken otu of context for such things but that still doesn't take away from the fact that people who are profoundly religious can be easier to manipulate given the right kind of manipulator due to the power of their beliefs. Think you may be missing my point. I am not saying it is not possible. On all accounts it is, history shows it. Is the religion, in and of itself, at fault?[QUOTE="Lindsosaurus"]
[QUOTE="mindstorm"] I do not disagree. However, that does not mean the homosexual is required to participate in sexual acts. Also, just as many are also prone to alcoholism, they are not required to partake. ...And don't take the alcoholism comparison farther than I'm intending...Anonymous_2
I dont see why they should have to deny themselves intimacy with someone they love. I just don't understand why or how homosexuality is wrong, but that's just me.
Maybe God just doesnt like it? He is God afterall so He shouldnt have to see things He doesnt want to see.But there's homosexuality in animals which kills that point in my opinion...
Oh so many things can be attributed as things likeable or unlikeable to God.The problem is deeper? Is what we know about God true or even accurate in the least?
[QUOTE="curono"]The central point of religion is not whether if God really exists or not. Having some moral support and a life guideline is what is all about. Why take out something so important and that has given so many hopes and dreams?VandalvideoBecause hopes and dreams hold us back. Many people have found strenght, moral and ethic values, and a way to keep going. During Dark Ages, through faith unity was kept. For better or for worst, this "religion" thing has helped to make our world. It is possible that if you killed the "figure" of christ, you wouldn't exist. PS: I AM ATHEIST.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment