| Author | Comment |
dysfunction
Goliath
Posted: 29 Feb 2004
13:22 GMT
Total Posts: 122 | Well, I thought It'd be nice to have a little place where we can discuss our political/social/religious views. Or just debate on what kind of car is the coolest. Whatever. I would like to choose gay marriage as the first topic, but if you guys want to debate something else, fine. |
spiral
Wraith
Posted: 29 Feb 2004
13:58 GMT
Total Posts: 958 | Disclaimer: I don't know any gay people.
Personally, I think gay marriage should be allowed, or at least voted on per state, it doesn't hurt people that aren't gay. But gay couples adopting children probably places kids in a too odd environment for growing up. |
zkostik
Carrier
Posted: 29 Feb 2004
14:40 GMT
Total Posts: 2486 | Disclaimer: I don't know any gay people.
I view things the same way as spiral. I think it's okay to have gay marriages. It doesn't affect me in anyway so what's the deal here? It may not be a logically correct thing to have gay marriages but it's the choice of the people who wish to marry and should be left to their discretion. I'm completely neutral to gay people and think they should have the same rights as others, else it can be considered discrimination against them (in our so called discrimination free country...).
(btw Dysfunction, please put a small disclamer in the beginning of the thread because not everyone may agree with our personal views)
---
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 |
allynfolksjr
Administrator
Posted: 29 Feb 2004
14:44 GMT
Total Posts: 1892 | Disclamer: If you're easily offended, don't read this.
I think Gay marrage is wrong. Actually, let me rephrase this, I think it's okay if we set up some state where they can go and do whatever they want. As long the rest of the country doesn't have to hear about it.
And Gay's adopting kids is horribly wrong: That isn't a normal enviroment for a child to be raised. How would you like to be raied by 2 dads? Or Two Moms?
[Edited by allynfolksjr on 29-Feb-04 23:45] |
spiral
Wraith
Posted: 29 Feb 2004
15:11 GMT
Total Posts: 958 | I'm curious why you think it's wrong? How does it impact you personally? |
Digital
Guardian
Posted: 29 Feb 2004
16:24 GMT
Total Posts: 1051 | Disclaimer: Do I really need one? Yeah, I don't know anyone who is gay, I try not to offend but no promises.
Logically, biologicaly, and psychologicaly raising a child with two 'dads' or two 'moms' is wrong and can seriously damage a child. Logic: Where in nature does homosexuallity exist besides in the human race. As far as I know it doesn't. Biologicaly: it is impossible to survive through sexual reproduction which is how both the female and male bodies are 'designed'. Psychologicaly: The male and female minds are fundametaly 'wired' differently. If both types of behavior, emotion, manners etc are not reinforced things won't work out the way they are supposed to be. I know thats vague but it is similar to being raised by only one parent. |
spiral
Wraith
Posted: 29 Feb 2004
17:32 GMT
Total Posts: 958 | Actually homosexuality does exist in nature, my bio teaher said it (rape exists too), and there r many internet articles that say the same thing.
here's one that looks fairly reliable http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc97/1_4_97/bob1.htm |
zkostik
Carrier
Posted: 29 Feb 2004
18:24 GMT
Total Posts: 2486 | >I think Gay marrage is wrong. Actually, let me rephrase this, I think it's okay if we set up some state where they can go and do whatever they want. As long the rest of the country doesn't have to hear about it.
How so? This reminds me of segregation of black people where they had to live separately, and were only allowed in certain places. What if you were gay, how'd like you like to hear your state governor say "sorry, but gay folk is not permitted in this state anymore so you kinda have move to some other state". i'm certain no one would like that.
>And Gay's adopting kids is horribly wrong: That isn't a normal enviroment for a child to be raised. How would you like to be raied by 2 dads? Or Two Moms?
I agree with you on this point though. having gay parents would really make bad environment for a child. such child would most likely have problems with frinds and school and i'm sure will likely take drugs. however, child adoption agencies always can refuse an adoption and most likely will not let a gay couple adopt a child. i wouldn't worry about this.
btw S, nice example.
---
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 |
dysfunction
Goliath
Posted: 1 Mar 2004
09:22 GMT
Total Posts: 122 | Discliamer: I DO know gay people, so apparently I'm the only one talking from anything more than my own personal opinion.
the only problem with gays raising children is that the kids would get made fun of in school. Soi there's nothing wrong about their parenting, just with the society we live in. The church claims that children need both a mother and father to be raised properly, but wouldn't having two parents of one sex at leats be better than only having one parent? The church doesn't seem to have a problem with a single mother whose husband ran out on her raising a kid. Two mothers would be better than that at least. I don't think we should have to vote on whtrher gays get rights or not. Should we have had to vote on whether the schools were integrated? Because that was done by the same process, a Supreme Court ruling. |
zkostik
Carrier
Posted: 1 Mar 2004
09:38 GMT
Total Posts: 2486 | Yeah you're right about the society here. I was also basing my opinion on that. Afterall, this is a contry thing and country is not a church. Like you Dys, I think that gays should have all the same rights as everyone else and shouldn't be excluded from society for being homosexual. If one doesn't like gays then its their problem. Our contry should be neutral to this kind of decisions and shouldn't disallow gay marriages as such. (Btw, I used to know a few gay people (guys). Two back at high school and one at work. Although I must admit that I'm not particularly happy interfacing with them, they should have the same right as everyone else. Society is just not willing to accept homosexuals, but since we're the ones making this society, let's make it equal to everyone.)
[Edited by zkostik on 01-Mar-04 18:41]
---
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 |
Digital
Guardian
Posted: 1 Mar 2004
16:46 GMT
Total Posts: 1051 | I think the contriversy is just a small part of what is happening in theis country. Taking a closer look it seems like this country is more or less trying to rid its self of morals and becoming too concerned in legality. Don't get me wrong, we do need laws, but in the past few years there have been many growths of groups that challange old beliefs. there needs to be a third non-partcial party to fix the problem. This is very unlikely to happen since the two sides being taken are based upon morals and laws, too things that no one wants to compromise. Objectively, who is right? Legally, the gays, morally, the straights. |
BullFrog
Wraith
Posted: 2 Mar 2004
09:49 GMT
Total Posts: 623 | At the rate things are going, it won't be long before the power of the Constitution will be a mere thread.
Just to throw in my views, I think homosexuality is wrong. Always have, always will.
---
"Men are not prisoners of fate, but only prisoners of their own minds." -Franklin D. Roosevelt |
zkostik
Carrier
Posted: 2 Mar 2004
14:13 GMT
Total Posts: 2486 | Even if it is wrong, you have to admit that there ARE homosexualt's out there. What would you suggest is best to do, outlaw it? This country aims at various human freedoms like religion and political. Why not a sexual freedom? Homosexuals don't impact your life in anyway, I don't think they come and try threatening you. If you're against them, then be it, its your choice. Even if govt. was to disallow gay marriages, creating laws which will stand up agains gay people would be unfair to them. When you make such propositions you shold imagin yourself as a that person you're talking about. I think there should be some sort of an intelligent compromise here...
---
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 |
BullFrog
Wraith
Posted: 2 Mar 2004
14:31 GMT
Total Posts: 623 | You are correct that it does not directly affect me. My reasonings come from my religious beliefs, and those beliefs strongly state that homosexuality is wrong.
---
"Men are not prisoners of fate, but only prisoners of their own minds." -Franklin D. Roosevelt |
Lunchbox
Carrier
Posted: 2 Mar 2004
17:19 GMT
Total Posts: 2007 | Yeah, i'm totally in line w/ bullfrog in the whole religious POV. it does affect me, since i'm from cali and that's the hub of turmoil. a gay person would be harassed into public humiliation at my school; it's not a pretty sight. and although i believe homosexuality is wrong, i also believe that tolerance is necessary [referencee south park the episode w/ mr. slave for fun times :)] and that it will not, in my lifetime, be ever socially accepted on a whole.
BTW, can any1 help me get an avatar working?
[Edited by Lunchbox on 03-Mar-04 03:01] |
dysfunction
Goliath
Posted: 2 Mar 2004
18:18 GMT
Total Posts: 122 | I don't see why we can't just leave people alone. What is wrong about homosexuality? Okay, so the Bible says it is, but what's the rationale? I am good friends with quite a few gays (guys and girls). While I do know some fairly butch girls, most of them are completely different from the stereotypes. They're nice, good, moral people, some of them devout Christians. Some pritests accept homosexuality, others believe it's a sin. If there's so much dissent even within your own church, how can you take on faith so crucial a matter as the rights of a human being? If homosexuality was a sin, would God have created it? You may answer that God didn't create it, that being gay is a choice. But then why do rats, who don't have free will, have homosexuality? As well as most other mammals? |
allynfolksjr
Administrator
Posted: 2 Mar 2004
19:15 GMT
Total Posts: 1892 | Althought I am not religious, I think homosexuality is wrong. Isn't the armys policy 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' right? I wouldn't care as long as they don't proclaim it to the world. |
Digital
Guardian
Posted: 2 Mar 2004
19:30 GMT
Total Posts: 1051 | I was pleasantly supprised to see that the article S posted was not one sided or ignorant. It draws no concrete conclusions and does not imply or suggest the like. It seems to be mostly objective
In this section, "The making of a homosexual," the author clearly points out that the result of homosexuality can be heavily influenced/based on the environment the animal is raised in and the chemical balance(s) in the brain. More or less, if a member of one sex is rejected by the opposite sex and is still driven to find a mate/companion, then there is a chance it will take up one of it's own sex. Now applying this principle to we humans. Whether we admit it or not, we all want to be apart of some "in-croud." When we are young, in our begining teens, we start to want to become what is considered to be the ideal, read: best looking, example of our sex. If for some reason one is highly unsucessful at least in their own metal image they would turn as did the other animals to their same sex, most likely one that was in a similar situation. hense they become homosexuals.
Granted, I assume a lot by saying this, such as homosexuality starts at puberty, wehn it could in fact start at birth. But there is no way to solidify nor tear down that assumption since it is extremely unlikely that one can get a child to tell an "observer" what he/she is feeling in complete honesty, and without influencing/re-enforcing what they "should" believe
Here is an answer to a few of your questions that you brought up dysfunctional.
Q: "While I do know some fairly butch girls, most of them are completely different from the stereotypes. They're nice, good, moral people, some of them devout Christians. Some pritests accept homosexuality, others believe it's a sin. If there's so much dissent even within your own church, how can you take on faith so crucial a matter as the rights of a human being?"
A: To try and fix a misconseption before I continue. Technically Christianity is defined as a a group of religions, though today it is becoming more defined as a religion as its self. For the sake of argument, the following will treat it as the latter. Also, Christianity is not Catholicism as it is so believed. "The Church" is the Catholic church not to be comfused with Christian chruches. The preists in the church who accept homosexuality are flat out hypocrites. There is nothing in the Bible that supports homosexuality. But, the Bible also tells us to hate the sin and love the sinners. As far a humans "rights" go, God gave us the right to do what ever we wanted as long as it was with in his rules. Morals laws to put it simply. He also gave use free will. Also, according to the Bible he only gave humans free will. I'm sorry I can't quote the verses for you. |
Lunchbox
Carrier
Posted: 2 Mar 2004
20:54 GMT
Total Posts: 2007 | Well dysfunction, if you are going to say that, i might as well tell you my opinion on how the world works/was created:
In the beginning god created the earth, man, and good. There was one problem. good is only relevant to what ever else is around it, aka the things that are bad. Therefore, u nust have evil to have good and vice versa, for it is the balance between them that keeps both alive. if u don't have bad, then what is good? evil and good are a package deal; u can't have one without the other. if ur going to make a smart remark about "why didn't god forsee evil?", here's my opinion: God knew that the force of good was more powerful than that of evil [which it is] and he trusted in humans, who were created in his likeness, to be more towards good. [Kind of a mistake, but thats why jesus
was sent to earth, to save the human race]
The same is true with the rest of the world. If no one was bad at, say golf, :) then no one would technically be good at it either. The world is based not on one or two solid things, but the relationship between the two. Flaw/sin's only purpose in the world is to create a relationship that would distinguish goodness. Enough of my philosophical essay, though.
I kinda agree with whoever said just to leave people alone, and i have two good foreign language quotes for you guys
1."Le tolerance vaut la peine"-tolerance is worth the effort.
2."Pan metron ariston"-Greek for everything in moderation.
-means that all things can be good in small to medium doses.
DISCLAIMER: NOT EVERYTHING IS GOOD IN MODERATION!!!!! things that are NOT good in modeeration (or in any dose) include BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO:
Slavery, facism, nazism, racism, socialism, murder, rape, sin, etc. |
spiral
Wraith
Posted: 2 Mar 2004
22:04 GMT
Total Posts: 958 | "God knew that the force of good was more powerful than that of evil" and "for it is the balance between them that keeps both alive"
are contradictory statements, if one is more powerful than the other, there is no balance. Also, this statement is far too simplistic, and black and white, how about the infinite shades of grey.
"include BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO: Slavery, facism, nazism, racism, socialism, murder, rape, sin, etc." a movie can deal with these issues, and be a good movie that tries to better society, that would be taking it in moderation wouldn't it?
I don't like gays, but they should be as free to "pursue happiness." When we look back 200 years, blacks were enslaved, and we could never imagine it today. In 200 years, perhaps people will look back and can't believe our intolerance towards homosexuals.
[Edited by spiral on 03-Mar-04 07:05] |
dysfunction
Goliath
Posted: 3 Mar 2004
09:11 GMT
Total Posts: 122 | Spiral, that's what I'm hoping. |
Lunchbox
Carrier
Posted: 3 Mar 2004
14:37 GMT
Total Posts: 2007 | "'God knew that the force of good was more powerful than that of evil' and 'for it is the balance between them that keeps both alive'
are contradictory statements, if one is more powerful than the other, there is no balance."
Sorry bout that error, what it should say is:
'for it is the relation between them that keeps both alive'
becausee it doesn't matter if there's more of one than the other, as long as both still exist
BTW, good point about slavery.
also BTW, i meant in real life for the moderation thing. Murder is not good in moderation, and although issues can be made about killing people because they're suffering more here on earth, my english teacher called it eucanasia, thats still not murder. and if anyone can ever think of a way Nazism is good, if only in moderation, please post it. i'd probably die, but post anyways :). |
dysfunction
Goliath
Posted: 3 Mar 2004
16:23 GMT
Total Posts: 122 | I can see no benefit in Nazism, but can see one in Social Darwinism. The human race would become the best, socially, that it could be. Unfortunately, we'd probably lose most of our humanity along the way. |
zkostik
Carrier
Posted: 3 Mar 2004
16:37 GMT
Total Posts: 2486 | very nice speech LunchBox, however mentioning "sin" in your disclaimer is way too general of a word. meaning of sin is very subjective and varies greatly from one country to another and so forth.
btw, 200 years is too long to wait. if people are going to do something about this, then they better do it now. that's why you can see demonstrations and such speaking out on this issue.
---
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 |
Digital
Guardian
Posted: 3 Mar 2004
16:55 GMT
Total Posts: 1051 | One very inportant thing I've learned when debating, when you quote a source, post the source with a link to it, especially if its online. I've heard some of that before, but without posting your sources, there is no reason why you should have any credability in what is said. I aslo agree with Z on 'sin'. Are we debating the moral/religious POV or the legal POV, or both against each other? |
Lunchbox
Carrier
Posted: 3 Mar 2004
16:59 GMT
Total Posts: 2007 | Actually, my speech is all original.
But, to answer your question digital, we started discussing the legal POV, but we ended up putting our religious/moral views in it and u can discuss either (starting with spiral), but it would be best to stay with the pertinent topic. |
Billy
Ultralisk
Posted: 3 Mar 2004
17:07 GMT
Total Posts: 260 | My best friend is a homosexual. We have been best friends since we were in first grade. And when he "came out of the closet" (so to speak) a couple years ago, my views were drastically changed.
My previous views were very negative against gays. That was due to my parents influence mostly, and my lack of understanding.
What I came to realize was how it doesn't affect me at all, nor any other person for that matter. My logic behind this one is that homosexuals are just like everybody else. I'm not just saying that, they are. They are normal people, good people. Since they are normal people, there are good ones and bad ones. Just like there are people who are not homosexual that are jerks, and those who are nice. Their love life does not affect me, and in fact allows more girls for me .(However, that doesn't really matterfor me, because I am not single...)
Homosexuality is just a person's own sexual preference. It doesn't change the person in anyway, and you shouldn't use it as a basis to judge a person. Their personality remains the same, they still have the same humor and the same skills (like singing, drawing, what have you). My point being being homosexual doesn't change a person in those respects.
For those reasons, I fail to see what the whole big comotion over this is. I feel that marriage should stay as is in the constitution, and that this issue should be decided by the states. I feel this is not a national issue, and that Congress has better things to do. And yes, they do have better things to look at. Like they could work on the US budget, which is what Congress was created to do, yes among other tasks, in the first place. And yes, I am in support for gay marriage if you need it less obfuscated.
As for the mentioning of the Bible, don't get me started on that piece of garbage. Yes, I was Roman Catholic previously. Yes, I have lost my faith because I'm not a brainwashed little kid anymore. I lost faith after 6th grade, and opened my eyes. |
Digital
Guardian
Posted: 3 Mar 2004
17:17 GMT
Total Posts: 1051 | For one, if you want someone to repsect what you say, don't imediately trash anothers views. As for myself, I've decided to keep my faith with my own free will and have tested it many times over. There has never been a time when it has failed me. I'm sorry the same was not true of you.
The internet was created for working, not gamming. Congress can deal with this issue if they please since the issue seams nation wide. It is apart of the three powers of the nation and it is trying to do its job; to determine if this is right. I'm just waiting for the judiciary branch to chime in.
One thing that keeps beign said is "it doesn't affect me." When it simply does. Your view were one way and when you found out that your best friend was gay, your views changed. Clear contradiction. WHy is it that mostly everyone who supports this has said "it doesn't affect me." Think about the statement. Is it just me or does that seem selfish and arogant?
Edit: Z, do you think it would be a good idea to have a debate forum instead of thread?
[Edited by Digital on 04-Mar-04 02:18] |
Lunchbox
Carrier
Posted: 3 Mar 2004
17:17 GMT
Total Posts: 2007 | very well written billy, and i agree wiht you on most points EXCEPT for the one that says, "As for the mentioning of the Bible, don't get me started on that piece of garbage." don't say piece of garbage, that's ver offensive to us true christians out there |
Barrett
Administrator
Posted: 3 Mar 2004
17:35 GMT
Total Posts: 1676 | Z don't make a debate forum.... if you want to do it do it in the offtopic forum... i don't think debates are ever (EVER) productive. I've been reading this one but i'm not gonna post in it cause i would probably offend someone which i don't like doing.
[Edited by Barrett on 04-Mar-04 02:35]
---
-Barrett A |
Digital
Guardian
Posted: 3 Mar 2004
17:44 GMT
Total Posts: 1051 | I;ve learned B that you'll always offend a person when touching any contrivercial topic. Its kind of like learning to "play nice" when there is a debate. |
jessef
Goliath
Posted: 3 Mar 2004
17:46 GMT
Total Posts: 192 | I mostly agree whith all of billys vews. it is not verry nice to trash someone elses vews. I have a gay aunt(now two, she maried) who is prabably one of the coolest aunt/uncle's that I have. I have also met other gay's (all women I don't know why) and amd fine whith it. I dont think that someone who is gay can affect someone in a negative way because that they are gay. also I am not christian fyi.
edit: I like debating eventhough people do get offended, I also think that debats on personal belefs have nothing to do whith calculators so they probably should not be a sepreat forum
[Edited by jessef on 04-Mar-04 02:47] |
Digital
Guardian
Posted: 3 Mar 2004
17:50 GMT
Total Posts: 1051 | Well this is the main section for non-calculator stuff. |
Billy
Ultralisk
Posted: 3 Mar 2004
17:58 GMT
Total Posts: 260 | I'll admit what I said against the Bible was strongly said, but I can't edit that, or rephrase it because I "lack permision". But you brought up the creation story above - you do realize how much the Bible contradicts itself on that one, don't you? First off, there are two creation stories in the Bible. One consecutively after the other in Genesis. Also, during the better known creation story, it says there was light and then day. And that was the first day. Yet it wasn't until the 4th day the Sun was created, along with the stars and moon. There's obviously something not right there.
As for the New Testament, there are drastic differences between the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The church has contradicted itself on this one. Many years ago, being basically fundamentalists, the Vatican said that God directly held the pen through those author's hands, and thus they were written. Later on, the Vatican Council decided to say that it was through Divine Inspiration from God that they were written. So close inrelation to the older decalred way in which the Gospels were written, but not. Meaning God didn't have them on a remote control, and they had the free will to write it their own way. That makes a lot of sense. However, the truth was that each writer of the Gospels were writing for a specific audience. Each one (Matthew Mark and Luke) wrote in stories that would apply to that audeience they were writing for. Their audience were either the Jewish Community, or Gentiles. John is just a confusing whirlwind with a general message as far as the Gospels go. So both the authors and the church has contradicted itself, so fundamentalist views on what's right and what isn't shouldn't be looked at completely seriously in the Bible. Such as it's ok to have slaves if you technically follow the Bible to its purest form. Obviously times change, and slavery is horrible - and it always was.
Now my understanding is that Congress' main job has to do with the Commercial aspect of America. They control printing the currency (money), and they make laws associating with commercial activities (go elastic clause). They also act as a major role in the Checks and Balances of our federalism government.
NOTE: I do realize the New Testiment and Old Testiment is considered politically incorrect, but I don't think political correctness should be in any way associated with religion. Also, I've known it as that way my whole life and I don't plan on changing to be politically correct.
And yes B, debates go nowhere, but they sure are fun
EDIT: clarified, or expanded a sentence
[Edited by Billy on 04-Mar-04 03:01] |
jessef
Goliath
Posted: 3 Mar 2004
18:05 GMT
Total Posts: 192 | what's politlicaly incorect about new and old testament?
[Edited by jessef on 04-Mar-04 03:06] |
Barrett
Administrator
Posted: 3 Mar 2004
18:08 GMT
Total Posts: 1676 | (not getting involved in the original debate)
well billy, every contradiction you came up with is solved if you become Mormon! :happy:
---
-Barrett A |
jessef
Goliath
Posted: 3 Mar 2004
18:14 GMT
Total Posts: 192 | I know very little about mormons but how does that change anything, don't they beleve int the bible also. |
Billy
Ultralisk
Posted: 3 Mar 2004
18:17 GMT
Total Posts: 260 | I just wanted to enlighten D on how I did not contradict myself. I was referring to homosexuality as a whole in those paragraphs when I said "it doesn't affect me", thus making it appropriate to say. However, my best friend, who has a drastically different preference, does affect me.
How is that different? It is like microcosm vs macrocosm when talking about events in a book. Directly related, but very very different.
And how does "It doesn't affect me" appear arrogant? It was not used in a harsh tone, or phrased to be harsh. It's just the way my nonchalant attitude is. And the affect of gay marriage and relations seems to be the whole issue. It's what people are afraid of - the reverberation and the consequences of this. And there won't be any really. If allowed, all it will do is make many couples happier, and they will have fair and equal rights.
Now B, I do know people who are Mormon, and in fact I do have the Book of Mormon at my house. Although I have not read any of it, I have seen religious Mormon movies brought by missionaries to my house. I also have been to a Mormon church, and seen a religious Mormon pagent. Now my understanding of the Mormon religion is that it does not get rid of the original Bible, but it just adds another Book to the word of God.
If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me. |
Digital
Guardian
Posted: 3 Mar 2004
18:23 GMT
Total Posts: 1051 | Apology accepted.
Quote:
"NOTE: I do realize the New Testiment and Old Testiment is considered politically incorrect, but I don't think political correctness should be in any way associated with religion. Also, I've known it as that way my whole life and I don't plan on changing to be politically correct."
I am in complete agreence with you on this and feel the same way.
As for the contradictions you have stated I'll touch on the second first (let me do this backward for the sake of time).
You might remember that I said that the Catholic church gets mixed up with the Christian chuch. If not let me elaborate. The Vatican only 'controls' Chatholics it has no power over any other religion. In fact it should have no power. There are many things Biblically wrong with Catholicism, but thats for a later time. Let me go home and look over some notes and I'll point out the verse(s) that 'prove' that the Gospels, if not the entire Bible, was written through Divine Inspiration. If you follow the Bible in the "purest form" your being legalistic, aka going through the motions. The Bible says God wants a personal relationship with and individual. Read John Chapter 2 about the Temple and what Jesus did.
Continue reading, or read more closely. God divided the light into two lights, one to goven the day and one the night. Hense, the sun and the moon. Also the 'light' is believed to be from the holiness of God. I've heard this from theologins, but I can't back it up. |
jessef
Goliath
Posted: 3 Mar 2004
18:23 GMT
Total Posts: 192 | I think that the aurguments that being gay is wrong is based mostly on religious beliefs which should be left out of the laws of this land. which means that gay marage should not be outlawed. |
Billy
Ultralisk
Posted: 3 Mar 2004
18:28 GMT
Total Posts: 260 | Although I agree jessef, laws are based off of what is accepted, and what is considered a taboo, in society. Laws are basically general agreements within a society. They protect a society's views of what's right, and condemns what is viewed as wrong.
Although what I said was really repetitive, that's what a law is essentially. |
Digital
Guardian
Posted: 3 Mar 2004
18:29 GMT
Total Posts: 1051 | And how does "It doesn't affect me" appear arrogant? It was not used in a harsh tone, or phrased to be harsh. It's just the way my nonchalant attitude is. And the affect of gay marriage and relations seems to be the whole issue. It's what people are afraid of - the reverberation and the consequences of this. And there won't be any really. If allowed, all it will do is make many couples happier, and they will have fair and equal rights.
Apparently I did not fully understand that specific point of view. My bad. As to enlighten you. I said "Think about the statement. Is it just me or does that seem selfish and arogant?" I am refering to the isolated statement not its conotative meaning. I also take that a step further (though I may not have been clear enough) as in what basic human emotions would need to be present, though not necessarily conscience (sp?), for it to be said.
Now B, I do know people who are Mormon, and in fact I do have the Book of Mormon at my house. Although I have not read any of it, I have seen religious Mormon movies brought by missionaries to my house. I also have been to a Mormon church, and seen a religious Mormon pagent. Now my understanding of the Mormon religion is that it does not get rid of the original Bible, but it just adds another Book to the word of God.
If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me.
I had two Mormons in a class last semester and talked frequently with them. That sounds right.
Edit: forgot to finish posting
[Edited by Digital on 04-Mar-04 03:35] |
Digital
Guardian
Posted: 3 Mar 2004
18:32 GMT
Total Posts: 1051 | Quote:
"Although I agree jessef, laws are based off of what is accepted, and what is considered a taboo, in society. Laws are basically general agreements within a society. They protect a society's views of what's right, and condemns what is viewed as wrong.
Although what I said was really repetitive, that's what a law is essentially."
That is what I brought up when I posted a second time. I hate the fact that there are times when I move too fast. We are no just coming to this.
Edit: bad quote
[Edited by Digital on 04-Mar-04 03:32] |
Barrett
Administrator
Posted: 3 Mar 2004
18:44 GMT
Total Posts: 1676 | You're right, we also still have The Bible.
With The Book of Mormon we are able to see what the Bible is saying more clearly.
And just as sort of a metaphor for this.... how many lines can you draw through 1 dot? infinate. How many lines can you draw through 2 dots? One. It clarifies just about everything in the Bible.
Now Back in the 1830's or so Joseph Smith, through revelation, did a "Joseph Smith Translation" of the Bible... in other words, he fixed any mis-translations/mis-copying that has happened over the past 6 thousand years. And if you think about it, over 6000 years there will be many many mis-translations, especially with limited knowledge of certain languages at certain times. And with hand-copying there are certainly going to be mistakes.
---
-Barrett A |
jessef
Goliath
Posted: 3 Mar 2004
18:49 GMT
Total Posts: 192 | I think that it is interesting that in all of the discutions that took up the issue of being gay there were no gay's involved. I think that it would be interesting to hear their vews. also I dobut that they discuss whether or not it is ok to be strait, because straits are the majoraty so if gay's were the majoraty would it be wrong to be strait? |
Billy
Ultralisk
Posted: 3 Mar 2004
18:49 GMT
Total Posts: 260 | Also seeing as the stories were passed onto the authors oraly highly affects the accuracy of it all too.
My understanding of the book of mormon is that it also contains more current stories (in a sense). They present the same message, but they were written by the founder of the Mormon religion of his experiences. Of course, I could be way off on that one, because my Mormon religion-based knowledge is quite limited.
[Edited by Billy on 04-Mar-04 03:51] |
jessef
Goliath
Posted: 3 Mar 2004
18:56 GMT
Total Posts: 192 | thanks for the clarafacation on mormon's. The retranslated bible sounds interesting. I can imagine that much was lost form the time it came from hebrew to latten to english(I think). is it in more modern english than other bible's although I have not read one I have heard that the launguadge is old. |
Barrett
Administrator
Posted: 3 Mar 2004
19:06 GMT
Total Posts: 1676 | Billy - yes you are way off.
The Book of Mormon is like the Bible, but it is a history of Christ's church on the American continent (ancestors of native americans). It starts around 600 BC and goes all the way up until about AD 500 (give or take a few, i'm not entirely sure).
jessef - We use the King James version, and the translations are added at the end (there are footnotes to point out that a translation has been done).
---
-Barrett A |
Billy
Ultralisk
Posted: 3 Mar 2004
19:27 GMT
Total Posts: 260 | Sorry I was so misinformed on that one! But now I know.
And D - I understand what you meant now. |
zkostik
Carrier
Posted: 3 Mar 2004
19:40 GMT
Total Posts: 2486 | To B: yeah B, i think we should keep this as a thread. there isn't any real need to make a debate forum.
as far as debate goes, i respect everyone's views and do not enfore anything. that's why we live in democratic country; so that everyone can have their own views at things. i already said enough here, so i'll just listen for now.
---
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 |
