Texas sodomy ruling likely to ruffle feathers

[Guest JMA]

I never get how humans are supposed to have free will. After all, damning people to burn in eternal fire if they don't do as you say seems pretty harsh. That, and YHWH seemed to interfere in the lives of humans too much during the Old Testament. These are several reasons why I'm no longer a Christian. YHWH seemed to be a little too human to me (as in fallible and imperfect). I myself simply want to be free from the control of others, to be independant.

[Guest SP-1]

I suppose it seems that way if you don't know the intricacy of the covenant. When it comes down to it, we were originally given the free will to choose to retain perfection or to reject order. We chose to reject it and try to gain control by learning the knowledge of good and evil. If I had the chance to protect my children from knowledge of what Evil is, I'd try to save them the trouble. But it's also only fair that the opportunity be available. It's the nature of truth and love.

 

As for interfering in people's lives, those people were greatly blessed. They had the chance to reject God's wishes but chose to follow Him. All of God's requests of people and his subsequent actions were leading to the coming of Christ. That's basically what the Old Testament is. God establishes a covenant of sacrifice so that man could make amends for the sin that infected the world at the Fall. Sin is such a horrid thing that God could have just wiped Adam and Eve out and said screw it. But instead he made a deal with humanity that if they sacrifice it takes care of the sin. Otherwise, it's death. Death because that's how terrible sin is, how totally against perfection and good it is.

 

He didn't have to.

 

But he did anyway.

 

And so as time went on and people started turning away from God, he put a plan into effect. He called Abraham to begin a nation. A nation that would carry the bloodline that would lead to David, and from David to Joseph and Mary and from Mary to Jesus, The Son taking on the flesh by the conception of The Spirit.

 

That's the OT in a nutshell. He wasn't interfering, He was setting the stage to save us all by coming to Earth himself and making the ultimate sacrifice, by His own covenant. The ultimate sacrifice to end them all because it could never be topped.

 

But I guess you can call it interference if you want. I'm certainly glad there's no need to go find a goat without blemish and roast that sucker everytime I screw up in a day.

[Guest JMA]

I suppose it seems that way if you don't know the intricacy of the covenant.  When it comes down to it, we were originally given the free will to choose to retain perfection or to reject order.  We chose to reject it and try to gain control by learning the knowledge of good and evil.  If I had the chance to protect my children from knowledge of what Evil is, I'd try to save them the trouble.  But it's also only fair that the opportunity be available.  It's the nature of truth and love.

 

As for interfering in people's lives, those people were greatly blessed.  They had the chance to reject God's wishes but chose to follow Him.  All of God's requests of people and his subsequent actions were leading to the coming of Christ.  That's basically what the Old Testament is.  God establishes a covenant of sacrifice so that man could make amends for the sin that infected the world at the Fall.  Sin is such a horrid thing that God could have just wiped Adam and Eve out and said screw it.  But instead he made a deal with humanity that if they sacrifice it takes care of the sin.  Otherwise, it's death.  Death because that's how terrible sin is, how totally against perfection and good it is. 

 

He didn't have to.

 

But he did anyway.

 

And so as time went on and people started turning away from God, he put a plan into effect.  He called Abraham to begin a nation.  A nation that would carry the bloodline that would lead to David, and from David to Joseph and Mary and from Mary to Jesus, The Son taking on the flesh by the conception of The Spirit.

 

That's the OT in a nutshell.  He wasn't interfering, He was setting the stage to save us all by coming to Earth himself and making the ultimate sacrifice, by His own covenant.  The ultimate sacrifice to end them all because it could never be topped.

 

But I guess you can call it interference if you want.  I'm certainly glad there's no need to go find a goat without blemish and roast that sucker everytime I screw up in a day.

Despite having the best intensions, interferring is still interferring. I was also aware of both the Old and New Covenents, just so you know. You say Man was given free will in the case of Adam and Eve. But if they were predestined to eat the fruit, it wasn't free will. It was already decided. To be honest, I think Adam and Eve did the right thing (even though I don't think they were real). YHWH also interferred by driving them out of a garden HE gave to them. Was it a gift with strings attached? It wouldn't be a gift at all if it were.

 

I don't think the people were blessed who were killed by YHWH. What about all the innocent children killed in the flood? Is it ethical to drown newborn babies? And what was the point of burning alive the people of Sodom and Gomorroh? What did it accomplish. It just made YHWH out to be a deity who relies on fear to get what he wants. You say it's a stage.

 

Well, I don't want to be on a stage. I want to be free and be control of my own destiny. I'm not going to sit around feeling bad about Man becomes two nudists ate some fruit and ruined some kind of divine trust (again, even though I don't believe in them). All in all, I think the story of the Bible is a good story. I enjoy analyzing the characters, putting myself in their shoes, and seeing what motivates them. But that's as far as it goes.

 

Please note that this isn't an attack on you or your beliefs. You're a nice guy who I respect. I just needed to get that off my chest.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Okay, I'll attack his beliefs then. Just for the hell of it. (Pardon the pun.)

 

If homosexuality is unnatural and wicked, SP, explain why animals indulge in homosexual behaviour across innumerable species and practically every known genus. This page cites many specific examples in detail. Surely animals can't sin; they don't have souls, do they? So how do you classify a male baboon mounting another male baboon, or two female silver gulls "mating" for life? Go to any zoo in the world and you can see Sodom and Gomorrah are alive and well; seems like your god's aim was a bit off. If he wanted to eliminate homosexuality shouldn't he have started with, well, the birds and the bees? I mean is your god a moron as well as a peevish mass-murdering asshole? Does it really make any sense, any sense at all, to create countless creatures which can and do freely indulge in a particular behaviour and then proclaim that for ONE species and ONE species alone that behaviour is verboten? Or do the gulls get to burn in hell for all eternity as well? Squawk squawk squawk!

 

I dunno, seems really retarded to me.

 

I'm curious to see what kind of bullshit explanation you're going to pull out of your ass (or Bible, whatever) this time. Hope you have fun "wrestling" with it.

Edited June 18, 2003 by Cancer Marney

[Guest TheGame2705]

I'm no bible scholar but I don't think it was ever stated that it wasn't natural.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Our resident Bible scholar has said it isn't, numerous times:

 

In either case, I don't believe it's right because of the scientific reasons stated above. If you paid close attention, I said that it goes against the natural order of things. God created the world to work in a specific way...

Sodom and Gammorah were hosts to sodomy and all sorts of sexual and other sins, but the sexual things were focused on in the account and, IIRC, subsequent sentence for the two cities...

I don't believe the act is right, I don't believe it ever has been, nor will it ever be. Scientifically it doesn't hold weight, and biblically it doesn't hold weight.

I, personally, think that the notion that God is a God of chaos and couldn't have possibly created an order things in perposterous. It's just an easy out so that everybody can pervert the ordered, natural, GOOD world that God created into something that they can bend and abuse at their whim and not feel guilty about it.

 

...as have others, including YPOV. I don't think it's arguable that the Bible considers homosexuality an unnatural sin. Leviticus 20:13 calls it an "abomination" and calls for homosexuals to be punished by death: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

 

You can't get much clearer than that.

[Guest JMA]

I'm no bible scholar but I don't think it was ever stated that it wasn't natural.

Being a former Christian (and now an Atheist) I know it was stated in Leviticus and I believe Paul said something about it as well. Of course, Leviticus was basically just a book of laws written for the tribe of Levi. And I never really liked Paul. He always seemed like a fanatic to me. He just switched sides.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Fascinating article, Marney.

 

Kudos for finding it.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Thanks Tyler.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

To you. But Eric isn't law either, nor the final word.

As my eighth grade history teacher said, there's been a bunch of people messing around with the Bible. That's why you have all those different versions like the King James Version and such.

 

I'm not sure how valid that is, as I only went to christian private schools through 6th grade and never asked about that kind of stuff, so you'd know better than me.

 

And I care because the Old Testament was God being a badass about enforcing the laws. Laws which still hold relevance to Him and are still what He'd like for us to.

 

Stoning virgins in the town square?

 

But I guess you can call it interference if you want. I'm certainly glad there's no need to go find a goat without blemish and roast that sucker everytime I screw up in a day.

 

Nevermind.

 

I, personally, think that the notion that God is a God of chaos and couldn't have possibly created an order things in perposterous.

 

I'm confused, does this mean that God's already planned out what we're all individually going to do, bound to destiny without choice?

 

 

Anyway, I can't take anyone who believes every word of the Old Testament as it's written and generally interpreted, as many religious types simply don't. I remember discussing evoltuion vs creationism with a creationist. While some of his stuff was flawed and some of it was difficult to debate because I never heard anything about it before (such as all human geneology going back to one woman in Africa), the one thing that peeved him off is the common-held theory that Creationist believe in the seven-day Genesis thing. There's plenty of scientific proof that all life wasn't born in the same week, instead he just believed that God made all the species during the timelines of history.

 

So be a little careful with that Old Testament is what I'm sayin', I guess.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Oh, and since we brought up the gay animal issue, this is an interesting Salon article offering a viewpoint into a book that talks about this. Sure, it's second-hand info, but I doubt any of us have the book, so...

 

http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1999/03/co...15featurea.html

 

Two percent of male ostriches ignore females and court males with a lively dance that involves running toward your chosen partner at 30 mph, skidding to a stop in front of him, pirouetting madly, then "kantling," which includes crouching, rocking, fluffing your feathers, puffing your throat in and out and twisting your neck like a corkscrew. A male ostrich courting a female omits the speedy approach, shortens the display, adds a booming song and may include symbolic feeding displays. Male ostriches have not been seen actually having sex, unlike male flamingo pairs, who mate, build nests and sometimes rear foster chicks.

 

 

It also brings up an interesting point on the right/wrong stuff:

So what if animals are gay? Are people vindicated in our diverse sex lives by diversity in animals? If they put us on trial, can we bring as character witnesses lions who make the Sign of the Great Tawny Beast with same-sex lions? (And they do. Unless that's just a greeting.) No, not unless we would bring those same lions to testify that killing your new significant other's children is a useful way to free up their time for you and your future children. Animals do all kinds of things that we frown on for ourselves.

 

But we can bring the lions to testify that there's nothing unnatural about human sex lives, that bisexuality and homosexuality are not among those twisted human inventions, like income tax, or graduate school, or step aerobics, that have no close analog in the wild.

 

As Bagemihl says of this widely expressed idea, "What is remarkable about the entire debate about the naturalness of homosexuality is the frequent absence of any reference to concrete facts or accurate, comprehensive information about animal homosexuality."

 

There's no longer any excuse. At more than 750 pages of profusely illustrated, carefully referenced information, this is the ideal book to slam down on the fingers of anyone who says homosexuality isn't natural.

[Guest NoCalMike]

well my christian friend tells me that being saved is not even our choice to begin with, that if you become a born again christian it is by god's will and not your/our own will. Kind of like God pulls you to him. So if that is the case, I guess it doesn't matter how anyone acts at any given time, if god wants you, he will "show you the light" !?!

 

The problem with christian/atheist arguments, is that each side is on a completely different level of reasoning. See my problem arguing with my christian friends is that they preach the bible as if it is fact which is ok for them to think, but when they argue it, I don't reciprocrate the same thinking of, "oh the bible says that, well by golly, I was wrong all along"

 

The word of the bible means nothing to someone who doesn't believe, yet to defend christians, there is really nothing else to fall back on but the bible so there isn't much more for them to use as evidence.

 

Did I even explain a damn thing?

[Guest NoCalMike]

As far as homosexuality being natural or not. I'd say if you wake up in the morning and turn on the tv, any attraction to another human being is pretty damn natural. The notion that it is "cool to be gay" is retarded. I don't buy that it is a brain dysfunction and it has never even been close to being proven either.

 

Your sexuality stems from a NATURAL attraction to what the INDIVIDUAL finds attractive.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Did I even explain a damn thing?

Sure did, NCM, and you're right for many Christians. It just isn't particularly applicable here because SP decided to call homosexuality scientifically "unnatural," which is absurd, and which is essentially what he's being called on now. He claimed that evidence existed outside the Bible to justify his beliefs, and it doesn't. In fact every scrap of evidence I've ever seen makes his beliefs look shamefully ignorant, if not downright farcical. His constant claims of "supernatural" experiences in other threads also makes his insistence on the propriety of keeping to a "natural" order seem rather pointless.

 

Of course, in light of all the evidence we do have, I think I'm being perfectly natural by fucking my wife silly three or four times a day.

 

Of course, a lot of Christians have brains as well, and they realise that just one book alone is hardly a good argument for proselytisation. You have to appeal to something more than your own personal faith in order to get people to listen to you. Thus the attempts to support Christianity with science, with appeals to conscience, with philosophy - and, of course, with the rack, with the bonfire and the stake, and more recently, with the sniper bullet and the firebomb.

 

Religion is based on faith, certainly. But even true believers harbour the seeds of doubt, and when the faith just isn't enough they need everything they can get to destroy those seeds. Sometimes relatively harmless measures suffice, such as self-delusion and ecstasy, or speaking in tongues. Sometimes it takes an Inquisition.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

What you didn't see with Marney's smooth edit was the previous lack of bragging about getting some.

 

I think the edit will score a lot more points with the bleacher crowd, though

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Heh. <g> Well, I figure - chrissakes, I'm married. M-A-R-R-fucking-I-E-D. If I didn't get regular sex out of it at the very least I'd divorce her so fast it'd make your head spin. Dating, she went back to her own place once in a while, and let me tell you that sucked.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Point taken.

 

I'll just sit here and be jealous for another year or so.

[Guest EricMM]

*cheers*

 

SP will also probably say that homosexual marriage is wrong. But here's the question, is it more or less wrong than non-married homosexual sex?

 

Either way people need to lighten up, you know god's chill with pretty much anything. God created it after all. As long as you're not killin, stealin, etc you're gravy!

 

*does the wave*

[Guest Cancer Marney]

I'll just sit here and be jealous for another year or so.

Thoughts of how much the ring will cost should keep you warm at night. I still can't believe I blew as much as I did on hers.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

And my non-contribution to this argument, by the way, is that my viewpoint should not affect another person's rights to do whatever they want in private... so long as no one is getting physically hurt, of course (i.e. abuse, rape, incest, etc.).

 

As far as religion goes, I'm a practicing Catholic. I don't take the OT literally, nor do I believe that my faith is infallible. It's simply the faith that most closely matches my belief systems.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

SP will also probably say that homosexual marriage is wrong.  But here's the question, is it more or less wrong than non-married homosexual sex?

Okay, that made me laugh. Y'know, I could be wrong, but I don't believe St Augustine ever addressed that issue. <G>

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Meh, don't remind me Doesn't help that I'm hopelessly in love and have already bought her stuff I couldn't afford. I cringe at how much I'll probably spend on it.

[Guest Ripper]

My problem with Christanity is that no one in the religion seems to want to grasp the fact that the Bible is flawed because it was written by man. Yes, they wrote it from the word of god, but they would splurge a little and put their own 2 cents in. There are numeroud parables in the bible itself that talks of this, the most famous one being Moses not getting into the promise land after god told him to do one thing and he just splurged a little, adding his own little twist to it.

 

It actually says in the Bible that if you go to war with someone make sure to kill them all and it is OK to rape the women, servants and children.(don't have a bible with me, but it's in there). Do you REALLY think that is what God said to do? Do you really think God was in the middle of talking about love of the holy spirit and all of a sudden just said, "Oh yeah, women shouldn't cut their hair either...its a sin or something.." The authors of the Bible wrote thier own beliefs into it all the time, and I believe that homosexuality is also a example of it. It doesn't even make sense for god to create people who are attracted to their own sex and then say, "Now you're gonna have a eternity of fire if you act on it." that would make god one sadistic fucker and I don't believe that God is. That's why I no longer call myself a Christian...I still believe in God and Jesus and his glory, but Christanity as a organization is too wacky for me.

 

In the end, believe in whatever makes you a better person. If it is Hindu, Allah, Buddha, Jose the tap-dancing crab...whoever.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

CNN story: "Jesus box" exposed as fake

 

Just thought I'd throw in this link, mostly for the last line in the article:

While most scholars agree that Jesus existed, no physical evidence from the first century has ever been conclusively tied with his life.

(emphasis mine)

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

And Haggis, I think you're leaning more towards a Catholic view of sex.  In the Protestant/Reformed world, sex between a man and wife simply for pleasure if just fine.  It's prohibited nowhere in scripture, within the context of marriage.

Of course... I'm Catholic. But the Protestant view hurts your argument. If sex purely for pleasure is ok b/t a man and a woman, why isn't it ok for people of the same sex?

 

- Government Makes A Society More Free

 

- Governmental Oversight Of The Economy Increases Prosperity

 

- Government Must Ensure All Citizens A Fair Opportunity For Economic Viability

Why would I ever vote Democrat, then?

 

That's why I no longer call myself a Christian...I still believe in God and Jesus and his glory, but Christanity as a organization is too wacky for me.

Of course you know "Christianity" is not an organization. The sects are. If you believe in Christ you should call yourself Christian. Perhaps some wackjob priest gave you that impression... or maybe the particular sect was a little too fundamentalist. Don't let those things make you decide not to be a Christian. It's like people leaving the Church because of those asshole pedophiles. Are you Catholic for the priests or for Jesus?

Edited June 18, 2003 by Spicy McHaggis

[Guest Ripper]

No, actually Christainity is a religion that has fundamental beliefs that I do not share. The word Christian only is in the Bible twice and was never meant to be a word to define those who believe in Christ. This was the term that was used to mock the disiples and those that followed Christ. Christianity is a religious sect that believes in Christ and god and such, but also believes in things that I do not agree with. If you don't agree with major issues within a religious sect, then you don't agree with that religion.

 

I belive in Christ and His and my creator, not the laws of the Christian religion. Therefore I can not call myself a Christian.

[Guest Retro Rob]

I belive in Christ and His and my creator, not the laws of the Christian religion. Therefore I can not call myself a Christian.

I'm glad that at least a few people agree with me on that one. Although I do not believe in God or anything like that, it always pisses me off when people go around breaking half the rules set forth by their religion, but then in certain situations they will pull out the ol' "I'm a devout Christian. How can you not believe in God? Have fun in hell." I don't understand why people have so much trouble separating themselves from organized religion if they don't want to follow through with it's rules. Go believe in your own thing, set your own rules that you see fit in order to be a good person and that's that.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

No, actually Christainity is a religion that has fundamental beliefs that I do not share. The word Christian only is in the Bible twice and was never meant to be a word to define those who believe in Christ. This was the term that was used to mock the disiples and those that followed Christ. Christianity is a religious sect that believes in Christ and god and such, but also believes in things that I do not agree with. If you don't agree with major issues within a religious sect, then you don't agree with that religion.

 

I belive in Christ and His and my creator, not the laws of the Christian religion. Therefore I can not call myself a Christian.

Wrong.

 

Catholics are Christian. Lutherans are Christian. Baptists are Christian. Calvinists are Christian. Episcopalians are Christian. Mormons are Christian.

 

Last time I checked, these were all separate religions.

 

Chris·tian  adj.

1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.

2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.

3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.

4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.

5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane. 

 

Maybe you're too lazy to find a religion that shares your fundamental beliefs.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

You can be non-denominational Christian, like myself. I believe we're all going to heaven. YAY~! EVERYONE'S A WINNER~!

 

Just to point out, I should have said no matter how unnatural "one thinks" homosexuality is, because I never said it was. I do think abortion is wrong, but have no evidence, so no luck there.

 

Again, Marney aren't you a Christian, or am I totally off on that one?

[Guest Ripper]

The definition of Christian has been amended more times than the Constitution. If the word Christian was never used by Christ and his followers to describe the act of following him, then why should I. Christianity has become a religion, plain and simple. Websters definition of Christian would actually describe what the bible would define as Disciple for Christ. That is the word used in the bible to descibe those that follow christ and his teachings and believe in him.

 

I guess you can say all those religions are Christians due to Websters dictionary, but when asked, how many of them say Christian? The use of the word is what makes up its true definition in my book. Christianity is considered a religious sect, then I will call it one.

 

And Its not being lazy about finding people that agree with my beliefs, it why should I. I know what I believe, and I wouldn't feel any closer or further away form God if I don't find a bunch of other people to sit around with me and say "Dude, we are so RIGHT!!"