Christian hate & insanity

[technofox]

Early data suggests that there probably isn't much difference. E.g. see Divorce Rates Lower in States with Same-Sex Marriage - US News and World Report.

The correlations seem to be stronger with education and social class than with religion. This is probably the reason for the pattern shown in the article cited. (States that allow gay marriage are by definition more liberal, and thus probably had lower divorce rates anyway.)

I agree with your overall concern about divorce. Churches need to develop more effective ways to support families. Preaching legalistic sexual ethics and condemning divorce and gay marriage probably won't do it. Given the pattern of how divorce varies, my assumption is that it tends to be higher among conservative Christians because the population in those churches tends to come from backgrounds where they don't have as good interpersonal skills, and where economic situations tend to be more challenging. If I were going to attack this problem, I'd find ways to help couples develop both interpersonal and job skills, and to provide good support for them when they are having problems. I'm pretty sure such programs exist.

Interesting info and thanks for the reference. I figured that much of the higher divorce rates in conservative areas are related to what you have said. Education, income, and interpersonal skills are definitely key ingrediants. What I don't understand is why some churches use legalism to prevent divorce over actually addressing the causes of divorce?

Its like treating the symptoms, but not the actual cause. Its problems like these that cause people from wanting to even bother with any religion at all.

One of my biggest beefs with some Christians is that they use the "End Times Excuse"; basically instead of addressing the problems within the church, they would rather say and accept the end times prophecies is coming near. To me, using the end times excuse is nothing more than a cop-out to actually making the hard and tough decisions necessary to make the changes that will lead others to Christ. Its like some people want their church a hotel for saints and not a hospital for sinners.

I don't blame anyone who decides to become an an atheist or agnostic. The real blame falls back on us, because obviously we are doing something wrong as a collective whole that is leading to declines of people in any faith, but most particularly in Christianity. The OP maybe pointing to the extreme cases; however, there is a general consensus amongst younger generations that religion = intolerance, legalism, lack of compassion, hypocrisy, willful ignorance, and hatred.

Its a sad state, when Christianity played a key role in the Renaissance and Enlightment eras, especially some of the original principles of humanism. It all started roughly around the protestant reformation and onward to the present. Christianity became more personal, where sinner and God interact with one another. Love, compassion, temperance, modesty, and goodwill grew from within Christiandom and continued to improve as time marched on. Now here in the 21st century and we see that we have strayed from the idealized principles that had made the west a power house in terms of technology, science, and expansion of human rights.

I know I am probably being biased; however, much of the ideas of the Enlightenment era had its roots from Christianity and the principles that Jesus taught. Its quite amazing how we have forgotten to even acknowledge that. Oddly enough the conservatives that idolize the founding fathers often forget that most of them, including Thomas Jefferson, were deists. Oh well I am done ranting, I just want things to get better :-(

 

[Curious Atheist]

[FONT=&quot] In principle you're wrong. Churches should be reaching out to homosexuals, even though they are concerned about homosexual actions. In practice you may well be right in too many cases.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I have heard of some Churches, where the priest has come out as homosexual and was allowed to stay. However this was only news because it is the minority and I haven’t heard of openly gay priests being employed. I do agree with many of your sentiments however I still think you view the Church (any church) through ‘rose tinted glasses’, hence why I have highlighted ‘should’ because it is such a very optimistic term.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] You are right that teaching has consequences. That's why there are limits to freedom of speech. I'm afraid that this one probably has to be tolerated, although I wish we had an alternative. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Fortunately a lot of African bishops and priests are more realistic.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I couldn’t disagree more, freedom of speech is absolutely vital to everyone who live in a free democratic country. The Pope has every right to spout any rubbish he wants, but I am deeply disappointed that so many people follow his words over their own morals and plain common sense. It bothers me he is held in such high regard by so many people to the extent they don’t appreciate just how wrong some of the preaching’s are. If he is supposed to be expressing the direct will of God, then I am sorry for God is a fool. Why should we have to tolerate the deaths of millions of babies because a superstitious old virgin doesn’t like contraceptives? Especially since condoms and other contraceptives weren’t even invented when the Bible was written so can have no special reference. Now add on the fact that there are too many people to feed already and you have the recipe for some of the worst advice imaginable to gift Africa with.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](Many African clergy mix Christianity with their own traditions, the result is some of the worst cruelty imaginable. Please watch a documentary on Africa’s witch children for a small piece of the whole picture. So your comment about realistic bishops is an oxymoron. You also suggest that those who follow the Pope are unrealistic, so I suppose I am preaching to the choir myself yet you say it should be tolerated?)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] Christian tradition sees the 10 commandments as meaning more than you think they do. That is supported by Jesus' interpretations, as given in Matthew 5. Do not commit adultery has generally been expanded into a fairly broad treatment of sexual ethics.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]

Exactly what the contents of sexual ethics are depends upon the church. My own church emphasizes intent and consequence for the people involved, just as Jesus did. Hence we look carefully at not just rape but at other situations in which there may be a tendency to push a person into doing something they wouldn't really want to do. Remember that I'm from a "liberal" church. But no church operates directly from Scripture, without having some interpretive tradition.

Catholics have a very large traditional component to their sexual ethics. The principle behind many of things things you (and I) object to isn't actually the Bible at all, though they find support in the Bible. Rather, it's the principle that all sexual activity must be open to procreation.[/FONT]

Then what are the ten commandments for other than a general guideline? That is all I was suggesting they are, as they do not, and could not list every single possible moral decision that needs to be made. I do not agree with any ‘absolute moral’ (that I can think of) the way it seems the Bible wants them to be taken. For example, ‘though shalt not kill’ is broken all the time yet I don’t remember a list of exceptions in the Bible. There are new moral challenges everyday due to new situations and technology that has never happened before, so how can it be denied that we do not need the Bible to make such decisions? Again, yes they are cracking good morals to follow but you need to also need to take responsibility for your own actions like an adult and know what’s right and wrong for yourself.

Or to take a more complicated moral situation. I understand that Christians in general, although a lesser minority are opposed to abortion with no exceptions at all. There are cases when (like it tells you to do in the Bible btw) when a rape victim, a victim of sexual aggression has been forced to marry her attacker and conceive the baby. But as a hypothetical, imagine a young girl fell pregnant from her loving husband but discovered on day 1 she would certainly die in labour. If she waited a year or so she would be OK and all would be well. So, would it not make sense to have the baby a year later so it could be raised in a full family? Scientifically at day 1 it is just a zygote, a mixture of sperm and an egg with no more signs of life than cut finger nails. Is the potential for a new life worth wiping out another? Personally I would not be opposed to an abortion for a rape victim or in a case like this. Contraception really is a wonderful thing that humanity needs to embrace, not proclaim as ungodly sin.[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[Curious Atheist]

I just wanted to add, thanks for all the replies I appreciate those that are willing to discuss these kinds of topics openly. I do use terms and cherry-picked quotes for effect but I do want anyone to be offended by my comments about the Pope etc it is all intended to raise issues for debate.

 

[elman]

You seem to be arguing that without a God life is meaningless, so therefore there must be a God because you so dearly want it to be true. This kind of "final consequence" argument is entirely illogical, I really don't understand how you think this is a convincing argument to the existence of the supernatural...nevermind a personal timeless God and other stories easily disproved through science.

You misunderstand. First of all I agree God's existence cannot be proven. Secondly I am not arguing that without God, life is meaningless---I am pointing out that without a destiny other than oblivion, all of our lives ultimatly becomes meaningless. Any meaning we find during our presence here is gone after we are gone. A few people may remember you existed a few years after your gone, but that has no meaning for you after you are gone.

 

[Curious Atheist]

You misunderstand. First of all I agree God's existence cannot be proven. Secondly I am not arguing that without God, life is meaningless---I am pointing out that without a destiny other than oblivion, all of our lives ultimatly becomes meaningless. Any meaning we find during our presence here is gone after we are gone. A few people may remember you existed a few years after your gone, but that has no meaning for you after you are gone.

But when you are gone, you aren't going to mind if your existence seemed meaningless to other people are you? It is the same way that you didn't exist before you were born, does it really bother you that the billions of people who previously existed never knew you? Does the fact that you have 13.6 billion years of nothing in your past scare you? I can't see why it would, so neither does the idea of an infinite of nothing after I am no longer concious since I won't be around to worry.

But how does this link to the existence of God? I thought you were making a point about the existence of God being related, although I agree you cannot prove he exists. Nor can you categorically prove anything does no exist either, so anything that makes logical sense is fine.

 

[technofox]

I have heard of some Churches, where the priest has come out as homosexual and was allowed to stay. However this was only news because it is the minority and I haven't heard of openly gay priests being employed. I do agree with many of your sentiments however I still think you view the Church (any church) through 'rose tinted glasses', hence why I have highlighted 'should' because it is such a very optimistic term.



I couldn't disagree more, freedom of speech is absolutely vital to everyone who live in a free democratic country. The Pope has every right to spout any rubbish he wants, but I am deeply disappointed that so many people follow his words over their own morals and plain common sense. It bothers me he is held in such high regard by so many people to the extent they don't appreciate just how wrong some of the preaching's are. If he is supposed to be expressing the direct will of God, then I am sorry for God is a fool. Why should we have to tolerate the deaths of millions of babies because a superstitious old virgin doesn't like contraceptives? Especially since condoms and other contraceptives weren't even invented when the Bible was written so can have no special reference. Now add on the fact that there are too many people to feed already and you have the recipe for some of the worst advice imaginable to gift Africa with.
(Many African clergy mix Christianity with their own traditions, the result is some of the worst cruelty imaginable. Please watch a documentary on Africa's witch children for a small piece of the whole picture. So your comment about realistic bishops is an oxymoron. You also suggest that those who follow the Pope are unrealistic, so I suppose I am preaching to the choir myself yet you say it should be tolerated?)



Then what are the ten commandments for other than a general guideline? That is all I was suggesting they are, as they do not, and could not list every single possible moral decision that needs to be made. I do not agree with any 'absolute moral' (that I can think of) the way it seems the Bible wants them to be taken. For example, 'though shalt not kill' is broken all the time yet I don't remember a list of exceptions in the Bible. There are new moral challenges everyday due to new situations and technology that has never happened before, so how can it be denied that we do not need the Bible to make such decisions? Again, yes they are cracking good morals to follow but you need to also need to take responsibility for your own actions like an adult and know what's right and wrong for yourself.

Or to take a more complicated moral situation. I understand that Christians in general, although a lesser minority are opposed to abortion with no exceptions at all. There are cases when (like it tells you to do in the Bible btw) when a rape victim, a victim of sexual aggression has been forced to marry her attacker and conceive the baby. But as a hypothetical, imagine a young girl fell pregnant from her loving husband but discovered on day 1 she would certainly die in labour. If she waited a year or so she would be OK and all would be well. So, would it not make sense to have the baby a year later so it could be raised in a full family? Scientifically at day 1 it is just a zygote, a mixture of sperm and an egg with no more signs of life than cut finger nails. Is the potential for a new life worth wiping out another? Personally I would not be opposed to an abortion for a rape victim or in a case like this. Contraception really is a wonderful thing that humanity needs to embrace, not proclaim as ungodly sin.

As a history buff, condoms did exist back in biblical times. It was sheep intestines believe it or not. You can Google it yourself if you don't believe me.

As for the millions of deaths from abortions due to the lack of use of contraceptions by some Christians sects, I can see your point and agree. Wearing the wrapper before you tap her (sorry had to joke here), is a great way to reduce the number of unnecessary abortions.

As for freedom of speech, I am all for it even though I disagree with what is being said (e.g. Westboro and its members just irk me). There should be consequences for cetain behaviors that are socially/morally unacceptable.

I am noticing a pattern of you adamantly defending homosexuality, is it safe for me to assume you are gay or bi?

Don't worry I won't judge, its not my job to. It seems to me you are either looking for social acceptance in a faith known to condemn the act of homosexuality or trying to get others to see your perceptions and accept them. Pay close attention that I used the word "act", its not the finding someone of the same sex attractive that is the sin, but the act of wanting or having sex with them that makes it a sin. Its a huge difference.

Another example from a straight guy's (or bloke's in your case) point of view is a guy looking at an attractive woman. Its not the clothing or there lack of on an attractive woman that is a sin, but the desire (lust) or act of having sex with her out of a monogamous loving relationship that makes it a sin. See where I am coming from?

Therefore its perfectly fine within the law (OT) for one to find another attractive of the same sex, just as much as it is ok for one to find someone of the opposite sex attractive. The sin is either the physical act of having sex with that person or desiring to have sex with that person (please note: for heterosexuals, it is obviously ok to desire or have sex with their spouse and for some of the more liberal Christians sex within a monoganous loving relationship is ok as well).

I hope my post gives you a clearer understanding. The confusion that some Christians have is being able to understand the difference between finding someone of the same sex attractive verses the act sex or fantasizing of having sex with someone of the same sex as sin, which of course is not biblical (please feel free to prove me wrong on this); if you read the bible it clearly states that the act or fantasizing in your mind of having sex with that person of the same sex is sinful.

 

[elman]

But when you are gone, you aren't going to mind if your existence seemed meaningless to other people are you? It is the same way that you didn't exist before you were born, does it really bother you that the billions of people who previously existed never knew you? Does the fact that you have 13.6 billion years of nothing in your past scare you? I can't see why it would, so neither does the idea of an infinite of nothing after I am no longer concious since I won't be around to worry.

But how does this link to the existence of God? I thought you were making a point about the existence of God being related, although I agree you cannot prove he exists. Nor can you categorically prove anything does no exist either, so anything that makes logical sense is fine.

Do you want to return to oblivion? I don't. I find life or existence preferable to non existence. I am not talking about my existence seeming meaningless to others. I am talking about when I am gone, no longer exist, my existence will be no longer meaning to me--not seem meaningless--will be meaningless to me at that point. I am not saying this links to the existence of God.

 

[Curious Atheist]

As a history buff, condoms did exist back in biblical times. It was sheep intestines believe it or not. You can Google it yourself if you don't believe me.

As for the millions of deaths from abortions due to the lack of use of contraceptions by some Christians sects, I can see your point and agree. Wearing the wrapper before you tap her (sorry had to joke here), is a great way to reduce the number of unnecessary abortions.

As for freedom of speech, I am all for it even though I disagree with what is being said (e.g. Westboro and its members just irk me). There should be consequences for cetain behaviors that are socially/morally unacceptable.

I am noticing a pattern of you adamantly defending homosexuality, is it safe for me to assume you are gay or bi?

Don't worry I won't judge, its not my job to. It seems to me you are either looking for social acceptance in a faith known to condemn the act of homosexuality or trying to get others to see your perceptions and accept them. Pay close attention that I used the word "act", its not the finding someone of the same sex attractive that is the sin, but the act of wanting or having sex with them that makes it a sin. Its a huge difference.

Another example from a straight guy's (or bloke's in your case) point of view is a guy looking at an attractive woman. Its not the clothing or there lack of on an attractive woman that is a sin, but the desire (lust) or act of having sex with her out of a monogamous loving relationship that makes it a sin. See where I am coming from?

Therefore its perfectly fine within the law (OT) for one to find another attractive of the same sex, just as much as it is ok for one to find someone of the opposite sex attractive. The sin is either the physical act of having sex with that person or desiring to have sex with that person (please note: for heterosexuals, it is obviously ok to desire or have sex with their spouse and for some of the more liberal Christians sex within a monoganous loving relationship is ok as well).

I hope my post gives you a clearer understanding. The confusion that some Christians have is being able to understand the difference between finding someone of the same sex attractive verses the act sex or fantasizing of having sex with someone of the same sex as sin, which of course is not biblical (please feel free to prove me wrong on this); if you read the bible it clearly states that the act or fantasizing in your mind of having sex with that person of the same sex is sinful.

I do understand the difference between performing the sin and just having the temptation. That is why I gave an example earlier of a celibate priest still not allowed to be ordained (so that should be 'wannabe priest I suppose) because they are gay, or once respected priests being literally locked out of churches. It is just the general idea that homosexuality is inherently wrong that bothers me, that everyone in a same sex relationship is knowing performing a sin and deviant behaviour. I keep hearing 'hate the sin, not the sinner' but this doesn't seem to be put in to any kind of action. Openly gay families are avoided are avoided like they have an infectious disease.
Yes I am adamantly defending gay rights because I think it is the morally acceptable way to behave in the modern world, where we can be tolerant of all people as equals. If I was condemning racism and encouraged equality for black people would I therefore have to be black myself, can only a black person care about black equality? So to answer your question, I am straight and have been in a monogamous relationship for 4 1/2 years or so. I have never had a relationship with a man and could never imagine finding a man sexually attractive at all. The strength of the repulsion I feel to this though is part of the very reason I feel so strongly about this topic, because how can any sane person say it is a willing choice? I cannot choose to stop finding women attractive and start liking men any more than a gay man can change themselves at will. Why would anyone want to choose to either, considering the reception they would receive from so many people? None of the choice argument makes any sense at all, that is what I am trying to point out. Therefore saying a gay person can not have sex or they are evil, is very very wrong. If you can agree it is not a choice (if you don't please throw your best argument at me) then could we then call it normal? If so, would it be wrong to take 100 randomly chosen young adults then tell 10 of them that they are to remain celibate for their entire lives? They cannot ever have a relationship nor love the one they choose and even with this they will be unwelcome to play with the other children who's families have decided they were born evil? Is this starting to make sense to you yet and do you see my point?

 

[Curious Atheist]

Do you want to return to oblivion? I don't. I find life or existence preferable to non existence. I am not talking about my existence seeming meaningless to others. I am talking about when I am gone, no longer exist, my existence will be no longer meaning to me--not seem meaningless--will be meaningless to me at that point. I am not saying this links to the existence of God.

At the moment, no I do not want to go back to oblivion. But neither do I like the idea of eternity, it seems rather dull so I am just too darn young and naive to answer such a question truthfully.
But I still miss the point, whether or not you want oblivion has absolutely no effect on whether it will happen. I don't like the idea of coffee flavoured chocolates, yet again and again they are included in a mixed tray. I wish I could just hope them away from existence, but they remain.

But no-one knows what happens after death. All the evidence suggests 'ourselves' as in our conciousness and memories are found in the brain. The evidence suggests the brain stops working when we die, so that is all we know. There has never been any evidence of anything supernatural, like a soul or ghosts so I can only rationalise that death is the same as not being born. Of course there might be heaven waiting, in which case I personally believe that no loving God would condemn me for being sceptical. So I will live every moment of my life to the best I can, be good because I want to and see what happens. I don't think a God would give anyone life and be happy to see them waste it worrying about death anyway. So to summarise my rambling, no-one can knowso therefore I am not going to gamble the only life I can be sure to have worrying all the time about hell or not eating pork etc

 

[elman]

At the moment, no I do not want to go back to oblivion. But neither do I like the idea of eternity, it seems rather dull so I am just too darn young and naive to answer such a question truthfully.
But I still miss the point, whether or not you want oblivion has absolutely no effect on whether it will happen. I don't like the idea of coffee flavoured chocolates, yet again and again they are included in a mixed tray. I wish I could just hope them away from existence, but they remain.

But no-one knows what happens after death. All the evidence suggests 'ourselves' as in our conciousness and memories are found in the brain. The evidence suggests the brain stops working when we die, so that is all we know. There has never been any evidence of anything supernatural, like a soul or ghosts so I can only rationalise that death is the same as not being born. Of course there might be heaven waiting, in which case I personally believe that no loving God would condemn me for being sceptical. So I will live every moment of my life to the best I can, be good because I want to and see what happens. I don't think a God would give anyone life and be happy to see them waste it worrying about death anyway. So to summarise my rambling, no-one can knowso therefore I am not going to gamble the only life I can be sure to have worrying all the time about hell or not eating pork etc

I also think God would not condem you for being sceptical. I think however God might condemn you for failing to be loving and compassionate toward the needs of others. I agree with not worrying about death or hell or pork. I find this concern about eternal life being dull less than interesting. It seems to me like saying, I don't know what eternal life will be like, but I might not like it so I will go with oblivion. You say there has never been any evidence of the supernatural. I don't agree with that. I would agree there has never been any objective evidence of the supernatural that I can present to you to prove the existence of the supernatural--If I did have such evidence I suppose it would no longer be supernatural. I have personally experienced some things in life that point toward my life not be completly random and subject to chance. I suspect you have had some similar experiences but if one refused to see them, they they will not see them. I lived the first 24 years or so of my life refusing to see them and did not see them. After I decided to be open to the possibility, I could look back and see things that occured in the first 24 years of my life that did indication more was going on than mere chance. You said: "whether or not you want oblivion has absolutely no effect on whether it will happen." If there is no Creator, this would be true. It would not necessarily be true if however there is a loving Creator who has given you the opportunity to be loving or not. Then you have choices and these choices can or may effect your destiny of oblivion.

 

[Curious Atheist]

I also think God would not condem you for being sceptical. I think however God might condemn you for failing to be loving and compassionate toward the needs of others. I agree with not worrying about death or hell or pork. I find this concern about eternal life being dull less than interesting. It seems to me like saying, I don't know what eternal life will be like, but I might not like it so I will go with oblivion. You say there has never been any evidence of the supernatural. I don't agree with that. I would agree there has never been any objective evidence of the supernatural that I can present to you to prove the existence of the supernatural--If I did have such evidence I suppose it would no longer be supernatural. I have personally experienced some things in life that point toward my life not be completly random and subject to chance. I suspect you have had some similar experiences but if one refused to see them, they they will not see them. I lived the first 24 years or so of my life refusing to see them and did not see them. After I decided to be open to the possibility, I could look back and see things that occured in the first 24 years of my life that did indication more was going on than mere chance. You said: "whether or not you want oblivion has absolutely no effect on whether it will happen." If there is no Creator, this would be true. It would not necessarily be true if however there is a loving Creator who has given you the opportunity to be loving or not. Then you have choices and these choices can or may effect your destiny of oblivion.

Firstly the definition of supernatural is something that works outside of physics and the laws of nature, ie a floating mountain or ghost. What you are describing is faith I think, something beleived without, or in the face of opposing evidence. I am not saying nothing outside of the laws of nature CAN exist, just that no hints that it does have ever surfaced so it would be silly to believe them.
Secondly you are describing superstition 'I prayed my cold would go away, then just a couple of days later it was gone!'. Which is just confusing cause and effect and has been scrutinised and tested very very well. If you already have an idea of what you want to see, you will see it. You will also conveniently forget the endless times the superstition doesn't work. The same way people convince themselves they are psychic, it is all very basic stuff. However linking cause and effect does not mean the mostly likely answer is a loving God, that is just what you want to find. Likewise people make similar claims regarding crystals, lucky charms etc and that can be just as easily dismissed.
Which brings me on to your last point which seems to be 'Pascal's wager', there might be a God so why not believe it anyway? You have nothing to lose etc. Well this might seem to make sense to you but I see it a different way. Firstly you are makiing a false dichotomy argument in the fact that you assume there is either the Christian God or oblivion. Does it not occur to you that maybe one of the other thousand religions might be right and you are wrong? Maybe you have to be sceptical to win, the point is nobody knows so gambling your life away on a hunch seems crazy to me.
Now none of this would concern me, until you see the state of the world being torn apart by irrational thinking. Why should one more child die as a condemned witch when we know witches don't exist, as one example.

 

[elman]

Firstly the definition of supernatural is something that works outside of physics and the laws of nature, ie a floating mountain or ghost. What you are describing is faith I think, something beleived without, or in the face of opposing evidence. I am not saying nothing outside of the laws of nature CAN exist, just that no hints that it does have ever surfaced so it would be silly to believe them.
Secondly you are describing superstition 'I prayed my cold would go away, then just a couple of days later it was gone!'. Which is just confusing cause and effect and has been scrutinised and tested very very well. If you already have an idea of what you want to see, you will see it. You will also conveniently forget the endless times the superstition doesn't work. The same way people convince themselves they are psychic, it is all very basic stuff. However linking cause and effect does not mean the mostly likely answer is a loving God, that is just what you want to find. Likewise people make similar claims regarding crystals, lucky charms etc and that can be just as easily dismissed.
Which brings me on to your last point which seems to be 'Pascal's wager', there might be a God so why not believe it anyway? You have nothing to lose etc. Well this might seem to make sense to you but I see it a different way. Firstly you are makiing a false dichotomy argument in the fact that you assume there is either the Christian God or oblivion. Does it not occur to you that maybe one of the other thousand religions might be right and you are wrong? Maybe you have to be sceptical to win, the point is nobody knows so gambling your life away on a hunch seems crazy to me.
Now none of this would concern me, until you see the state of the world being torn apart by irrational thinking. Why should one more child die as a condemned witch when we know witches don't exist, as one example.

Faith can be in something that is reasonable but unproven. You take a lot on yourself to assume what I have experienced is simply superstition and delusion of myself. You don't even know what I am talking about. You are correct however about it not being objectivly provable and I already admitted that. I did not say there is either the Christian God or oblivion. You have problems reading what I do say, but you have no problems assigning to me what I did not say. Nothing I said would be about gambling my life away. I also did not propose killing children or witches. The only reason I can think of for you to put something that on me is your inability to deal with what I did say.

 

[technofox]

I do understand the difference between performing the sin and just having the temptation. That is why I gave an example earlier of a celibate priest still not allowed to be ordained (so that should be 'wannabe priest I suppose) because they are gay, or once respected priests being literally locked out of churches. It is just the general idea that homosexuality is inherently wrong that bothers me, that everyone in a same sex relationship is knowing performing a sin and deviant behaviour. I keep hearing 'hate the sin, not the sinner' but this doesn't seem to be put in to any kind of action. Openly gay families are avoided are avoided like they have an infectious disease.
Yes I am adamantly defending gay rights because I think it is the morally acceptable way to behave in the modern world, where we can be tolerant of all people as equals. If I was condemning racism and encouraged equality for black people would I therefore have to be black myself, can only a black person care about black equality? So to answer your question, I am straight and have been in a monogamous relationship for 4 1/2 years or so. I have never had a relationship with a man and could never imagine finding a man sexually attractive at all. The strength of the repulsion I feel to this though is part of the very reason I feel so strongly about this topic, because how can any sane person say it is a willing choice? I cannot choose to stop finding women attractive and start liking men any more than a gay man can change themselves at will. Why would anyone want to choose to either, considering the reception they would receive from so many people? None of the choice argument makes any sense at all, that is what I am trying to point out. Therefore saying a gay person can not have sex or they are evil, is very very wrong. If you can agree it is not a choice (if you don't please throw your best argument at me) then could we then call it normal? If so, would it be wrong to take 100 randomly chosen young adults then tell 10 of them that they are to remain celibate for their entire lives? They cannot ever have a relationship nor love the one they choose and even with this they will be unwelcome to play with the other children who's families have decided they were born evil? Is this starting to make sense to you yet and do you see my point?

I only asked about your sexuality, because I am trying to understand you better. So you argument is more egalitarian than whether homosexaulity is a sin, correct?

Personally I don't care if someone is gay or not, because that issue is between them and God. To me whatever goes on in your sex life is none of my business, unfortunately too many Christians seem to think it is their business. Look at threads on here asking questions is anal/oral sex is ok. People forget the Song of Songs and Solomon and his bride having oral and vaginal sex; who's to say they weren't trying the backdoor as well?

To me homosexuality is a choice do to the nature of their sexual organs and their respective functions; however, I will say that some may find having sex with those of the opposite sex repugnant and having sex with those of the same sex more appealing. It is still a choice, because of the technical biological functions of the sexual organs. Its more likely homosexuality is a mental or bio-chemical issue that leads one to be gay. Assuming that the prior sentence is true, then there could be treatment programs that could help one to return to the natural order of sexuality (ie - they become heterosexual again).

There is nothing anatomically different between gay and straight people, therefore we have to conclude that something else causes one to be gay. Since it is something else, then that means the cause is related to a change from the normal operations of that person's genetic make-up or psychology.

I view the human body as a machine or system. An abnormality in someone's genes could lead one to be attracted to the same sex, whereas normal operation would provide the continuance of the species via procreation by pair-bonding of the same species of the opposite sex. Either way you look at it, homosexuality is a disorder and deserves our compassion and hopefully a cure via thearapy.

I get what you are saying and there are reasons why people are gay, but if there are treatment options out there, then I still conclude its a choice. I don't think gays should be treated like crap though, because even though it is a sin, there is obviously issues that cause one to be gay that maybe beyond willful choice (if that makes sense).

 

[Sketcher]

Yes but homosexuality isn’t being banned from churches or marriage, homosexuals are. So whether or not you claim that your church ‘tolerates’ gays or otherwise they are being widely seen as sinful and not to be mixed with. Are you all comfortable letting your children socialise with a homosexual family and their child? I imagine honestly most of you wouldn’t, so whether you are hateful or not you are still causing significant harm and unjust inequality with your actions or lack of action. But let’s not get too bogged down with the gay debate, I am more trying to understand why Christian hate is tolerated in general.[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

Not at my church. Not even at Westboro Baptist Church, even. Homosexuals can come, attend, and worship. Living an active homosexual life is something we'll call sin, but that's not the same as banning someone from church just because of an orientation.

Yes it is my opinion that it is not evil to not love those that an out-of-date book tells us to love. However freedom of speech and thought is great, as long as your opinion on what is right and wrong doesn’t impact on other people’s rights, freedom and lives. Unfortunately, they do. The Catholic church for example is a multi-billion dollar organisation that holds large influence amongst its followers. If the Pope tells Africans to stop using condoms, millions of babies are born with AIDs and millions die. If the Pope/Church tells its flock that something is a sin, that sin is avoided likewise if they say a certain type of person is sinful they will avoid affiliating with that group. I can tolerate angry Muslims marching through our streets calling for all Westerners to die, but if they ever harm anyone then they have crossed the line. That is my point, your ignorant views on gay rights has severe impacts on innocent people so it isn’t just an opinion anymore.

No, it is just an opinion. You haven't even demonstrated why the Christian view on homosexuality has severe impacts on innocent people, besides.

Sorry but you are being incredibly hypocritical with that comment. How can you possibly condemn others for “[[FONT=&quot]allowed] their own prejudices and cultural norms to pervert their interpretation of Scripture” when you do it all the time? Here is a quote regarding homosexuality:[/FONT]
Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"
So if you follow the Bible, you should be up for putting gays to death.

Wrong. The ethic is timeless, but the penalty is not. Homosexuality is condemned very strongly in the New Testament, but nowhere in the New Testament are Christians called to put homosexuals, or anyone else for that matter to death.

But regarding the KKK, they merely twisted scripture for their own ends the exact same way you and the other ‘personal religion’ people do, you just re-interpret and cherry pick the parts you want to believe and ignore the rest. So the KKK were racists, you are a homophobic and I think history will condemn you and your Church for the pain you cause, which is already happening for the last centuries of genocide and paedophilia and intolerance.

LOLwut, genocide? Pedophilia? You'll have to give me church-sanctioned examples of both.

Sorry again, but that is the exact same reason. You have just called it a ‘motivator’ instead of the reward I mentioned. What exactly is the difference between a motivator and a bribe?

What do you think I said was a motivator here? The only time I used that word was in describing an earthly motivation as inadequate.

Because surely you cannot just choose to love someone, not in any genuine way because seldom have I heard a less sincere expression of emotion than “[FONT=&quot]I love others because Jesus said to love”. [/FONT]

Christianity teaches that you can, since love is not just feelings, but love is an action which you can choose to do or not choose to do. If I can give somebody a lift who needs one and I choose not to, I am choosing not to love that person in that way. If I choose to give him a lift, I am loving him. You shouldn't have a bad attitude about loving actions, that can sabotage it, but yes - you can choose to love someone, and it is our responsibility to do so. Jesus is the only reason a lot of people need to step out of their selfish comfort zones and do acts of love, which grows the love in their hearts. If Jesus tells us that something is the right thing to do, that's the right thing to do. Period.

[FONT=&quot]If you cannot find any reason to be good other than to please Jesus, then I would argue you are not pleasing Jesus at all, because I would guess he was after some genuine emotion and genuine selfless behaviour. I think genuine altruism shows far better respect and honour than when you have the underlying motive to receive praise or any other motive other than just to be good.[/FONT]

I think I answered most of this previously, but what I like about your statement is that it has to assume that Jesus is conscious and therefore can be pleased.

There are some important morals missing from the commandments you add for yourself. ‘Do not rape”, “Do not molest or harm children’ etc or with a modern slant “Do not use the internet and technology to deprive your neighbour of their privacy”. Yet although the list if endless, I do not need to list them because they are obvious, which I am sure you would have retorted yourself ‘well of course it is wrong to rape’. But how do you know it is wrong to rape if your only follow what the Bible says?

The list I posted was far from exhaustive, it was simply a good counterpoint to your claim that we can't get morals from a book which is thousands of years old. I'm seeing some good morals in there which ought to be followed, and they should of course stand in the way to challenge people who wish to steal, kill, molest, perjure, cheat on their spouses, and so forth.

I think if Jesus was real then he indeed spread some great moral messages that are still applicable. I am saying though that not all are relevant in the 21st century, thankfully our inherent morals do shine through. Some light of rationality is occasionally shone across the pages so we can now all agree that there are no witches, they do not need to be burned. We know mythical creatures like unicorns, leviathans etc are only myth. We also know for 100% fact that it is impossible to collect and fit every species of animal on a wooden boat. We also decide that stoning people to death for minor crimes is wrong and every one of us contradict what the Bible tells us to do EVERY SINGLE DAY. We now have almost entire equality for the sexes and eventually will have total equality for homosexuality. I have no doubts that civilisation is becoming less barbaric and more tolerant, I just wish the religious masses didn’t have to drag their feet every bloody inch of the way and try and keep us trapped in the dark ages…again.[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

What you did not answer is my previous question - what is your basis for claiming a higher moral ground than someone else of your intellect hundreds or thousands of years ago? Someone who would have accepted several, if not many of the things that you reject now? Since you said you get your morals from social norms, what is your basis for claiming that one society is more moral than another?

Well it is my understanding that being a sinner isn’t a good idea, neither is socialising and approving of sinners. If being gay is a sin, why risk your immortal soul by having anything to do with it? So whether it is hate, avoidance or otherwise the end result is for them to be ostracised, which I see as a hateful thing to do. But whilst on the subject, god also commanded that gluttony is a sin, so do you have the same attitude you have towards gays as you do to the fast-food loving obese? They are showing no restraint at all, never mind just failing to deny their natural desires for love.

Again, Jesus ate with the tax collectors and the prostitutes. That doesn't mean he approved of the greed, corruption, and sexual immorality they practiced. Rather, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick."

[FONT=&quot]So it is a demon when you say so? Surely that isn’t enough to justify something so utterly…bizarre and removed from reality? Especially when it flies in the face of sound scientific evidence? Cults etc are all easy to explain with basic psychology…[/FONT]

No, it's a demon when there's a demon. They're involved in various deceptions, and in occult supernatural activity. I do not claim demonic activity when there's simply natural forces at work. There are so many more people these days, and the number of demons has not increased - they need to rely more on people doing themselves in anyway.

[FONT=&quot] A slippery slope to what exactly? There seems to be this underlying irrational bias that being gay is just bad, but what terrible thing happens?[/FONT]

You don't believe that homosexual activity is bad, but I disagree with you. You asked me to demonstrate my beliefs about homosexual activity being a choice, and I answered them.

Well if we agree that a person can be born gay, then surely a gay pastor is the pinnacle of a good example? They are surely showing they can refrain from putting their desires in to practice? Although there is nothing less natural than never having sex ever, I also personally believe that trying to subdue powerful sexual behaviour is dangerous. Just look at the high rates of child abuse in the churches by frustrated celibate priests.

In the defense of the Catholic clergy's practice of celibacy (which you won't see this Protestant do often) the rate of inexcusable abuse in this country by Catholic clergy was actually much less than the rate of the same abuse by public school teachers, who are not expected to be celibate. Sex Abuse by Teachers Said Worse Than Catholic Church

 

[lucaspa]

Hello. I have been away for a while after all of my questions had been answered, but I have been prompted again recently. I keep coming across a lot of what I can only describe as hatred from many Christians, which to me seems incompatible with what I would imagine Jesus would preach.

I would emphasize that you separate the idea from the people who advocate the idea. Yes, we have what Jesus preached and the idea of Christianity. Then we have Christians. All Christians (and I include me here) are human. As humans, we can make mistakes. So what you need to do is what we as Christians do: compare what the person said to the idea of Christianity. If they don't match, we discard what the Christian said.

Curious Atheist, we do this same procedure with every other idea around. When Richard Dawkins says that the unit of selection in evolution is the gene, I look at the idea of evolution and see if that is true. It turns out that Dawkins is wrong.

As another example, many people define evolution as "changes of allele frequencies over time". Again, I compare that to the idea of evolution and find that this is an incomplete and misleading definition. Ernst Mayr, Francisco Ayala, Douglas Futuyma and many other evolutionary biologists do also.

Your first 2 examples (of rape and homosexuality) are people speaking ideas that do not fit the idea of Christianity. Yes, there is much discussion about homosexuality within Christian denominations. My denomination -- the United Methodist Church -- will bring it up again at their national conference again this year. However, the individual who started this board and controls it (and it is a private venture) has imprinted his personal opinion in this particular area of discussion. That's the way it is. We in the Wesleyan forum have protested this for our forum, on the grounds that our particular denominational forum should be free to discuss what we as a denomination are discussing. However, this is a private venture and the individual has set this particular rule. If you want to discuss homosexuality then go to Beliefnet or other forum.

So the question I have for you: are you really interested in exploring Christianity or are you just looking for things to beat Christians over the head with?

3. Atheists being thought of as having no morals is also a common theme

This is a logical extension of the belief that God is the source of all morality. Since atheists don't believe that God exists, they don't have the source for morality. You can see this in the argument you posted:

An atheist may still be moral and say murder and rape are wrong: but when asked why, they will not have a final reason or authority to which they can appeal."

As it happens, I as Christian have a counter argument to that, but you as an atheist need to come up with a "final reason or authority". Do you have one? How do you anchor your morals?

My question is how can anyone be so hateful and still proclaim to be a loving Christian?

I question I have about Pat Roberston, Rick Santorum and many others. Humans have a great ability to rationalize. Why should Christians (who are also humans) be exempt? Do you think that atheists never rationalize inconsistent positions?

Why do you care if one man is a homosexual, why can't they just be left to do what they want and why can't God handle this on his own?

Many Christians do this. You haven't talked to a lot of Anglicans and Methodists, have you?

Why is it only Christians (or Muslims) that state that homosexuality is a choice, whilst everyone else agrees that it is not?

Because some scriptures seem to say that homosexuality is a sin. Sin is always chosen.

I could not choose to find a man attractive, it repulses me the same way it repulses a homosexual to imagine being with a woman.

And right there you have evidence that ALL sexual orientation is hardwired! Congrats. It's a piece of evidence I have often used to people who claim homosexuality (sexual orientation) is a choice.

I mean no offence to any individual, but I am sick of people like the Pope preaching hatred, it does nothing to help the world.

The Pope does not always preach hatred. In fact, most of the time he doesn't. Your statement implying the Pope does this all the time is an example of an atheist contradicting himself. Atheists are supposed to be rational and use reason, right? How can any person who claims to have those qualities make a statement that implies that ALL the Pope does is preach hatred? Sauce for the goose.

 

[technofox]

I would emphasize that you separate the idea from the people who advocate the idea. Yes, we have what Jesus preached and the idea of Christianity. Then we have Christians. All Christians (and I include me here) are human. As humans, we can make mistakes. So what you need to do is what we as Christians do: compare what the person said to the idea of Christianity. If they don't match, we discard what the Christian said.

Curious Atheist, we do this same procedure with every other idea around. When Richard Dawkins says that the unit of selection in evolution is the gene, I look at the idea of evolution and see if that is true. It turns out that Dawkins is wrong.

As another example, many people define evolution as "changes of allele frequencies over time". Again, I compare that to the idea of evolution and find that this is an incomplete and misleading definition. Ernst Mayr, Francisco Ayala, Douglas Futuyma and many other evolutionary biologists do also.

Your first 2 examples (of rape and homosexuality) are people speaking ideas that do not fit the idea of Christianity. Yes, there is much discussion about homosexuality within Christian denominations. My denomination -- the United Methodist Church -- will bring it up again at their national conference again this year. However, the individual who started this board and controls it (and it is a private venture) has imprinted his personal opinion in this particular area of discussion. That's the way it is. We in the Wesleyan forum have protested this for our forum, on the grounds that our particular denominational forum should be free to discuss what we as a denomination are discussing. However, this is a private venture and the individual has set this particular rule. If you want to discuss homosexuality then go to Beliefnet or other forum.

So the question I have for you: are you really interested in exploring Christianity or are you just looking for things to beat Christians over the head with?

This is a logical extension of the belief that God is the source of all morality. Since atheists don't believe that God exists, they don't have the source for morality. You can see this in the argument you posted:

An atheist may still be moral and say murder and rape are wrong: but when asked why, they will not have a final reason or authority to which they can appeal."

As it happens, I as Christian have a counter argument to that, but you as an atheist need to come up with a "final reason or authority". Do you have one? How do you anchor your morals?

I question I have about Pat Roberston, Rick Santorum and many others. Humans have a great ability to rationalize. Why should Christians (who are also humans) be exempt? Do you think that atheists never rationalize inconsistent positions?

Many Christians do this. You haven't talked to a lot of Anglicans and Methodists, have you?

Because some scriptures seem to say that homosexuality is a sin. Sin is always chosen.

And right there you have evidence that ALL sexual orientation is hardwired! Congrats. It's a piece of evidence I have often used to people who claim homosexuality (sexual orientation) is a choice.

The Pope does not always preach hatred. In fact, most of the time he doesn't. Your statement implying the Pope does this all the time is an example of an atheist contradicting himself. Atheists are supposed to be rational and use reason, right? How can any person who claims to have those qualities make a statement that implies that ALL the Pope does is preach hatred? Sauce for the goose.

I like your rebuttal, because it reinforces the point of my rebuttal. What are your thoughts on my previous post?

I had studied anthropology; however, it was not part of major during my undergrad. Personally evolution shouldn't really matter in the grand scheme of things, because we still end up with the same results of mankind coming into existance. I have studied human evolution and its very interesting; however, I always have this nagging question of why is it over the course of 3.1+ milliom years that only mankind develop sentience?

Dinosaurs had millions of more years to evolve and yet never resulted in sentient intelligence. Its one major flaw that I see for those that are evolution purists. How is that only mankind reach where we at today via evolution?

Indeed brain size increased, but the actual sentience is unmistakenably different from any other animal on earth. I can't see how we became the only sentient species on earth without some form of intelligent design. Dinosaurs should have, in theory, developed sentience well before mankind yet they didn't.

 

[hedrick]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I have heard of some Churches, where the priest has come out as homosexual and was allowed to stay. However this was only news because it is the minority and I haven’t heard of openly gay priests being employed. I do agree with many of your sentiments however I still think you view the Church (any church) through ‘rose tinted glasses’, hence why I have highlighted ‘should’ because it is such a very optimistic term.[/FONT]

I belong to the PCUSA. There are congregations calling known gay pastors. Not a lot, but it happens. Our congregation had a pastor a few decades ago who was widely known to be gay. He is considered one of our better pastors .But they didn't call him knowing he was gay. That is happening now, though not in large numbers.

On the wider issue of attitudes towards people who do things we disapprove of, maybe I'm using rose-colored glasses, but I've known quite a range of Christians, conservative and liberal. The conservatives I've known were committed to loving everyone. They welcome gays. They would also tell them that God expects them to change. But that is precisely what you said wasn't done: separating approaches to the person from the behavior.

For this particular situation I'm not sure how useful the separation is. Most gays today would probably not feel welcomed in a church that considered their behavior sinful. However the distinction is useful for many kinds of self-destructive behavior where most people accept that the behavior is a problem, but that the people doing it should be welcomed.

I have to say that I've learned a lot from Christian Forums. While I've had contact with conservatives before, this is the first time I've run into significant numbers of people who foam at the mouth when certain topics are mentioned.

I couldn’t disagree more, freedom of speech is absolutely vital to everyone who live in a free democratic country. The Pope has every right to spout any rubbish he wants, but I am deeply disappointed that so many people follow his words over their own morals and plain common sense.

I was thinking of things like slander, and fighting words. I agree that we need to be free to express unpopular and even irresponsible opinions. That's why I said that nothing can be done about the Pope's comments.

So your comment about realistic bishops is an oxymoron. You also suggest that those who follow the Pope are unrealistic, so I suppose I am preaching to the choir myself yet you say it should be tolerated?)

Tolerated how? I don't see any legitimate way to stop it.

You probably won't find Catholic bishops who ignore the Catholic traditional approach to sex, i.e. that non-procreational sex is wrong. But there are times when we have to choose the lesser evil. It's really common for Christian parents in the US to say to kids "you shouldn't have sex before you're married, but if you do, you should take as many precautions as you can." Hardliners consider that tolerating fornication, but more realistic Christians know that young adults need to be alive in order to be able to repent. There are certain Catholic leaders to make similar tradeoffs. I've heard credible reports that African Catholic leaders do often recommend condoms in some situations.

Then what are the ten commandments for other than a general guideline? That is all I was suggesting they are, as they do not, and could not list every single possible moral decision that needs to be made.

That's part of it. But most Christian traditions go further than that. There are a number of issues where Christians think there is a specific Biblical position, even if it comes from adding some moral reasoning to what's specifically in Scripture. The 10 commandments are often seen as a summary of this. This includes positive duties as well as "thou shalt not." Christians quite widely consider "thou shalt not kill" to include a duty to safeguard other people's life and welfare.

For an example of this approach, see the Westminster Catechism: Historic Church Documents at Reformed.org

I do not agree with any ‘absolute moral’ (that I can think of) the way it seems the Bible wants them to be taken. For example, ‘though shalt not kill’ is broken all the time yet I don’t remember a list of exceptions in the Bible. There are new moral challenges everyday due to new situations and technology that has never happened before, so how can it be denied that we do not need the Bible to make such decisions? Again, yes they are cracking good morals to follow but you need to also need to take responsibility for your own actions like an adult and know what’s right and wrong for yourself.

Of course the Bible includes both war and capital punishment. These are exceptions. Many people think a better translation is "thou shalt not murder." Since murder is unlawful killing, that leave room for interpretation.

I would agree that in many areas the Bible establishes similar principles to US secular humanism. It's hard to know how significant that is, since our secular humanism developed in a basically Christian culture.

There are cases when (like it tells you to do in the Bible btw) when a rape victim, a victim of sexual aggression has been forced to marry her attacker and conceive the baby.

When Leviticus was written, I don't believe there were safe ways of doing abortion. Rodney Stark has an interesting book looking at why Christianity took over the Roman empire. He thinks it was a better way to live, particularly for women. In that culture, abortion was dangerous, and was typically forced on women by men. Prohibiting it was that pro-woman. So was the admiration for virginity, as long as it didn't go too far. It provided an acceptable role for women who didn't want to marry. Normally in that culture they didn't have a choice.

I believe, along with many interpreters, than in the culture when Lev was written, women couldn't practically survive on their own. Furthermore, someone who was raped would be unlikely to find a husband. The purpose of the law was to force the man to take responsibility for her. I admit that this might not be ideal, but not all rapists were monsters, and this may have been the least bad approach. Of course today this would make no sense at all.

But as a hypothetical, imagine a young girl fell pregnant from her loving husband but discovered on day 1 she would certainly die in labour. If she waited a year or so she would be OK and all would be well. So, would it not make sense to have the baby a year later so it could be raised in a full family? Scientifically at day 1 it is just a zygote, a mixture of sperm and an egg with no more signs of life than cut finger nails. Is the potential for a new life worth wiping out another? Personally I would not be opposed to an abortion for a rape victim or in a case like this. Contraception really is a wonderful thing that humanity needs to embrace, not proclaim as ungodly sin.[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

I would agree. So would most Protestants. So would most Catholics. Just not their leadership. Basically the ethical issue is that one wrong doesn't justify another. The Catholic ethical tradition consistently tries to draw bright lines. Normally they find ways to soften it in practice. E.g. traditional Catholic ethics has an absolute prohibition against lying. However we all know there are situations where it's the lesser evil. However they treat such situations by allowing misleading but technically true statements ("mental reservation"). Similarly, there's no divorce (except in two exceptions both mentioned in the Bible) but they are open to letting you prove that the marriage never existed in the first place. They feel that taking a hardline position in theory makes it less likely that people will slowly slip further and further into compromises. I think they're wrong, but I can see where it came from.

 

[Harry3142]

Curious Atheist-

If you haven't done so already, read message #52 on this thread. If will help you better understand what the proper Christian attitude is to be.

 

[Curious Atheist]

Faith can be in something that is reasonable but unproven. You take a lot on yourself to assume what I have experienced is simply superstition and delusion of myself. You don't even know what I am talking about. You are correct however about it not being objectivly provable and I already admitted that. I did not say there is either the Christian God or oblivion. You have problems reading what I do say, but you have no problems assigning to me what I did not say. Nothing I said would be about gambling my life away. I also did not propose killing children or witches. The only reason I can think of for you to put something that on me is your inability to deal with what I did say.

I thought I was replying to what you said, sorry if I am wrong. However I am just being honest, it is my honest opinion that if something can not be proven, then it is irrational to believe it. So any form of faith is by definition, irrational.
I do also believe that every claim of being psychic, a medium or God influencing the world is all far more reasonably explained by superstition. Like I said, if you begin with an assumption then look for only the evidence that backs this up you will inevitably find evidence. If I think of someone and the phone rings, maybe I have a supernatural power. Or maybe I just conveniently forget about all of the times I think of them and the phone does not ring, or they call when I hadn't thought about them, yet since it is a relatively common occurence I can convince myself my power to be true. You cannot prove that it is not, but you can test the power and conclude what is more likely, being psychic or coincedence and statisitcs. If you can perform any supernatural ability in a lab then you can win $1million, no-one has ever come close.

I did think you were suggesting you can choose between two options, perhaps not. But I have no 'inability' to listen to you, please explain what you are trying to say and I will read it again. I hope I am clear myself, that if there is a far more likely answer then it would be foolish to believe something infinitely less probable.

 

[Curious Atheist]

[FONT=&quot]I only asked about your sexuality, because I am trying to understand you better. So you argument is more egalitarian than whether homosexaulity is a sin, correct?

Personally I don't care if someone is gay or not, because that issue is between them and God. To me whatever goes on in your sex life is none of my business, unfortunately too many Christians seem to think it is their business. Look at threads on here asking questions is anal/oral sex is ok. People forget the Song of Songs and Solomon and his bride having oral and vaginal sex; who's to say they weren't trying the backdoor as well?[/FONT]

Yes, I would prefer an egalitarian society where everyone can be free to be whoever they want to be and no-one infringes on other people’s right to do so. It is an impossible utopia though (I questioned how heaven can be perfect for all a while ago too, it is a puzzle) so I would just like to settle for universal empathy and as little ignorance as possible, although this is almost as ambitious. But without the bad there is no good, so what do I really know.
As an atheist I am not allowed to post on the other forums, so I haven’t actually had a look. That is interesting though that even straight couples thing anything but conventional sex is a sin. It rather shoots down the thoughts I have when people start calling gay sex disgusting and unnatural, as I can’t imagine many straight men finding the idea of oral or anal sex with Allessandra Ambrosio repulsive (if you were married of course). Nor anything less natural than no sex at all.[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]To me homosexuality is a choice do to the nature of their sexual organs and their respective functions; however, I will say that some may find having sex with those of the opposite sex repugnant and having sex with those of the same sex more appealing. It is still a choice, because of the technical biological functions of the sexual organs. Its more likely homosexuality is a mental or bio-chemical issue that leads one to be gay. Assuming that the prior sentence is true, then there could be treatment programs that could help one to return to the natural order of sexuality (ie - they become heterosexual again).

There is nothing anatomically different between gay and straight people, therefore we have to conclude that something else causes one to be gay. Since it is something else, then that means the cause is related to a change from the normal operations of that person's genetic make-up or psychology.

I view the human body as a machine or system. An abnormality in someone's genes could lead one to be attracted to the same sex, whereas normal operation would provide the continuance of the species via procreation by pair-bonding of the same species of the opposite sex. Either way you look at it, homosexuality is a disorder and deserves our compassion and hopefully a cure via thearapy.

I get what you are saying and there are reasons why people are gay, but if there are treatment options out there, then I still conclude its a choice. I don't think gays should be treated like crap though, because even though it is a sin, there is obviously issues that cause one to be gay that maybe beyond willful choice (if that makes sense).[/FONT]

I don’t think that discovering homosexuality is a chemical imbalance or otherwise makes any difference. Even if it truly is a choice, it shouldn’t really matter. I can’t help feeling you are contradicting yourself by saying you don’t care if someone is gay and they should be equal, but then referring to it as an abnormality, a disorder that requires a cure. If fewer human beings are born then that isn’t a problem, we have no shortage of humans around so the species is not in danger so I really don’t understand the perceived harm. If you just assume it is a mental disorder, then gays should no sooner be condemned than a person with downs syndrome or learning disabilities, although I can’t stress enough that it is not a disorder in any sense.