Homosexuality & Religion
Me:
Saying “How can you defend marriage by refusing to allow people to get married?” is a bit like saying “How can you defend your country by refusing to let your enemies enter it?”
And wouldn’t someone who believes the former also believe that outlawing polygamy is the opposite of defending marriage?
Jonathan:
Well why should people not be able to get the legal equivalent rights of a married couple regardless of who they are. You can say they are not married under your religion but not allowing them to have the legal rights of a married couple for that reason violates separation of church and state. Fine gay people are not married in the church but not being able to be married in the legal system is unconstitutional.
Me:
who said anything about who they are? anyone can get married. There’s no law saying a gay person can’t get married – only a law saying a gay person can’t marry someone of the same gender.
Okay. First of all, despite what you may believe, “separation of church and state” is NOT something that can be violated. It is not found in any of our laws or the Constitution or even the Declaration of Independence. Go ahead and look. I’ll wait. Can’t find it, right? It is merely a phrase Benjamin Franklin used in a letter. Something to consider and remember, sure, but not in any way a part of our legal system.
That aside, the Constitution does state that Congress may not pass a law ESTABLISHING an official religion. However, such a law does not violate “separation of church and state.” If Congress passes that law because it is un-Christian or un-Muslim or un-whatever for gays to be married, then, yes, I can see your point (and there are probably plenty in Congress who support such legislation for just that reason – or from fear of constituents who do). If, however, Congress passes such a law because it is deemed amoral or, perhaps (though I’m unsure of the legitimacy of such a reason), because it is unnatural, then “church” does not even enter the picture.
Honestly, as a Christian, I couldn’t care less whether gays were allowed to get married. A Christian who is concerned with such superficial symptoms of sin has missed the point. “Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.” That was talking about a man’s actual physical appearance, but I think it works here as well. I don’t much care whether or not they’re legally allowed to get married, but I DO care that gays exist at all. (And don’t take that as some homophone “Kill all the gays” bit; murder is as much a sin as homosexuality.) Rather, I’m concerned with the fact that such folks have become gay (whether consciously or unconsciously).
Back to the point of the previous paragraph, you can obviously see how opposed fundamentalist Christians, Muslims, and some other religions are, right? Yet they are united in their general stance on homosexuality (any Christian who doesn’t believe homosexuality is wrong isn’t a Christian so don’t even go there*). So, I think you could hardly say Congress is “establishing a religion” by outlawing a small part (I mean merely marriage – homosexuality itself is not illegal) of what the world’s two largest religions** (and probably many others besides, including Judaism*) believe is wrong. A very shy estimate would put that at 55% of the world believing homosexuality is wrong. Are we not, depending on your viewpoint, either a democracy or a representative republic? And what is the rule of thumb of such political structures? I believe it’s “majority rules”, is it not? Granted, the percentage probably varies somehow in just our country, but still.
All that aside, while I do believe homosexuality and homosexual marriages to be wrong, that is not what I was saying in this status. I was merely making an observation/criticism of their analogy (which I came across in Flair or somewhere like that).
* Why a Christian/Jew must believe homosexuality is a sin:
“Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” -Leviticus 18:22
“If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” -Leviticus 20:13 (Again, not saying we should kill gays. This is Old Testament and, after all, Jesus didn’t have the prostitute killed)
Christians Only:
“Therefore God gave them [men] over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie” -Romans 1:24-25 (partial)
“Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.” -Romans 1:26
“In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.” -Jude 1:7 Reference (Genesis 19:5): “They [men of Sodom] called to Lot, ‘Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.’” (Jews too)** http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
Or how about “How can you defend your religion by refusing to allow people to claim they’re a part of it?”
Or maybe “How can you defend a bridge’s stability by refusing to allow additional vehicles on it?” Granted, this one doesn’t fit so well (marriage isn’t going to give way under homosexuality – at least, not solely), but still.
Jonathan:
I don’t care what people in a church want to call it but not allowing gay people the same legal rights in a marriage as straight people does violate the 14th amendment. They are just as human as anyone else and should have the same rights and denying them that is in my view immoral. Oh and if god didn’t approve of gay people, why is it genetic. The free will argument would work if it was a choice but the gay ducks and turtles and other animals proves it isn’t.
Me:
AGAIN, THEY’RE NOT DENIED THE SAME RIGHTS!!! I’m allowed by law to marry any woman (obviously excluding girls, rather than women) I so choose and who chooses to reciprocate. A gay man has the EXACT SAME RIGHT. He does NOT have the legal right to marry another man. Neither do I. Therefore, gay people have the EXACT SAME RIGHTS AS STRAIGHT FOLKS.
Regarding the genetic bit:
*sigh*
It’s not genetic. If it is, why do gay men become straight and vice versa? And why is it so prevalent? If it were genetic, it would be EXTREMELY RARE because of the same theories behind evolution, which I assume you buy into. It’s not exactly common, but roughly 5% is way too much for it to be genetic (granted, bi-sexuals might mess the statistics up a bit, but only so much).Back to the wording of your argument, that has got to be one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard. I mean, you’re obviously not a Christian and you’re just being sarcastic, but think it through. Let’s assume IT IS GENETIC. God literally states “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.” You cannot argue against that with “it’s genetic.”
Second, that’s another thing I don’t get: if it is genetic, why is it automatically okay? I’m sure there are tons of dissertations and such saying that Freddie Kruger and Ted Bundy did what they did because they were genetically predisposed to do so. Does that make it right? Furthermore, assuming you’re a Christian, lust is DEFINITELY genetic – but that does not make it okay. The ability to become angry is genetic (not saying temper, just the ability), does that make it right to get mad because, say, someone has a different skin color?
The only thing homosexuality being genetic would prove is that homosexuals have no choice in being homosexuals. If that is the case, nowhere in my Bible does it say that it is wrong for a man TO BE ATTRACTED to another man (though it is implied once or twice). It merely says it’s wrong for him to ACT ON IT (or to even be lustful), just as it is not wrong for me to be attracted to women, but it IS WRONG for me to say, fantasize or to have intimate relations with them (excepting a wife, of course).
Dorothy:
DON’T GO THERE!!!! the only people i’ve heard that ‘proof’ of ‘natural homosexuality’ have been either homo themselves, or were sympathetic. IF homosexuality were purely genetic (as opposed to a genetic predisposition), then why do various studies return less than 100% concordance in between pairs of IDENTICAL (meaning genetically) twins?
Jonathan:
I’ll take a genetic predisposition agreement, it fits my point just as well. But no a gay person does not have the same right, they don’t have the right to marry the one they love and that to me is a tragic abomination of moral principles …both my own and those of religions. What harm would it do to allow gays to marry, does that not support love amongst people. How does that even concern those who are not, you don’t have to marry someone of the same sex so I don’t see how allowing it hurts anyone. I guess I am a sympathizer to gays since I don’t understand the morality of not leaving them to their own practices. I am not gay but some of the greatest people I have ever encountered are and from that experience I could never deny them the right to be with those they love, for any reason. I guess my life experience will not allow me to see gay people through the same eyes that you do and for that reason we will never agree. That is fine, we don’t have to agree.
Me:
“I’ll take a genetic predisposition agreement, it fits my point just as well.” Ummm…. what? Who agreed with you. [edit I now realize what he was referring to] I basically did “assume true for argument’s sake and show why it’s moot”, NOT an agreement. If it’s moot, it can’t possibly fit your point.So, by your logic, why shouldn’t siblings, parent/child pairs, and other combinations of close relatives be allowed to marry? If they “love” one another, what does it matter if it’s a moral and natural abomination?
You say “some of the greatest people I have ever encountered are [gay]“. We’re not idiots. While being homosexual is, in our eyes, wrong, it does not nullify positive attributes. Let’s say Sir Thomas Crapper was gay. That doesn’t mean I’m not going to use the toilet. Being “great” in that sense and not being allowed to marry the one you “love” are not mutually exclusive. Turing was “great”, but that doesn’t give him the right to, say, molest children. (I’m not saying he did – rather that, in our eyes, it is the same as far as whether or not it is evil, if not in the tangible results.)
I love this phrase “you don’t have to marry someone of the same sex so I don’t see how allowing it hurts anyone.” You see, that is one of the crucial differences between people like you and people like me. You define something as “right” or “wrong” based on whether or not it hurts anyone. Guess what? Pornography doesn’t hurt anyone. Neither does drug abuse. Yet they are still wrong and (latter) illegal. (Note: drug use does hurt the user, but we’re talking about hurting others here; it also can cause the user to hurt others, but since that “hurting others” is in itself illegal, that is neither here nor there.)
And if you only define something as “wrong” when it “hurts someone”, then you leave it up to people to decide what “hurts someone”. Then you have people engaging in fraud, video piracy, copyright infringement, and other things that both are wrong and hurt people, but because the hurt isn’t easily visible, people can determine them to be okay.
“I guess my life experience will not allow me to see gay people through the same eyes that you do and for that reason we will never agree.”
THERE’S the good ol’ (if passive) American lack of responsibility. “It’s not my fault – it’s his! And if there is no ‘him’… I’M A PRODUCT OF MY ENVIRONMENT.” Sure, our life experiences influence us all, but ultimately, ALL of your choices and decisions are YOURS; don’t try to shift the responsibility for your choices. If life experiences are what allow and disallow you to see or believe things, then all arguments on any subject are pointless.
And now to my sister:
“DON’T GO THERE!!!!” – Dorothy, yelling this in no way helps your argument no matter what the argument happens to be…“the only people i’ve heard that ‘proof’ of ‘natural homosexuality’ have been either homo themselves, or were sympathetic.” There’s no way to really prove this, and a proponent of homosexuality could argue the reverse, that only people who oppose homosexuality believe/produce proof that it is a choice.
“IF homosexuality were purely genetic (as opposed to a genetic predisposition), then why do various studies return less than 100% concordance in between pairs of IDENTICAL (meaning genetically) twins?” Wow. That’s never even occurred to me… excellent point. Hey Jonathan, I’d love to see your answer to this.
Plus, once people accept that homosexuality is genetic, that opens the door to start blaming everything on genetics.
Is your kid out of control? That can’t possibly be bad parenting! He MUST have ADD, ADHD, or something similar!
Are you suffering from a lack of self-control? It’s not your fault! You’re just suffering from OCD!
Those silly Republicans talk about being “pro-life” and “constitutional” and “hard-working”, but really, it’s all just a front to justify the racism and birth defect in their brains that they’re born with! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAAHMDpk7Ik) 3:00 – 4:15 (the good stuff starts at 3:50)
Right, Garofalo. Because we conservatives were all a-okay with socialism, abortion, gun control, and out-of-control taxes until Obama showed up… Then we saw black skin and just went stir-crazy on everything else.
Jonathan:
You have now devolved this to a political spitting match where I KNOW we will never agree. It was interesting though, have a good day.
Dorothy:
yeah, umm, andrew, can we stick to the original topic. I know how much you like politics, but when you try to take on the whole gamut of politics w/out the benefit of a shared belief in the Bible, you’re going to be real easy to shut down….
anywho, andrew there’s one point i’d really have to disagree w/ you on. Who it hurts: drugs, for example DO hurt others, even legal ones. To Jonathan: what i mean by this is that i know a family that, in less than a year, has been more or less destroyed by alchohol. In addition, homosexuals do tend to be very promiscuous. When was the last time you heard of a homo couple waiting until marraige? (granted, it’s not that common among heterosexuals either, but among homos it is non-existant) This means that any child raised in a family led by homosexuals will most likely learn that promiscuity is ok. It’s not, and if you disagree, i wrote my grad paper on abstinance-only education and i can email it to you in a heartbeat. Homosexual couples are, in general, looser on morals than heterosexual couples (which makes sense, considering the way they fight traditionally accepted morals)
Me:
Wow, I went poking around teh interwebs to see if I could find garofalo’s high school grades, and I find out that the person saying I have brain damage – and this is what SHE wrote – underwent surgery to… um… make it easier to fit into smaller clothes. And had a mom who, it seems, was okay with pot-smoking. It says when she moved to Texas she was very depressed and became very fat (her words) – 150 lbs at 5’1″. The only reason she gives? Her new high school valued football and drill teams. The horror! And she says this, word-for-word, I kid you not: “I’ve had a good track record with enlightened, interesting guys, although I’ve never had a lot of long relationships.” And this is the same person who: “I married my boyfriend at the time — it was a joke. We never got divorced, but if I wanted to get married again, it shouldn’t be a problem — no one would investigate.” Talk about a total lack of personal responsibility.
Dorothy:
Andrew, you’re really going off topic now.
Me:
Hey, it’s my status. The topic is whatever I want it to be. Besides, I really, really, really, get ticked off every time I’m reminded of that pitiful excuse for a woman and her blanket statements about everyone who disagrees with her politics.
Adam:
The government cannot legally support any religious following. It should be neutral on the subject. It can’t even declare non-belief as the national religion. Marriage is a religious event. A civil union is not. So why can the government limit civil unions. It shouldn’t. It shouldn’t limit any right of the people.
Civil rights should not be put on a ballot. If %100 of the population agreed with some legislation, but it was unconstitutional, then it is illegal. [edit But if 100% of people agreed, they'd amend the Constitution] If you disagree, study the history of slavery. It was, for a very long time, supported by the majority. Was it right? Perhaps gay marriage has some relation. In any case, don’t commit a slippery slope fallacy. Allowing homosexuals to enter into civil unions will not turn the world on its head.
Dorothy:
Me, i don’t really mind if the whole world descends into moral, economic and/or political chaos b/c if you’re not right w/ God, you’re not right with him whether your sin is lying, rape, or homosexuality. And if you’re right with Him, the world is never going to accept you and agree with you, but it’s not your home, so it doesn’t matter. However the study of historic homosexuality and its impacts on cultures, individuals, and governments does make plain why He commands what he commands.
Adam:
This is a bleak outlook on the human condition. Before you devote the rest of your life to Christianity, please ask yourself why. If you don’t, how will you ever know?
Dorothy:
I’ve had seventeen years of asking myself why i believe what i believe, and given that it took me about fourteen years to answer that question, i won’t be able to completely explain it but honestly? I’m a logical person, and i’ve never read a book, heard an argument, or seen such a compelling declaration of love as those found in the Bible.
uhh…my english went off for a moment there: I’m a logical person, and i’ve never read a book, heard an argument, or seen a declaration of love as compelling as those found in the Bible.
Adam:
There is much love in there. But there is also rape, genocide, genital mutilation, to name a few of the atrocities. Worst of all, it condemns thought, real thought. If you were born into Islam, after seventeen years, wouldn’t you be saying the same thing?
Me:
I wasn’t using the majority as a right/wrong argument. The Lord knows the majority is wrong – hehe – the MAJORITY of the time (puns… so painful). “Narrow is the road” anyone? It was merely a statement that the government is performing it’s function to uphold the will of the people. And, actually, I would argue that, the majority of that time, slavery may NOT have been supported by the majority of the PEOPLE, only of the VOTERS (and we all know how “all-inclusive” that group was).
“Allowing homosexuals to enter into civil unions will not turn the world on its head.” You obviously just skimmed (not that I blame you). Let me point out something I said earlier:
“Honestly, as a Christian, I couldn’t care less whether gays were allowed to get married. A Christian who is concerned with such superficial symptoms of sin has missed the point. “Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.” That was talking about a man’s actual physical appearance, but I think it works here as well. I don’t much care whether or not they’re legally allowed to get married, but I DO care that gays exist at all. (And don’t take that as some homophone “Kill all the gays” bit; murder is as much a sin as homosexuality.) Rather, I’m concerned with the fact that such folks have become gay (whether consciously or unconsciously).”
Dorothy, read the rest of that bit (including the parenthesis) about drugs.
“(which makes sense, considering the way they fight traditionally accepted morals)” I feel like I’ve heard that before… but I can’t remember where.
Adam:
And who are you to judge them? If you believe God is the ultimate authority, let him decide. Would you or would you not allow homosexuals to enter into civil unions?
Me:
ADAM WILL YOU PLEASE ANSWER THIS QUESTION! (sorry, just had to get your attention) Just now, you said “genital mutilation” again. I asked you last time what you meant by that. Please say what. I’ve read the Bible four or five times NOT including all the sermons/bible studies/bible classes I’ve been in and, other than circumcision, I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.
Adam:
You got it.
Dorothy:
umm…idk andrew, i just composed that myself
ah, Adam, have you seen the lion king? Do you believe that the movie condones Scar’s behavior because he is in it?
P.S. genital mutilation? do you mean circumcision?
Me:
That bit about Islam. No, she wouldn’t. I can’t say definitively that she wouldn’t be a devout/”devout” Muslim in that scenario, but she wouldn’t be saying the same thing, or at least not with any degree of truth. Since you seem so fixated on Biblical violence, I’ll use that. Going solely by that and the assumption that killing of any kind is wrong, which is better? Christianity or Islam? Both have bloody histories, but which what essentially commands violence today?
Secondly, going to the whole “love” thing: as I’ve stated before, true Christians do what they do out of love for and a desire to save others. Why do Muslims do what they do? To be honest, with the women, I have no idea. With the men, they’re basically doing it for… let’s call it eternal marital consummation. Although I never got that. Why thirty [edit I know it's 72] virgins? Why not one? Why not a billion? If it’s eternal, the difference is negligible.
Dorothy:
the women do it mostly cuz their forced into it (in fundamentalist households) or they don’t really mind (more so in–what’s the word?–moderate? households)
But me, being Muslim??? I MIGHT have been a devout Muslim….until I got my hands on a Bible. Let’s put it this way: i’d never be able to handle wearing a chador!!!
Hold it Adam: did I read this right???? “Worst of all, it condemns thought, real thought.” ummm….have you ever read any of the proverbs??
Adam:
The Lion King draws no parallel. If the bible is the word of God and he throws his support behind such evils, how can you accept him as a moral authority? He commanded a lot of those atrocities.
So if she or you lived your entire lives soaked in Islam, let’s say in Iran, you think that you wouldn’t be a Muslim? And if you got a Bible, you don’t think you would dismiss it as you dismiss the Koran now?
What are Adam and Eve forbidden to do? Eat from the tree of knowledge. You don’t think that is a metaphor for something?
Dorothy:
the ‘tree of knowledge’ is a nickname for ‘the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.’ you could say it’s the tree that kills innocence.
Me:
Regarding “genital mutilation”:
So, you think that the Bible is evil/inaccurate/wrong or whatever partially because it promotes (commands then metahpor-izes) circumcision? I understand your difficulties with genocide, but rape and circumcision? (Note: I’m making to very different and distinct arguments on both)
What’s wrong with circumcision? Maybe this is getting tmi, but I am. As far as I know (and I don’t, I’m just guessing), all male Felshers are at birth. What’s the problem? I was under the impression this is a VERY COMMON occurrence in America. What’s your beef with it?
Regarding rape:
History books tell of rape, so what? The different parts of the Bible, in my mind, fall into two categories: teaching (like Jesus giving a sermon or something), and recording (like Absalom’s half-brother raping Tamar). Now, how is this rape (or any other in the Bible) a detractor from the Bible? RAPE IS NEVER APPROVED OF OR PROMOTED IN THE BIBLE; rather it is recorded and (often) condemned. What’s the issue? The recorder merely recorded what happened just like our history books will record what (I’ll grant you “allegedly”) happened in the White House under Clinton.
Adam:
Who in their right mind could cut the foreskin off a infant male that soon after birth. [edit Um... most American doctors?] Only the religious. How are you not discussed by that?
Isaiah 13:
15 Whoever is captured will be thrust through;
all who are caught will fall by the sword….
16 Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes;
their houses will be looted and their wives ravished.I think that is a command. Don’t you?
Your book is evil.
If the bible is only a history book, then by all means, read it as such. But you claim it is the infallible word of God? Don’t you think that requires it to have a different standard?
Dorothy:
That’s a prophecy, NOT a command!!! If i remember correctly, it was about the Persians vs. the Babylonians, which would set the Isrealites free.
There were times that genocide was commanded by God, that’s the fact of the matter, but consider the cultures who were wiped out: i.e. child killers. Think about it this way: the more that this particular society lived to adulthood, the more that would have blood on their hands and be condemned to Hell anyways.
P.S. circumcision is a medical procedure that prevents infection. it’s done to babies for the same reason many parents nowadays pierce their baby’s ears: so they won’t remember it.
As to your second post: Yes it does! give me one iota of proof that the Bible isn’t real!!
Me:
”And who are you to judge them? If you believe God is the ultimate authority, let him decide. Would you or would you not allow homosexuals to enter into civil unions?”
Ah. I see. Common misconception. I’m not judging. I’m not saying homosexuality is wrong because I think it is. I’m saying it’s wrong because God HAS DECIDED and WRITTEN IT DOWN (see above). I’m merely the messenger (no, that’s not supposed to have any kind of superstitious double-meaning).
As far as whether I’d allow it: As a voter, I don’t know if there’s an issue that matters less to me. I don’t really care whether it’s allowed. I only know that it’s wrong and I want to convince people of that fact, but outlawing the marriage to stop homosexuality is a bit like putting a band-aid on a stab wound that a guy just gave himself without taking the knife away first.
Back to the atrocities thing.
The Bible is the word of God, but that doesn’t mean he supports every deed recorded. The Pharisees and their like punched Jesus. You think God approved of that (assuming it’s all true, of course)? God tells Israelites not to do stuff, and they do it; you think he approved of that? Just because a deed is in the Bible does not mean God is in favor of it. As a matter of fact, I believe phrases like “[something or other] provoked the Lord to anger” are pretty common.
Adam and Eve:
THAT’S your argument?! Don’t eat from the tree of knowledge? Why do you think it’s a metaphor? For the relevant part of his life, Solomon was renowned for having the Lord’s approval and for his studies (studying plants and fish and such). Granted, no one invented the light bulb in Biblical times, but I don’t see anyone else (besides the Israelites and other peoples of the Bible) inventing light bulbs either. The Bible is pretty well known for redundancy. If God considers something to be wrong, you’ll find at least two or three verses that say so. If the command not to eat from the tree of knowledge is your best argument, you’ve seriously misunderstood.
Adam:
Ok. So your God supports genocide (I am sure he was partly responsible for the prophesy, right?) But it is justified since they were sinners and would of gone to Hell anyway? Or is it justified because it is God’s word, and he made all of us so he can do as he pleases? HOW CAN YOU JUSTIFY GENOCIDE. OPEN YOUR EYES. LOOK AT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. Circumcision’s original purpose was not for medical reasons.
And learn something about burden of proof, PLEASE. Ask your brother, I think he might have an idea.
Me:
“If the bible is only a history book, then by all means, read it as such. But you claim it is the infallible word of God? Don’t you think that requires it to have a different standard?”Man, you’re making this difficult. It’s NOT JUST A HISTORY BOOK. Let me put it this way. Say you have an ideology with a set of “dos” and “don’ts”. Doesn’t it kind of make sense to give real-life examples of people doing the “dos” and “don’ts”. Rape is recorded in a book condemning sexual immorality the same way succumbing to Scholar’s Mate is recorded in a chess book. Jeez.
Adam:
Samuel 15:3
“Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.”Some of it is recorded, but some is COMMANDED. That is where the problem starts. Your god, if he exists, is EVIL. Show me how the Bible is superior to a secular morality. If not, what is so great about it? It claims to be the word of the creator of the universe? Great! So does a lot of religious texts.
Me:
“Who in their right mind could cut the foreskin off a infant male that soon after birth. Only the religious. How are you not discussed by that?Isaiah 13:
15 Whoever is captured will be thrust through;
all who are caught will fall by the sword….
16 Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes;
their houses will be looted and their wives ravished.I think that is a command. Don’t you?
Your book is evil.”
Jeez. You know, at the start of all these discussions, I took you to be a smart guy. I still think you are, scientifically and in similar areas. But man you don’t know how to understand a book. My sister hit the nail on the head. It’s a prophecy. It’s saying something will happen. It’s NOT SAYING THAT THAT IS A GOOD THING OR THAT GOD CONDONES IT, ONLY THAT IT WILL. For example, in one of the OT books, (I think Isaiah) it says “They will look on me, the one they have pierced” and obvious reference to Jesus. Does that mean God likes Jesus being crucified? BY NO MEANS! But it will happen nonetheless.
First part.
I believe the word you’re looking for is “disgusted.” Again, my sister got it. If it’s so wrong, why do modern doctors do it? Don’t know about you, but personally, my life hasn’t been ruined by the lack of an inch or so of TOTALLY UNNECESSARY skin. WARNING TO DOROTHY: DO NOT READ PAST HERE!!!
Frankly, I’m glad I’m circumsized. Makes it easier to pee.
Okay I’m about done (not just for the night, but overall). If God created us, and if he controls what happens to us after death, than killing someone by his command really isn’t evil. If they’re evil, they deserve it. If they’re not, then they’re going to a better place. If you give somebody a dollar, don’t you kind of feel entitled to a dollar from them? If God gave us life, isn’t it his to end? You can debate whether God exists, but not whether or not he is good. The only solid thing you have saying he’s evil is nothing when you consider that he created us.
As far as a lot of religious texts claiming the same thing: I believe we’ve been there and done that. I’m not going there again, it’s not worth it to engage in a circular argument. Dorothy, don’t bother. It just goes in circles.
Adam:
Like I have been saying, there are plenty of commandments by God in support of genocide – sorry my first example didn’t meet that requirement. The thing is, you can take any verse in the Bible, twist your interpretation of it, and make everything fine. Stop negotiating.
Ok. Is there anything wrong with female genital mutilation?
God is the mafia boss. He can let us live, or get rid of us. It is his domain. We should submit to his will.
Don’t submit to that evil. You are more moral than your God.
Me:
God commanding one human to kill another is a bit like me writing a virus that destroys a computer file I MADE.
Also, Dorothy started mentioning this: we have at least some record of those peoples sacrificing their children in fire and stuff like that. Do you have any evidence that any of them were innocent (excluding children; I personally believe that children young enough to be innocent will go to the same place as Christians when they die. That’s the most guesswork of any of my beliefs, but I believe it nonetheless)
Dorothy:
andrew, first of all, you do know that i can read fast enough that if i’m fanning the pages of a book, i can pick up a word or two right? that warning was not effective. secondly, the first excerpt was off target, but the second was a command from Samuel to Saul. the one that pretty much lost Saul his kingship, because he didn’t also kill the livestock.
The whole picture is not there, though. The Amalekites attacked God’s Chosen, the isrealites, THREE times by my reckoning before God ordered their destruction. Did you also notice that not even the livestock were to be kept alive? God thus made a strong point that this was a somber duty, nothingto rejoice over.
Me:
Next, I assume you’ll bring up torture or near-torture. I don’t think you’ll find a single condoned instance. Any talk of ripping pregnant women open and the like is either prophecy or recording.
Actually it never cost Saul his kingship… only Jonathan.
Adam:
We are not computers. We are thinking, feeling beings. Maybe I was wrong, maybe you aren’t more moral than God.
If there is no evidence they were innocent, they must have been guilty?
Spin it any way you want.
By the way, someone who writes a virus to destroy their own computer is either a sadist, and immature experimenter or someone who doesn’t value their computer.
Me:
“God is the mafia boss. He can let us live, or get rid of us. It is his domain. We should submit to his will.Don’t submit to that evil. You are more moral than your God.”
You’re missing it AGAIN. The mafia boss can let you live or get rid of us.
God [[GIVES US LIFE]] and can let us live or get rid of us [[AFTERLIFE]]. Again, your perspective is whacked. Essentially, the best illustration I can think of is that God views your life on Earth the same way you or I might view our life in a video game. It’s fun and all, but it’s only a shadow of the reality. You’re all caught up in getting killed by the Goomba and ignoring the Mach truck bearing down on you while playing your GameBoy.
“Is there anything wrong with female genital mutilation?” Please stop being vague. Just tell us what you mean by this stuff. I can’t say unless you’re specific. What do you consider female genital mutilation? One person might consider an earing to be mutilation of the ear, whereas another needs a stab wound before they’d call it mutilation.
Adam:
So why submit some to suffering and provide for others. Sounds like a sick video game.
I’m talking about cutting off the clitoris. It doesn’t really serve much function.
Dorothy:
sorry for my slowness: the compy’s been acting up, but how can you call the one who created every good thing and even gave us free will evil? Personally, i believe I will NEVER understand all of the Bible. I understand enough to know what i should do and why, but God’s inteligence is far above mine. If you were watching a chess game and knew that allowing one knight to remain unchalanged would cause the loss of a dozen other pieces, wouldn’t you be willing to sacrifice that knight? and who are we, who obtained our souls from God, to fight him when he takes that soul out of the world? The purpose of the mortal body is not to live, but to understand God’s gifts and seek eternal life with Him.
Me:
”If there is no evidence they were innocent, they must have been guilty?”
*SIGH* NO! But there’s no reason to think they weren’t and there is reason (however small) to think they were.
“By the way, someone who writes a virus to destroy their own computer is either a sadist, and immature experimenter or someone who doesn’t value their computer.”
It wasn’t meant to be an exact parallel. It was merely meant to demonstrate, like everything else for the last half hour, how off-base your perspective is (not your opinion, but your perspective on life vs. afterlife and such)
lol “but God’s inteligence is far above mine” Yeah it is. He can spell intelligence.
”I’m talking about cutting off the clitoris. It doesn’t really serve much function.”
Where is THAT in the Bible?
Adam:
It’s not. Do you think that is immoral? If so, why?
Me:
“So why submit some to suffering and provide for others. Sounds like a sick video game.”Because all the little NPCs have a will of their own. Some of them, if allowed free will, will hurt others. Therefore, you can’t provide for all without taking away free will.
Dorothy:
first of all, what is the clitoris?
@ Andrew whatever genius. at least i type b/c i enjoy it, not b/c no one can read my handwriting.
@ adamas a historical document, the bible is quite reliable. Look at the hitites, for instance, so if the Bible says a group was violent or child-sacrificing, they probably were.
Adam:
God made a video game so that some of us could suffer and some could follow him, and the ones that didn’t obey him are damned for eternal hell. Why make the game in the first place? Why design them with a free will that can cause them to burn in Hell?
There really is no logical argument that will get through to you. I really tried. Really. Good luck.
Me:
“It’s not. Do you think that is immoral? If so, why?”Umm. Not really if it’s done at the will of the woman. Definitely immoral if done against her will. If done by her will, then I think it’s gross, but not really any more wrong that a piercing by worldly logic. By Biblical logic, it does talk about “sin against the body”, but I’m not sure whether that applies here.
But I see what you’re doing. You’re trying to draw a parallel. Okay, let’s say it is immoral. Doesn’t matter. Cutting THAT off and cutting some USELESS SKIN off are not comparable. The male equivalent of that would be to cut you-know-what off, which is NOT in the Bible.
Dorothy:
y’all do know this is out on the internet now, right?? Anywho, i’ll have to sleep on that genocide thing and get back to you later.
Me:
video game’s a analogy dude. Jeez. What is the one thing our country values above all else? FREEDOM! Would you rather God just sent you to heaven without giving you any choice in the matter? Would you be you if he did?
By “There really is no logical argument that will get through to you. I really tried. Really. Good luck.” you mean “No matter what I say you won’t agree with me, regardless of whether I’m right or wrong”. I could say the same of you. You keep saying stuff like who am I to say homosexuality is wrong, yet at the same time assume that you must be right about this.
Now that the discussion’s apparently over, mind telling me why you care so much? If I didn’t believe in God, I’d probably give less to charity and other lamentable things. I don’t do any of these things you consider wrong (like genocide) and tons of people who don’t believe in God do the others (like circumcision), so why do you care whether or not I believe in God?
It makes sense for me to try to convince you; I’d consider it to be the spiritual equivalent of pushing you off the tracks when a train is coming, but why do you care? It makes no difference to you and it would probably have a negative impact on the world (however negligible). And again, the pointlessness of eternity in this universe.
Dorothy, anyone with the attention span to read this far down isn’t going to care.
