Questions on being Narrow-Minded

[hippyprincess]

You would lobby to allow same-sex unions, no? You would claim you have the “right” to do so. But, is that right? According to whom?

My moral compass, and the moral compass of many other people.
I could argue the same to you. It’s your moral compass, influenced by religion, that tells
you that it is an abomination.

It seems you would want to give everyone the right to lobby for what they wanted, so long as they all lobby for what YOU think is right.

Everyone has freedom of speech in my country. I respect your right to practice freedom of speech, but I don’t respect what you are lobbying for.

There is a higher source of right and wrong than any individual person. Thank God for that. Well, atleast I will.

Says who? All religions have their own moral code.

I think it is also highly unfair of you to attempt to equate lobbying against homosexual union with the murder of Jews, or the discrimination of blacks.

Weren’t you previously trying to equate serial killers with homosexuals? I was using this as an example, proving that just because you believe something in good faith, doesn’t make it right.

I realize there is a burden of the absence of financial and health-related benefits, but we all have burdens.

It’s not a “burden,” it’s to be stripped of your rights as an American citizen. Why should someone have to carry this “burden?” What justifies it? Oh, a hypocritical and judgmental religious belief.

I’m not going to support same-sex unions just so a homosexual can get those benefits off their ‘significant other’. No one is denying them their own individual finances or health benefits.

You have no idea what they’re really being denied.
Suppose there was a unionized homosexual couple who both had steady jobs and income, both receiving health care from their jobs. One of the men gets laid off because his business goes bankrupt. A few weeks later, he develops cancer. He has no health care, because he can’t share his husband’s benefits. They can’t afford chemotherapy, and the cancer is spreading quickly. Should this man DIE because he isn’t in a heterosexual union? Should he have no health care because he isn’t STRAIGHT? That’s disgusting.

The homosexual community isn’t asking for marriage in churches, they’re asking for legal rights promised to them in the constitution.

It affects MY life because MY life is centered around obedience to God, who teaches me that supporting and encouraging sinful behavior is sinful for me. Legalizing same-sex unions sends a message to the world justifying this behavior, thus drawing them further and further from God, who desires them to be nearer and nearer to Himself. So, yes…it indeed DOES affect my life.

That doesn’t affect your life at all, that’s the problem. It affects other people’s lives, not yours. If people choose to stray from a god, that’s not going to effect your being close to him.

Well, the states have yet to break from their national heritage, which was a Constitution designed largely with Godly, Christian values. The culture of death runs rampant, and who knows? maybe someday you’ll get your wish…but it WILL have consequences. Christians everywhere pray that eyes will open to this, before it is too late.

What consequence to them? If they choose not to marry someone of the same sex, great for them. That doesn’t give ANYONE the justification to take away the health care of someone else.

 

[hippyprincess]

Suffice it to say that the basis for an all male priesthood is an article of faith and is not based upon anything else.

That’s not an explanation or reasoning for anything. It’s simply stating ab = ab; it is how it is because it is how it is. That doesn’t provide a motivation or reason why women should be held in an inferior position.

The Church doesnt teach this - its another of your misunderstandings. Its called a straw man argument: you invent something the Church doesnt actually teach and then attack the Church for teaching it.
Philthy;5177512:

“Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” (I Timothy 2:11-14)

“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” (I Corinthians 14:34-35)

It certainly does.
Philthy;5177512:

Really? How would you know that?

Sounds like another unproven bias to me.

Urr, because I looked it up in the dictionary, therefore proving its from there. It was not a religious dictionary.

Yes, but we dont pretend that our beliefs aren’t an expression of faith - secularists do.

I wasn’t implying that you did. Your beliefs are so because your faith tells you to believe them.

Im not narrow minded - do you mind sharing the published info? Im especially interested in the definition of homosexuality used as applied to rats; how they determine whether the rat is conscious that it has chosen to interact with another rat of the same sex and whether their is both male to male sexuality and female to female sexuality.

As soon as I find it, I will be glad to scan his magazine article. It’s buried somewhere in my mother’s basement. Until then, null conclusion.

We know we cant find a physical cause for it, thats for sure.

Uhhh, no. We don’t know what can or cannot be found, which is why I’m not claiming to know.

All your spouting about being born that way, unable to change and it being immutable is a unproven bias that you have.

Just as your “spouting” about it being a personality trait is also. It’s also not a bias, it’s an educated opinion.

Change is not always a good thing

No, but in this case there is nothing negative that will happen to you.

I dont see any rights having been violated

-headdesk-
Please see my previous post to you, in which I bolded the federal rights that gays are being denied. They are CERTAINLY being denied joint health care, this is indisputable.

Tolerance is a two way street.

This goes against your religion, LOL.

 

[roselily]

I understand plenty about Christianity. I went to Roman Catholic school for 6 years, and even in 2nd grade it disgusted me. I, and most of the Protestant community, disagree with the inferiority of women in the church. Many other Christian denominations allow women to be priests, but Catholicism does not.

“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” (I Corinthians 14:34-35)

They *certainly * are stifled, not being permitted to speak in church, instead being told to ask their husband to interpret their faith for them.

Right, that just proved my point. Women and homosexuals are considered inferior. Women aren’t allowed to be priests, homosexuals aren’t allowed to go to heaven.

That women aren’t stifled? There are Bible quotes, one that I’ve already cited, saying that women SHOULD be stifled, and submit to their husbands completely. How about 1 Timothy 2:11-12?

“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.”

No, I don’t believe in heaven of hell. I was referring to heaven and hell because everyone here believes in it. I didn’t feel it appropriate to argue it’s existence in this message board.

I can’t imagine that an innocent, 2-week-old baby who dies of pneumonia will rot in hell for eternity because he didn’t live long enough to be baptized. How can you say a helpless infant is born full of sin? That’s perverse.

Sure they do. There’s no proof of a god, and science has showed us the answer to many things thus far. I’m not claiming to know the exact origins of life, but I, as do many other people, believe that the natural world is the cause.

Yes, it is important to me. Why would you want to explain away so many mysteries with fairy tales? That just limits your mind. The more we explore, the more potential we have to understand.

Was I condoning adultery? Nope. But I can’t *equate *cheating on a husband or wife with killing another human being. There are few worse things you can do than kill. And it saddens me to know that men holding guns is more acceptable than men holding hands.

No, because it harms other people. Like I said, like your Bible says, killing another person is the worst thing you can do. (I’m not even going to mention the hypocrisy of this teaching.) It’s ignorant and unreasonable to equate murder with homosexuality.

Why are you arguing this? I’ve said many times that I agree that there is no definitive cause.

Yes, a member of a homosexual couple can reproduce with a third party sperm/egg source. Why is couple in quotation marks?

About as natural as Mary getting pregnant without sperm. Ahem.

I realize that being black is not considered sinful. I was posing a hypothetical question; if God believed being black was sinful, would you agree?

Because homosexuality doesn’t hurt anyone. I don’t understand if you’re trying to imply that homosexuality is equivalent to serial killing.

Yes, I sat down in silence. Great alarm was evident on me, that it is so right what a women should be is do everything with modesty.

“I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.”-1 Timothy 2:12-15

-This must not change, and I thought that a woman should learn from the end words from Proverbs:

" She opens her mouth with
wisdom,
and the teaching of kindness is
on her tongue."
-Proverbs 31:26

         "Charm is deceitful, and beauty 
               is vain,
           but a woman who fears the 
          LORD is to be praised.
         Give her a share in the fruit of

her hands,
and let her works praise her in
the city gates."
-Proverbs 31:30-31

I believe this is women should learn from it-that is: modesty.

 

[Philthy]

Philthy;:

The Church doesnt teach this - its another of your misunderstandings. Its called a straw man argument: you invent something the Church doesnt actually teach and then attack the Church for teaching it.

“Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” (I Timothy 2:11-14)

“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” (I Corinthians 14:34-35)

It certainly does.

All good stuff, but none of it has anything to do with the topic of my comments! Apparently you are having difficulty keeping track of your own line of reasoning - my response was not to the issue of women, but to this claim of yours:

princess:

And to say that someone can’t enter heaven because they’re born as a homosexual is so wrong. That teaches that if you live your life as a kind, just, giving, and loving person but happen to be a homosexual, you can’t enter heaven.

The fact that my comments were underneath the quote should have alerted you to the context of my comments. Perhaps you cant actually defend these claims now that you’ve been called on them? Thats another underhanded technique. Its called bait and switch.
And as far as the “women are inferior to men” argument, I dont see it in the quotes you provided. What would substantiate your claim would be an official document of the Church claiming that the all male priesthood is so because women are inherently inferior to men. I wont hold my breath waiting for you to produce any actual support for your position…

Urr, because I looked it up in the dictionary, therefore proving its from there. It was not a religious dictionary.

I didnt say it wasnt from there, dear. I said that it sounds like a biased source to me since narrow mindedness has nothing to do with whether you are conservative or liberal, but rather, as even you said, the openness one has to considering opposing views. I’ll let you in on another secret: just because something appears in writing doesnt make it correct.

I wasn’t implying that you did. Your beliefs are so because your faith tells you to believe them.

But you do imply that your own beliefs are somehow not merely faith-based when, in fact, many of them are. Your belief in the “natural cause” of homosexuality - despite no proof of the alleged cause - is a perfect example among several that you have demonstrated on this thread. You have no scientific proof for a biological cause for homosexuality yet you “believe it”.

As soon as I find it, I will be glad to scan his magazine article. It’s buried somewhere in my mother’s basement. Until then, null conclusion.

My prediction? The “as soon as I find it” will end up being “never”. I wont hold my breath…

hippyprincess:

Uhhh, no. We don’t know what can or cannot be found, which is why I’m not claiming to know.

Uh, thats what you’re trying to say now, but what you before was…

hippyprincess:

But science has also allowed for the creation of homosexuality. It occurs, making it a natural thing; it is from nature.

So which is it kiddo? Science allowed for homosexuality thereby making it a “natural thing” or do we not “know what can or cannot be” the cause and no one really knows?

No, but in this case there is nothing negative that will happen to you.

Who gets to define what is negative?

They are CERTAINLY being denied joint health care, this is indisputable.

Can you show me, scientifically of course, how you know that health care is a “right”?
Does everyone in the world have this right? Including the unborn?

 

[SteveGC]

I understand plenty about Christianity. I went to Roman Catholic school for 6 years, and even in 2nd grade it disgusted me. I, and most of the Protestant community, disagree with the inferiority of women in the church.

6 years of Catholic grade school, and you now know “plenty about Christianity”? Interesting. At best I’d say you “know” plenty about Protestantism…which is to say, you are highly capable of making up your own set of “truths”, including the use of skillful eisegesis of the Bible to suit whatever it is you’d like it to say. That’s about the extent to which I’d say you “know” Christianity. It really would serve you well to be more familiar with that which you despise. Wouldn’t you regret, at the end of it all, to realize you needlessly hated something that could’ve provided you with everything you ever needed? (hint…that’s the path you’re on)

Right, that just proved my point. Women and homosexuals are considered inferior.

Just because God has other roles for a person doesn’t make them inferior.

Homosexuals aren’t allowed to go to heaven.

You keep bringing up heaven, while not believing in it. Is your motivation to somehow demonstrate the discrimination The Church allegedly exercises toward homosexuals? The Church doesn’t decide who goes to heaven or hell. Each individual person decides that for themselves, aligning their lives accordingly…either in love with God as He loves them, or rejecting God as He still loves them. You’d know that if you knew Christianity.

I can’t imagine that an innocent, 2-week-old baby who dies of pneumonia will rot in hell for eternity because he didn’t live long enough to be baptized. How can you say a helpless infant is born full of sin? That’s perverse.

I guess you’re bent on proving that you don’t know Catholic teaching.

Sure they do. There’s no proof of a god, and science has showed us the answer to many things thus far. I’m not claiming to know the exact origins of life, but I, as do many other people, believe that the natural world is the cause.

Name one thing that has designed itself into existence. Science was designed by man. Man and nature were designed by God. Beings design things. Things don’t design things…they GET designed.

The more we explore, the more potential we have to understand.

And so…you come to a point in your life where you’ve expanded your mind greatly…more than anyone on earth…and you understand SO MUCH…and then what?

Was I condoning adultery? Nope.

Well, I asked if adultery, among other things, was acceptable…to which you said “pornography, adultery…yes”. Perhaps you misunderstood my question.

But I can’t *equate *cheating on a husband or wife with killing another human being.

By listing out despicable behaviors, I’m not trying to equate them. I’m trying to ask you what is acceptable to you. You seem to be OK with not only homosexuality, but also adultery and pornography, since they “do no harm”. I think it boils down to opposing views of what “harm” entails, and also the concept of morality. You get to be your own moral judge, and you believe you will not lead yourself astray. And even if you choose poorly, of what consequence is it? Ultimately, you have no one to answer to…atleast you* think* you don’t

it saddens me to know that men holding guns is more acceptable than men holding hands.

Who said that? You certainly like to invent arguments out of thin air.

Why are you arguing this? I’ve said many times that I agree that there is no definitive cause.

Perhaps I misunderstood your rationale for supporting homosexuality. I thought you supported it because it’s possible it could be genetic. But regardless of its origins, you support it because it doesn’t do anyone any “harm”. I stand corrected.

Yes, a member of a homosexual couple can reproduce with a third party sperm/egg source. Why is couple in quotation marks?

Because a “couple” is TWO, not three or more. But I’m sure that’s not important to you. I’d assume you’d say “the more the merrier”.

About as natural as Mary getting pregnant without sperm. Ahem.

You’re right. That’s not natural. That’s supernatural. But I’ll let your slander slide, because I see that having science as your god allows you to define your world (what is “natural”) according to whatever you believe today, and make up something new that fits your beliefs tomorrow.

if God believed being black was sinful, would you agree?

As ridiculous as your hypothetical is… I would agree with ANYTHING my Creator laid out as truth. Anything. And if you acknowledged that you were created from a supreme being, you would do the same. What would be the point in rejecting the one who created you? What would be the gain? As it turns out, our Creator is a loving, just and saving God, who longs for reunion with His creation, a creation who turned their backs on Him. He longs for you…and for every homosexual on earth. Every murderer too.

Because homosexuality doesn’t hurt anyone. I don’t understand if you’re trying to imply that homosexuality is equivalent to serial killing.

It hurts God. That’s enough for me. I understand it means jack to you…and so be it.

 

[SteveGC]

My moral compass, and the moral compass of many other people. I could argue the same to you. It’s your moral compass, influenced by religion, that tells you that it is an abomination. Everyone has freedom of speech in my country. I respect your right to practice freedom of speech, but I don’t respect what you are lobbying for.

Ok. So we agree that we’re both free to believe, and fight for, and lobby for, whatever we individually believe. But you claim The Church dictates what people can or cannot do. This is not true at all. The Church provides guidance for our salvation. We are free to do whatever we want with that guidance. Reject it, as you have. Or embrace it, as I have. If you want to complain about someone saying a homosexual cannot have a legal union, don’t look at The Church…look at the state. The Church doesn’t prohibit anyone from having a union with a same-sex individual, if such an action was in fact, legal. You seem to be upset with the fact that the state is still holding to a moral compass different from your own.

Says who? All religions have their own moral code.

No. I’m saying that morality comes from ONE source, not multiple sources. There is but ONE truth, not many. You either accept it, or you don’t (and hence, make up your own truth, and morals)

Weren’t you previously trying to equate serial killers with homosexuals?

No.

It’s not a “burden,” it’s to be stripped of your rights as an American citizen.

You can’t be “stripped” of something you never had to begin with. What “rights” are you referring to, specifically?

You have no idea what they’re really being denied.

I know precisely what’s at stake.

Suppose there was a unionized homosexual couple who both had steady jobs and income, both receiving health care from their jobs. One of the men gets laid off because his business goes bankrupt. A few weeks later, he develops cancer. He has no health care, because he can’t share his husband’s benefits. They can’t afford chemotherapy, and the cancer is spreading quickly. Should this man DIE because he isn’t in a heterosexual union? Should he have no health care because he isn’t STRAIGHT? That’s disgusting.

Hey, I get the unfairness of it all. And this “couple” would have my sympathy if I believed in their union to begin with. It’s nothing against either one of them, and if I personally knew the hypothetical cancer victim, I’d be the first to rally the troops to get him the funds he needed to get proper health care. But I’m NOT going to support his union…EVER.

The homosexual community isn’t asking for marriage in churches, they’re asking for legal rights promised to them in the constitution.

They’re asking for marriage, plain and simple. Call it what you like…legal rights…union…whatever. It’s marriage to them, because most do it first for love, not benefits. I agree, most aren’t asking the Church to acknowledge them. But people in the Church recognize that to sit idly by and support gay marriage, even if those marriages happen without God’s involvement, is to embolden sinful behavior in the world. Legalizing gay marriage publicizes to the world that this abnormal union is now “normal”, and hence encourages the behavior, most assuredly keeping these people out of churches…where they belong.

That doesn’t affect your life at all, that’s the problem. It affects other people’s lives, not yours. If people choose to stray from a god, that’s not going to effect your being close to him.

Again, how little of Christianity you have absorbed. We, all of us, are the body of Christ. One person’s sin, or their righteousness, affects more than just themselves. Mine affects more than just me. Basic Christianity.

What consequence to them? If they choose not to marry someone of the same sex, great for them. That doesn’t give ANYONE the justification to take away the health care of someone else.

No one’s taking it away. They didn’t ever have it to begin with. I’m still trying to figure out which Constitutional rights you are referring to, which imply that people get legal rights from marriage. It’s my understanding that the U.S. Constitution is silent on the topic of marriage. Or am I misinformed?

 

[hippyprincess]

All good stuff, but none of it has anything to do with the topic of my comments! Apparently you are having difficulty keeping track of your own line of reasoning - my response was not to the issue of women, but to this claim of yours:The fact that my comments were underneath the quote should have alerted you to the context of my comments. Perhaps you cant actually defend these claims now that you’ve been called on them? Thats another underhanded technique. Its called bait and switch.

You’re right, I did lose track. I apologize, it’s my fault. D’oh! D:
The bible quote that I meant to post was:

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
- 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

And as far as the “women are inferior to men” argument, I dont see it in the quotes you provided. What would substantiate your claim would be an official document of the Church claiming that the all male priesthood is so because women are inherently inferior to men. I wont hold my breath waiting for you to produce any actual support for your position…

To say that only one sex can hold a job is proving discrimination, just as saying only one race can hold a job. In fact, laws were passed in this country to eliminate this discrimination. Since you seem to like official documents, here’s the source:

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for a labor organization-

(1) to exclude or to expel from its membership, or otherwise to discriminate against, any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify its membership or applicants for membership, or to classify or fail or refuse to refer for employment any individual, in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities, or would limit such employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee or as an applicant for employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;

-Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

I didnt say it wasnt from there, dear. I said that it sounds like a biased source to me since narrow mindedness has nothing to do with whether you are conservative or liberal, but rather, as even you said, the openness one has to considering opposing views. I’ll let you in on another secret: just because something appears in writing doesnt make it correct.

If you have a problem with what’s listed in the dictionary, I suggest you contact them. I can’t do anything to change it, so attacking me for it really yields no progress.

But you do imply that your own beliefs are somehow not merely faith-based when, in fact, many of them are. Your belief in the “natural cause” of homosexuality - despite no proof of the alleged cause - is a perfect example among several that you have demonstrated on this thread. You have no scientific proof for a biological cause for homosexuality yet you “believe it”.

There is significant scientific proof strongly suggesting that there is a natural cause of homosexuality, but there is no definitive cause. I’ve stated this on multiple occasions. I’m not claiming to know what causes it, but I am sharing my personal, educated beliefs, just as you believe yours with no definitive cause.

My prediction? The “as soon as I find it” will end up being “never”. I wont hold my breath…

There’s not much I can say to this. I will try to find it when I get the chance, but I’m quite bust lately. If I get around to it, I’ll be sure to PM you.

Uh, thats what you’re trying to say now, but what you before was…

So which is it kiddo? Science allowed for homosexuality thereby making it a “natural thing” or do we not “know what can or cannot be” the cause and no one really knows?

Again, I realize that there isn’t a definitive cause. I was stating my personal beliefs, as are you and everybody else on this board. Do I sound like a broken record?

Who gets to define what is negative?

Is that a rhetorical question? Human morality defines what is negative.

Can you show me, scientifically of course, how you know that health care is a “right”?

In this country we have a right to posess health care. Look in any law book.
Philthy;5179287:

Does everyone in the world have this right? Including the unborn?

The issue at hand isn’t abortion, I don’t really see how that applies. Fetuses aren’t citizens.

 

[hippyprincess]

6 years of Catholic grade school, and you now know “plenty about Christianity”? Interesting. At best I’d say you “know” plenty about Protestantism…which is to say, you are highly capable of making up your own set of “truths”, including the use of skillful eisegesis of the Bible to suit whatever it is you’d like it to say.

As much as I’ve tried to avoid explaining WHY I have a problem with religion in general, especially divisions of Christianity, I feel obligated to say something in my defense.
’
I understand that the Bible is trying to tell you to live your life by a positive set of morals, which I agree with, in respects to the ten commandments. But I don’t agree with the discrimination, the hipocracy, and the pure cruelty in the Catholic Church’s history. The dogmas of the church also upset me, as well as the buisness-like way the church is run.

I don’t like the idea of unconditional forgiveness. But what really upsets me most is the cruelty, jealousy, hipocracy, and spitefulness of the god claimed to be so “loving.” I think the Bible, in its loosest interpretation, can be a positive thing, but overall it’s a bloody and judgemental book teaching many values I could never agree with.

That’s about the extent to which I’d say you “know” Christianity. It really would serve you well to be more familiar with that which you despise. Wouldn’t you regret, at the end of it all, to realize you needlessly hated something that could’ve provided you with everything you ever needed? (hint…that’s the path you’re on)

Actually, if I found out tomorrow that God was real, I can honestly I’d continue to live my life the way I am now. You don’t need to be Catholic to be a good person, and, in my opinion, to conform to the Christian beliefs is to make myself less of a person.

There was an ancient tale about entering Nirvana. The story said that before entering, you have to answer two questions about yourself honestly; have you brought happiness into your life? And, more importantly, have you brought happiness into the lives of others? If you can answer yes to both these questions, you can have eternal peace. And, at this point in my life, I think I can answer yes to both of these questions. This is a much better system than “how well did you follow MY rules?”

Just because God has other roles for a person doesn’t make them inferior.

A woman being forced to submit to their husbands isn’t inferiority? It really is, by anyone’s definition. And apparently “God’s role” for women to play is subserviant to their husbands.

You keep bringing up heaven, while not believing in it.

Correct, I don’t believe in it. I’m using it for the sake of the argument, seeing as you obviously do. Would you feel better if I put a disclaimer after every refutation about heaven claiming “but I don’t believe in it, so it doesn’t matter?”

Is your motivation to somehow demonstrate the discrimination The Church allegedly exercises toward homosexuals? The Church doesn’t decide who goes to heaven or hell. Each individual person decides that for themselves, aligning their lives accordingly…either in love with God as He loves them, or rejecting God as He still loves them. You’d know that if you knew Christianity.

The discrimination that your god holds against homosexuals. God defines the “requirments” for someone to enter heaven, as well as what is considered “sinful.” So I would say, yes, TO A POINT, God does decide. I understand the church’s stance on the free will of people to decide, which again makes sense, to a point.

I guess you’re bent on proving that you don’t know Catholic teaching.

I don’t think there’s anyway you can prove that an innocent baby is “full of sin” simply for existing. That’s perverse.

ame one thing that has designed itself into existence. Science was designed by man. Man and nature were designed by God. Beings design things. Things don’t design things…they GET designed.

That’s a completely religious statement, therefore having no basis in fact. Neither case can be proven.

And so…you come to a point in your life where you’ve expanded your mind greatly…more than anyone on earth…and you understand SO MUCH…and then what?

I’m not really sure what you’re trying to ask. Can you rephrase the question?

Well, I asked if adultery, among other things, was acceptable…to which you said “pornography, adultery…yes”.

I don’t think it’s right to cheat on your husband or wife, you should get a divorce. I believe that the church considers divorce and remarriage “adultery.” I don’t think divorce and remarriage is wrong at all. Why should you stay in a miserable marriage that ruins your life? Surely it’s more wrong to stay in a marriage like that than to get out of one.

Perhaps I misunderstood your rationale for supporting homosexuality. I thought you supported it because it’s possible it could be genetic. But regardless of its origins, you support it because it doesn’t do anyone any “harm”. I stand corrected.

I support it because people have a right to be in love, and be together. Love is endless, and it shouldn’t ever be limited.

 

[hippyprincess]

Because a “couple” is TWO, not three or more. But I’m sure that’s not important to you. I’d assume you’d say “the more the merrier”.

Yes, it would require a third person/source, I don’t disagree with that. What I was trying to say was that a homosexual couple can be in posession, or guardianship, of children that are of their genetic creation, just not together.

You’re right. That’s not natural. That’s supernatural.

It’s impossible, actually.

But I’ll let your slander slide, because I see that having science as your god allows you to define your world (what is “natural”) according to whatever you believe today, and make up something new that fits your beliefs tomorrow.

Of COURSE you define your world from the knowledge you know today. That’s why we don’t live in caves or drive horse-and-buggys. The world is changing and evolving, and as we study more we are able understand more.

As ridiculous as your hypothetical is… I would agree with ANYTHING my Creator laid out as truth. Anything.

That is truly disgusting. And I can say that honestly.

And if you acknowledged that you were created from a supreme being, you would do the same.

I believe I wasn’t created from a supreme being.
You believe you were.
You can’t claim your own beliefs as truth, just as I can’t claim mine. There’s no evidence to either case.

What would be the point in rejecting the one who created you? What would be the gain? As it turns out, our Creator is a loving, just and saving God,

I do not uphold the same opinion of this god. I know there’s no point in aguing as to WHY (and I do have reasons).

who longs for reunion with His creation, a creation who turned their backs on Him. He longs for you…and for every homosexual on earth. Every murderer too.

Another theoretical problem with the religion.
I also just find that quite creepy.

 

[hippyprincess]

Ok. So we agree that we’re both free to believe, and fight for, and lobby for, whatever we individually believe.

Right.

But you claim The Church dictates what people can or cannot do. This is not true at all. The Church provides guidance for our salvation.

The Bible wasn’t written by God, it was written by man.

If you want to complain about someone saying a homosexual cannot have a legal union, don’t look at The Church…look at the state. The Church doesn’t prohibit anyone from having a union with a same-sex individual, if such an action was in fact, legal.You seem to be upset with the fact that the state is still holding to a moral compass different from your own.

The Christian faith is doing plenty to prevent it, countless funds have been raised to petition and lobby against gay union in the STATE. I could really care less if any church allows them to get “married in the eyes of God.” They just deserve benefits.

No. I’m saying that morality comes from ONE source, not multiple sources. There is but ONE truth, not many. You either accept it, or you don’t (and hence, make up your own truth, and morals)

Morality comes from what’s personally right to YOU. Not trying to please someone else. Every religion thinks that they’re the only way, so your argument really has no value.

You can’t be “stripped” of something you never had to begin with.

You’re right, it was a poor word choice.How about being *denied *the right? To federal benefits

What “rights” are you referring to, specifically?

To recieve the federal and state benefits that heterosexual unions recieve.

I know precisely what’s at stake.Hey, I get the unfairness of it all. And this “couple” would have my sympathy if I believed in their union to begin with. It’s nothing against either one of them, and if I personally knew the hypothetical cancer victim, I’d be the first to rally the troops to get him the funds he needed to get proper health care. But I’m NOT going to support his union…EVER.

I don’t think the question is whether you support his union or not, I think the question is whether you support his civil rights as an American. Apparently, in your eyes, he doesn’t deserve them, because he’s homosexual.

They’re asking for marriage, plain and simple. Call it what you like…legal rights…union…whatever.

No, they’re not. Marriage is being wed under the eyes of God. Most don’t want to be “wed under God,” but instead to recieve benefits. Marriage is a CHURCH term, they’re doing nothing with the church.

It’s marriage to them, because most do it first for love, not benefits.

You’re right, the vast majority is doing it for love. And you know what? They’ll still be in love, benefits or no benefits. Why can’t they do it for both?

I agree, most aren’t asking the Church to acknowledge them. But people in the Church recognize that to sit idly by and support gay marriage, even if those marriages happen without God’s involvement, is to embolden sinful behavior in the world.

You keep saying “marriage.” We’re not talking about marriage, a church term, we’re talking about union. Can you please, in your own words, define marriage?

Legalizing gay marriage publicizes to the world that this abnormal union is now “normal”, and hence encourages the behavior, most assuredly keeping these people out of churches…where they belong.

What is normal?

1/5 people are coming out as gay. 1/5 people are Chinese.
How large does the percentage have to be to be considered “normal?”

Again, how little of Christianity you have absorbed. We, all of us, are the body of Christ. One person’s sin, or their righteousness, affects more than just themselves. Mine affects more than just me. Basic Christianity.

Is it lonely up there on your pedestal?
You’ve previously stated that each INDIVIDUAL person is responsible for their fate. Meaning, a gay person choosing to act on it will not affect your “eternal benefits in heaven.”

o one’s taking it away. They didn’t ever have it to begin with. I’m still trying to figure out which Constitutional rights you are referring to, which imply that people get legal rights from marriage. It’s my understanding that the U.S. Constitution is silent on the topic of marriage. Or am I misinformed?

No, they didn’t. But they would have it if they married someone of the opposite sex. So hypothetically, they had potential of the rights until they chose to unionize homosexually.

The Constitution doesn’t say anything about healthcare, it wasn’t even conceptualized at the time. But I was more referring to the 14th Amendment;

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[JRKH]

As much as I’ve tried to avoid explaining WHY I have a problem with religion in general, especially divisions of Christianity, I feel obligated to say something in my defense.
’
I understand that the Bible is trying to tell you to live your life by a positive set of morals, which I agree with, in respects to the ten commandments. But I don’t agree with the discrimination, the hipocracy, and the pure cruelty in the Catholic Church’s history. The dogmas of the church also upset me, as well as the buisness-like way the church is run.

I don’t like the idea of unconditional forgiveness. But what really upsets me most is the cruelty, jealousy, hipocracy, and spitefulness of the god claimed to be so “loving.” I think the Bible, in its loosest interpretation, can be a positive thing, but overall it’s a bloody and judgemental book teaching many values I could never agree with.

Sorry to butt in on your response to Steve, but I have been thinking about something and wanted to ask this.
You say that you see that there are positives in the Bible but cannot accept God because of the percieved hypocracy and pure cruelty that you see in Church history. You velieve that Religion in general will be teh downfall of humanity. Instead you accept science and it’s studies devances and explanations as good and valid.
I am curious why you do not apply the same standard to science that you apply to religion. In the past men of “science” stole cadavers to study anatomy. In the Past, “scientists” performed experiments on prisoners. Even today science routinely uses animals for experimentation. Are there things not evil and cruel and is it not hypocritical for science to do harm with the intent of curing some disease?
Are you not appalled that “Science” run in such a “buisness-like” way? Monies and resources are poured into research to develop drugs for erectile dysfunction, while Alzhiemers and cancer remain uncured.
If you apply the same criteria to Science, both historically AND currently, you must reject science as just as hypocritical and cruel as you deem religion and particularly the Catholic Church to be.

Actually, if I found out tomorrow that God was real, I can honestly I’d continue to live my life the way I am now. You don’t need to be Catholic to be a good person, and, in my opinion, to conform to the Christian beliefs is to make myself less of a person.

That’s fine - And God would continue to “live” His Life the same way. Of course that will ultimately include eternal life to those who accept Him and Eternal Death to those who don’t. It’s your bet.

There was an ancient tale about entering Nirvana. The story said that before entering, you have to answer two questions about yourself honestly; have you brought happiness into your life? And, more importantly, have you brought happiness into the lives of others? If you can answer yes to both these questions, you can have eternal peace. And, at this point in my life, I think I can answer yes to both of these questions. This is a much better system than “how well did you follow MY rules?”

Actually If you knew as much about Christianity as you think youknow - you’d realize that the answers to those questions cover a large part of what God is looking for. In other words. These ARE HIS rules.
Of course you nullify their worth for getting you into “nirvana” (heaven) since you don’t believe in nirvana.

Peace
James

 

[Philthy]

hippyprincess;:

The bible quote that I meant to post was:
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

This is not a Church document saying that “homosexuals do not go to Heaven” - that was your original claim that I objected to. I’ll also point out that fornication and adultery - heterosexual sins, are also represented here. The Church does not “discriminate” against homosexual sin any more than it does heterosexual sin.

To say that only one sex can hold a job is proving discrimination

Its not a job - its a vocation.

Since you seem to like official documents, here’s the source: -Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Here was my actual request - I’ll bold the parts that you obviously overlooked:
Philthy's actual request:

What would substantiate your claim would be an official document **of the Church **claiming that the all male priesthood is so because women are inherently inferior to men. I wont hold my breath waiting for you to produce any actual support for your position…

There’s not much I can say to this. I will try to find it when I get the chance, but I’m quite bust lately. If I get around to it, I’ll be sure to PM you.

I dont believe it actually exists.

Again, I realize that there isn’t a definitive cause. I was stating my personal beliefs, as are you and everybody else on this board. Do I sound like a broken record?

Yes - like a broken, sometimes self-contradictory, often unjustifiably condemnatory record

Is that a rhetorical question?

No, its a question intended to make you realize that there are some large, gaping holes in your view of humanity, science, what constitutes a “fact”, etc etc…read on…

Human morality defines what is negative.

My turn: :banghead: I dont have the slightest idea what you mean by human morality - and guess what? Neither do you! I asked you “Who gets to determine what is negative?” And your answer is “Human morality” But how exactly do we have access to the truth of what “human morality” is? Does it speak to us? Do we simply vote on it? How do we even know that there is such a thing as human morality? Does science reveal it?
You need to give this subject considerably more thought: How, exactly do we know that morality exits, and who gets to determine what is moral and what is not?

In this country we have a right to posess health care. Look in any law book.

Law books do not define our rights. As Steve has pointed out to you, its not in the Constitution nor in the Bill of Rights - thats where rights are spelled out. You are bluffing - due to ignorance while simultaneously overconfident in your position - and you are not fooling anyone.

The issue at hand isn’t abortion, I don’t really see how that applies. Fetuses aren’t citizens.

But “human morality” says they are citizens merely waiting to be born. What is it that they lack to be considered a citizen? On what basis are you discriminating against their citizenship?
They are human, alive (scientifically verifiable) and therefore have the inalienable right to life (clearly articulated in our Constitution) just like all other citizens and non-citizens.

 

[Philthy]

hippyprincess;:

The Christian faith is doing plenty to prevent it, countless funds have been raised to petition and lobby against gay union in the STATE.

But your OK with that, right? I mean didnt you just agree with Steve when he said,

SteveGC:

Ok. So we agree that we’re both free to believe, and fight for, and lobby for, whatever we individually believe.

So Christians are simply doing what they believe is the right thing and they are using the appropriate channels for doing it.

To recieve the federal and state benefits that heterosexual unions recieve.

This is a very interesting and fundamental issue which you need to give some thought to: Why do married couples get any sort of preferential treatment/benefits from the state? I mean, rather than arguing for civil unions having federal benefits, perhaps you would simply prefer to deny benefits to married couples if they are receiving them without just cause. But before you can decide to strip away those benefits it would be wise (and give you perspective) to understand why they received them in the first place. If you understand that, then we would be in a better position to address whether those entering civil unions truly deserve the same treatment.

 

[SteveGC]

As much as I’ve tried to avoid explaining WHY I have a problem with religion in general, especially divisions of Christianity, I feel obligated to say something in my defense…

hp,

sounds to me like you desire a God on your terms, if you desire one at all. I guarantee you that many of your current views would change if you became aware and accepting of the true God. I guarantee it. Look me up some day when that day comes, and I’ll be happy to celebrate that fact with you. You don’t need to be Catholic to be a good person, I agree. The problem is, you think “being good” and moral behavior is dependent on what you determine it is for yourself. And yet, ironically, you don’t allow the serial killer to kill innocent people, even though he believes it’s OK to do so…those are HIS morals…but you don’t allow him to have them. You justify it by claiming some sort of ‘majority vote’…saying that ‘most’ people agree with your position on it, and the fact that there are laws against it. You sort of base your mores on civil laws, but then think that you should be able to dictate what those civil laws should allow (i.e. homosexual union). On the other hand, Catholics base their morals on Christ’s teachings…on God’s guidance for our lives. We recognize that morals, like truth, is not subjective, not relative…not based on what any one individual believes for themselves. Unless and until you recognize that truth and morals are objective realities, you will forever hate religion, hate the idea of God, and never understand why things are the way they are. And frankly, you can be the best person in the world (according to your measuring stick), and in the end, your rejection of Christ, not your deeds, will be the litmus test of the fulfillment of your destiny. And yes, I know you disagree with that…

A woman being forced to submit to their husbands isn’t inferiority? It really is, by anyone’s definition. And apparently “God’s role” for women to play is subserviant to their husbands.

You’ll always see it this way for as long as you try to view Christianity through the lens of creation, and not the Creator. In other words, you make determinations of “fairness” and “justice” strictly by comparing an issue with whatever societal norms are currently in place…for example, you think the priesthood is a “job”, just like any other 9 to 5 paying job. Wrong. You think women should have the opportunity to have this job, just like they have the right to have the CEO job. Apples and oranges. But again, you’ll forever misunderstand because your heart is hardened to the One who created you.

Correct, I don’t believe in it. I’m using it for the sake of the argument, seeing as you obviously do. Would you feel better if I put a disclaimer after every refutation about heaven claiming “but I don’t believe in it, so it doesn’t matter?”

Do whatever you’d like. I’m not offended at all by your using the concept. I’m just still confused as to why you talk about it. You say it’s for the sake of argument. Which argument exactly? What point are you making?

The discrimination that your god holds against homosexuals. God defines the “requirments” for someone to enter heaven, as well as what is considered “sinful.” So I would say, yes, TO A POINT, God does decide. I understand the church’s stance on the free will of people to decide, which again makes sense, to a point.

Not that it’s important to you, but like everything else the Church declares and/or teaches, the stance on free-will is not based on any position of man. Rather, it is the position of God. God is the One who designed you with free will, and allows you to choose, because this is the only way true Love can exist…by allowing humans the opportunity to choose NOT to. God does not discriminate homosexuals. He gives them everything they want…if they want to have sex with one another, He does not stop it. If they choose to do this for their entire life, and ultimately reject Him, He will give them what they want eternally.

I don’t think there’s anyway you can prove that an innocent baby is “full of sin” simply for existing. That’s perverse.

Who said I can prove it? And where did you get the idea of “full” of sin? Did you know the Church doesn’t teach that unbaptized babies who die are not with God?

That’s a completely religious statement, therefore having no basis in fact. Neither case can be proven.

Just as yours is a completely secular statement. I’m not trying to “prove” anything to you. I was just asking you to tell me by whom nature was “designed”, since you described it as being designed, but stopped short of naming the designer.

I’m not really sure what you’re trying to ask. Can you rephrase the question?

Sure. What’s the ultimate goal you hope to achieve by coming into all this “understanding” you strive to attain? What’s it ultimately for? Are you still searching for truth? For the purpose of life?

Continued…

 

[SteveGC]

I don’t think it’s right to cheat on your husband or wife, you should get a divorce. I believe that the church considers divorce and remarriage “adultery.” I don’t think divorce and remarriage is wrong at all. Why should you stay in a miserable marriage that ruins your life? Surely it’s more wrong to stay in a marriage like that than to get out of one.

Of course you don’t think remarriage after divorce is wrong. Again, your lens is limited to what masses of people say and believe, and you have no concept of what is sacred. Nevertheless, you’re right…the Church (and Christ) see valid marriages as sacred unto death, as something joined by God, which no man can undo. However, the Church actually does allow many “remarriages”, in the cases where it is evident an original union was invalid (not within the proper divine context and form). At any rate, this is moving off-topic…the point I was trying to make was to illustrate how you come to define for yourself what is right and wrong…to reveal the double-standard which is so often existent in non-believers. I’m sure we can continue that sort of discussion without delving into all the specific behaviors which are unrelated to homosexual unions.

I support it [homosexual union] because people have a right to be in love, and be together. Love is endless, and it shouldn’t ever be limited.

We all have rights to be in love, and be together, but not sexually…which is inferred in homosexual unions. Sexual union is sacred, and is reserved for opposites sexes. A man can love a man all he wants, so long as he does not lie down with him. And again, Christians do not support public homosexual “unions” because it scandalizes the sacredness of sexual union. We sympathize with the perceived “denial of rights” that that implies, but not to the point where we change our positions on it. This is not imposing a “limit on love”, as you say…it is preserving sexual love to it’s proper design.

 

[SteveGC]

Sorry to butt in on your response to Steve, but I have been thinking about something and wanted to ask this.

Not a problem, James. Welcome to the discussion. I’d actually like to hear from the OP, to see if this discussion is fruitful for him.

to hippyprincess…I hope you understand also that, as much as my language may seem confrontational and unloving…I do not feel that way toward you. I simply am trying to give you alternatives to ponder, and my speech tends toward the ‘matter of fact’ tone. I would go out on a limb and say that all of us here are ultimately trying to help you, inasmuch as you’d like help.

 

[SteveGC]

Yes, it would require a third person/source, I don’t disagree with that. What I was trying to say was that a homosexual couple can be in posession, or guardianship, of children that are of their genetic creation, just not together.

Well, in actuality, it’s not about whether or not the children are of any of their genes. Because obviously adoption is a non-genetic, and beautiful form of parenthood and familial bond. The issue at hand is immoral sexual union, and the scandalous nature of it by way of publicly endorsing homosexual union.

It’s impossible, actually [Virgin birth].

So certain are you. I thought science allowed you to stay perpetually open-minded to the point where you allow for the real possibilities of future breakthroughs. At any rate, nothing is impossible with God. You’ll come to see that some day.

Of COURSE you define your world from the knowledge you know today. That’s why we don’t live in caves or drive horse-and-buggys. The world is changing and evolving, and as we study more we are able understand more.

No, I was speaking of truth, not knowledge. You get to define truth as you go…adjusting it conveniently to the ebb and flow of the majority vote. The essence of moral relativism…the decay of the modern world. There is but ONE truth. It’s not mine, I don’t own it. I didn’t make it up. I just embrace it. You have yet to do so. When the dust settles, there is but ONE TRUTH about our existence. Just one.

That is truly disgusting [agreeing with anything your Creator lays out as truth]. And I can say that honestly.

Disgusting? Let’s see…you come to realize that you were created by a supreme being…and as you come to know Him, you come to realize how He has designed you, what His plan is for you, for the entire world, and He guides you through the instrument of His Church with love, grace, and mercy. Part of this is understanding and accepting the very Truth about Himself. The fullness of this truth. You embrace this reality, and know that He will join you with Him, along with all others who have done as you have done, for all eternity. …I’m sorry…‘disgusting’ is not really the appropriate word to describe that. But I suppose I can see why that’s appropriate for you.

I believe I wasn’t created from a supreme being.
You believe you were.
You can’t claim your own beliefs as truth, just as I can’t claim mine. There’s no evidence to either case.

Oh, I most certainly DO claim my beliefs as truth. And what’s more…I don’t deny you the right to claim your beliefs as truth. You don’t claim it…not because you feel you shouldn’t, or it isn’t fair to…no…you don’t claim it, because you don’t know what you believe to be truth. This is the eternal distinction between a believer and a non-believer.

I do not uphold the same opinion of this god.

“This God” created you. You’re called to hold this same opinion. I pray someday you will.

Another theoretical problem with the religion.
I also just find that quite creepy.

That’s because you think sin defines a man. Sin defiLes a man, it does not defiNe him. God loves all His creation, all of us sinners, so much that He became one of us, and died for our disobedience, to open the door for everyone to know Him and join Him forever. What’s creepy?

 

[SteveGC]

The Christian faith is doing plenty to prevent it, countless funds have been raised to petition and lobby against gay union in the STATE. I could really care less if any church allows them to get “married in the eyes of God.” They just deserve benefits.

Again, you think it’s all about discrimination…but in reality it’s all about the public endorsement of sin against God. Sorry…we believe God when He teaches that sex is a sacred act between only man and woman…and that to make a vote for homosexual union is to turn our back on this obedient belief of divine teaching. It’s not enough that we individually avoid sexual acts with same-sex individuals…we are called to be Christ in society, and to live our lives by His example. This is called ‘picking up our crosses’ and walking with Him. By doing so, we fully expect to be mocked, hated and rejected by much of society. Your disdain for our position only proves this teaching of Christ. Not that we need external proof, mind you.

Morality comes from what’s personally right to YOU

So wrong, I can’t even begin to tell you. Again, there is but one Truth, one set of morals, not many. I don’t think you actually understand what morals are. Most secular people do not. At best, they have an imperfect sense of what they are.

Not trying to please someone else.

Yes, this is what most non-believers think morality is…"do your own thing…be ‘good’…don’t try to ‘please everyone else’.

Every religion thinks that they’re the only way

but only ONE truly is.

I don’t think the question is whether you support his union or not, I think the question is whether you support his civil rights as an American. Apparently, in your eyes, he doesn’t deserve them, because he’s homosexual.

This is where you remain confused. Everyone does indeed deserve equal rights. But a person’s right to receive this fair treatment, in the true Christian’s view, is subordinate to that person’s decision to live a publicly immoral lifestyle, which homosexual union clearly is (again, to the Christian who is asked to “vote” in favor of his rights). We simply CAN NOT do it. And WILL NOT do it, unless we ourselves choose to reject God in that manner. It’s nothing personal against the gay man or woman. We do, in fact, love them. Hard for you to believe probably. We love the sinner…and hate the sin. We cannot support that sin, not in any fashion.

You’re right, the vast majority is doing it for love. And you know what? They’ll still be in love, benefits or no benefits. Why can’t they do it for both?

Because receiving benefits requires Christians to accept and vote in favor of their union. Faithful Christians will never do this. If homosexuals can achieve new laws to gain their ‘benefits’ without the faithful Christian vote, then so be it. My advice would be to go lobby for their benefits elsewhere. You certainly won’t win any votes at a website for Catholicism…the most Christian of all Christian faiths.

What is normal? 1/5 people are coming out as gay. 1/5 people are Chinese.
How large does the percentage have to be to be considered “normal?”

Sorry. Let’s stick to the word “Moral”, which I think I’ve defined…and you have given me your version of it. Morality is not based on percentages. 100% of people can be doing something immoral. Why? Because morality is not based on man…it’s based on God.

Is it lonely up there on your pedestal?

What pedestal? Have I once claimed to be superior? Have I once claimed to be smarter, or in any way better? Sorry if truth offends you and makes you feel inferior. That’s not me doing that to you…that’s Truth doing that. Most people are offended by people who claim to follow Truth. So, you’re in good company.

You’ve previously stated that each INDIVIDUAL person is responsible for their fate. Meaning, a gay person choosing to act on it will not affect your “eternal benefits in heaven.”

Yes, each individual is ultimately responsible for themselves. But that doesn’t mean their sin does not negatively affect others. Just as my sin can negatively affect others. To keep on topic, a publicly professed homosexual union, sinful in its direct implication that sex among same-sex individuals is now acceptable in the world (a normative behavior in the same light as man/woman relationships), has a negative impact on all people struggling with same-sex attraction temptations, especially when they are weak, or young, in their faith journey (which is the majority of homosexuals). Their observance of the normalcy (relative morality) of this behavior most assuredly will move them to act on these sinful impulses…thus pulling them further and further from the One who loves them most. That’s just one example. I’ll be happy to give you dozens more if you wish.

 

[geoformeo]

hippyprincess,

Glad you joined the thread. Sorry I’ve been away for awhile, but I’d like to rejoin the thread and engage in the conversation if I may.

You argue with science as your authority. That’s fine. Are you a scientist? If not, then you may want to get your ducks in a row before you talk as one having scientific authority, much in the same vein that those who do not know the Bible should not be haphazardly quoting Scripture. Unfortunately, it appears you fall into both categories. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I am a scientist, but first and foremost am a theist. You see, there is an inherent insurmountable problem for the atheist who uses science alone as their authority, and it is this: where did the natural laws come from? If you say they have always existed, then you are directly contradicting modern cosmology (Big Bang). If you say they came from themselves, well how does that work? How can something not yet created be responsible for that thing’s own creation? And even if it could, would that not be a “miraculous” or “impossible” event? Yes, science reveals to us natural, physical truth. But you cannot claim to be a reasonable, rational individual without recognizing that the origin of the natural laws (and therefore science itself) requires, according to modern science itself, supernatural origins! We theists know exactly where they came from: we call the Creator of these laws God, and I pray that you come to know Him someday soon.

From this point you can recognize the futility in arguing for science as supreme authority. God trumps science, because God made nature (and therefore, the ability for one to perform scientific investigations). God is not just God over the spiritual world, but He is God of science and scientific investigation as well. Science has its limits. God is limitless.

I am curious what you mean when you say that Christianity is “seriously flawed” when it comes to the biological realm. The Catholic Church has no qualms with evolution by natural selection. Are we really to argue with God if that is the mode by which He wanted the development and diversity of life to come about? It is precisely using evolutionary biology that unfortunately your whole argument for the promotion of homosexuality can be proven to be flawed. Sexual reproduction (and hence, the sexual act) evolved for the sole purpose of continual procreation and creating a diversity of life through practically unlimited genetic combinations. I believe (as do most scientists) that evolution is a natural law. Homosexuality, therefore, is a complete deviance from this law–an evolutionary dead-end. Please tell me, if evolution can explain all of our physical actions (which is the claim of many atheists–see Richard Dawkins), then what is the evolutionary advantage in homosexuality? And I’m afraid you can’t say as a way of counteracting overpopulation, because evolutionary success by definition is based upon successful reproduction and the promotion–not repression–of life.

God bless you in your search for Truth.

 

[JRKH]

HippyPrincess,
You have basically rejected God because in your view he is somehow unjust for keeping His views on homosexuality. But let me ask you this:

Should we let persons into the United States who have committed what would be considered grievous crimes in the United States, and/or spoken openly against the United States?

Every person, at birth, has the eventual legal capability to enter into the United States.

However, not everyone will maintain that capability throughout his or her life.

Now-
Who should decide whether a person be allowed to enter into the United States? Should it be left up to the person wanting to enter or to the U.S.?
Does not the United States (or any other nation) reserve unto itself the right to accept or reject a person entering their country?
Said person may not have even committed a crime under the laws of the land of their birth, but have demonstrated a contempt for American Law or Culture or Ideals.

So -
Why Should God be denied this same right? Does not God have the right to determine who should and should not enter the Kingdom of Heaven?

Why do you think that it should be up to you (Living a Good Life, while rejecting God and His Church) to decide whether you should be worthy to enter eternal life in the Kingdom.
Certainly such things are your choice and none of us would deny that, but to declare after such a short time, (6 years of catholic school) that God doesn’t exist seems rather short sighted.

Perhaps it would be a wiser in your young life to keep an open mind instead of presuming to understand 2000 or more years of History.

Peace
James