[Jordan]

I'm going to hit the bible, then come back and see if the following is true

Jesus does not care about sexual orientation.

I'm sure, right now, that it's false. But will try prove it with scripture.

Once I establish that, then I can proceed on. Seeing that my whole arguement is 99.9% on the basis that Jesus condems it. Sounds weak? But if he is God, then I will have to believe him on everything he says. I did not come to christ based on things like this, our mutual distain for homosexual acts was not what brought us together.

I don't enjoy the liberal aspect of school. I feel like a loner, not that I care, but it's not something I'm cherrishing. It is hard for me to deal with but I manage. People like me get brand "hater" "Intolerant" and many other colorful terms. This whole "accept everyone for who they are" is a double bladed sword. Liberals would never accept my beliefs, therefore I should label them "intolerant". That is why I find it a weak arguement, since I can use it too, it holds no real ground.

I do know a gay guy. He lived with my family for awhile, and is good friends with my sister. I don't know what that proves, probably nothing. We never forced anything on him, we accepted him into our house hold because he lost his job and could not afford rent.

And the fact that I find them gross is not why I think they should not have marital rights. That is just my own meaningless opinion. I find alot of things gross, I find my friends even gross in many areas.

I like that young men and women experiment with sex

The "experimentation" of sex with multiple partners is the cause of alot of pain in this world. I don't see how you could see this as healthy practice.


You obviously don't take the apostles to be credible sources. And since it was them who wrote what christ said in the gospels, even if they did quote christ saying "homosexuality is immoral", why would you believe it? And if it did say that, how would it affect how you feel on the subject? And would it at all justify my view? Probably not. You would then hash up how dinosaurs are missing in scriptoral passages, and how if God really is God, then why do good people die. Rather than defend all the small compents in the bible, I like to debate different topics. Namely evolution and all it's branches, the problem of evil and so forth.

However I will get back to you on this with a retort.

I don't know how you people view me, if you find me "intolerant" and "ignorant" then have at it. I'm ok with it. I'm comfortable with were I stand.

[civilian_number_two]

Liberals would never accept my beliefs, therefore I should label them "intolerant".

This is logically unsound. There are beliefes that cannot be held within the tenets of liberalism. For example, you cannot say "I accept that all people must be free, and therefore I should be free to hurt people, if that's what I want to do." The old adage "I do not agree with what you say but I wil defend to the death your right to say it" holds for liberalism, and it doesn't hold that just because you like to SAY that gay people should have restricted human rights, your rights are being limited if you can't actually try to make laws and constitutional ammendments to ENFORCE your beliefs. Liberalism is NOT about letting everyone do as they please. And I know you know better, but I'm not about to assume you are just playing Devil's Advocate.

You obviously don't take the apostles to be credible sources. And since it was them who wrote what christ said in the gospels ...

No they didn't. there is no Apostle Mark, or Apostle Luke, and it's pretty ambiguous who Matthew was. Everyone agrees that whoever wrote John wrote it around AD 100. Add to which in the case of John it almost certainly compiled from numerous sources, many of them not even vaguely Christian.

The history of the gospels is pretty interesting, and it's long, but the first thing you should know is that these books didn't have names attached to them. The names were added later, by those who complied them. You might like to note that the poeple who compiled the books of the "New Testament" were Catholics.

You would then hash up how dinosaurs are missing in scriptoral passages, and how if God really is God, then why do good people die.

I would never say those things. Those are stupid arguments. The next time you're having a discussion with someone about religion and they bring up one of those arguments, you tell them I said they're a fucking idiot.

I don't know how you people view me, if you find me "intolerant" and "ignorant" ... 

I see you as a kid in his early 20s who has a lot of opinions but who doesn't have the life experience or the book-learnin' to back them up. I can "see" that the majority of the opinions you hold most strongly have come to you in sermons and from a single source, the Bible. I see too that you have a very religious opinion of this Bible, that you are unwilling to view it as a human book and therefore will never read in in the apporopriate context. You see it, for instance, as a single work with many chapters, rather than a compilation of different and often contradictory textx from various periods oer 3000 years. I see that your idea of what the Bible is saying has come to in many cases not directly but from what people have told you about the Bible (the best example is the need to "research" the question of whether Jesus ever said anything about homosexuals. If this is your belief as a Christian, shouldn't you already have a reason for believing it?). I see that your impressions of the world and of humans is limited by the religious cage you live in. So I put you somewhere between "Ignorant" and "Innocent."

Case in point:

The "experimentation" of sex with multiple partners is the cause of alot of pain in this world. I don't see how you could see this as healthy practice.

I don't know what preacher sold you that crack, but a good many single moms out there wish they'd gone to school and tried out different experiences and partners before marrying their high school sweetheart and divorcing him five years later. Having numerous relationships can round you out as a person; if you're lucky enough to fall madly in live with the first person you ever date, then God bless you. But loads of people are sold that nonsense about unhappiness and pain, and so they won't end relationships that they are unhappy in, often until it is too late.

The persecution complex you have, the feeling that you are a loner, or that you are not tolerated for your beliefs, certainly stems from the difference between your beliefs and those of the people around you. More to the point, though, they stem from your willingness to express them. It is as though you wish to create a logical argument for them. I bet $100 (Canadian) that if you were to met a few nice people at a barn dance, or a hay ride, or whatever the fuck you kids do these days, and you were all having fun, and you decided to break a silent moment with "So you know God said we shouldn't cotton a' them faggits," then at the very least, the women would find you an uncomfortable guy to be around. It's because they wouldn't know what to say to you. Not everyone is as preachy as Supes and I, but most people can't make much sense out of Paul's admonition that we should hate fags (Paul says it, but not Jesus. Not ever).

I don't know what to say. I'd like you to broaden your horizons, and maybe you'd be a little happier, but I don't want you to feel it's necessary to stop believing in Jesus. I wish you could see the two roads do converge, and that you not so much following Jesus as you are following the teachings of Falwell and Meese (I am showing my age here). I think you could do to study the Bible a bit, and the history of the books and the writers. You have a great library there, and the VST has an ever greater one, if you're after that topic. Your library card is good at VST; you should check it out sometime. In the meantime don't assume that gays are being punished with AIDS, or that young people who enjoy healthy and fulfilling short-term relationships full of love and communication are necessarily less happy than people who marry right out of high school. The long and the short of it is that you shouldn't hate the liberalism of schools. The whole idea of university is to arrive and to say "show me." If you go in unwiling to take on any new ideas or experiences, you're not going to learn anything. I'm not saying that you have to take on any specific set of beliefs, but the basic requirement of open-mindedness is the understanding that other people will be trying things out for themselves and that you shouldn't be too uncomfortable about that.

This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 11 March 2004 - 03:07 AM

[Jordan]

You don't think mark is an apostle? There goes my arguement. I don't know how you came to that conclusion. I don't know if you want to waste the time explaining it on here. Direct me to a source, I need to see this for myself. I need references.

Now I need to prove his apostlehood before I can retort to the original argument.

I can for see this getting ugly. And by that I mean long and time costly.

This is logically unsound. There are beliefes that cannot be held within the tenets of liberalism. For example, you cannot say "I accept that all people must be free, and therefore I should be free to hurt people, if that's what I want to do." The old adage "I do not agree with what you say but I wil defend to the death your right to say it" holds for liberalism, and it doesn't hold that just because you like to SAY that gay people should have restricted human rights, your rights are being limited if you can't actually try to make laws and constitutional ammendments to ENFORCE your beliefs. Liberalism is NOT about letting everyone do as they please. And I know you know better, but I'm not about to assume you are just playing Devil's Advocate

You are right there, That was nonsense.


PS- night owl eh?

This post has been edited by Jordan: 10 March 2004 - 05:47 AM

[Supes]

You have the total for N.America Now go check the % of gay people that hold aids.

That was what I was speaking of, not the global situation.

You want back up, I can get the passages. It does not fair in these arguments, since I then have to prove that the bible is indeed the word of God, and that is a whole other issue altogether.

No no no Jordan, you are missing it (and damn Civilian for causing me to be a little preachy here now too, because I am an educator not a preacher). I know the stats. This is the part where I ask you to challenge what someone else has "told" you and go and find out for yourself. I want you to see that what you have said is incorrect for yourself.

Unfortunately, Civ, has already mentioned that the numbers of Hetrosexuals with AIDS exceeds those of the gay population, but the point still remains. You have mentioned in later posts that you want proof for certain "facts" (that being Mark not being an apostle) but you failed to provide the facts that back your statement again. I want you to present me with the % of gay people that are carriers of AIDS compared to the hetrosexual community carrying AIDS. And I'm also sorry buddy, but you cannot discount the rest of the world on this epidemic.

In 1982 AIDS was diagnosed for the first time (world wide) in the United States within a group of individuals categorised as the "gay community". If it were just a gay thing then there should not have been a problem. It's a small community, it should not have started to get out of hand. Unfortunately, it has! So, how did this happen? Was it the bisexual community, or the unsure community who were gay then realised the error of their ways but were infected and thus spread it to the hetro community. The reality is there is no concrete answer because there is not real proof. We don't know who slept with who, who shared needles with who, or who ended up having a child that was HIV positive because the mother or father was infected at conception.

Based on the world wide numbers it's pretty clear that AIDS didn't start in the United States. It has spread from Africa and it is far from a gay thing. It is one of those arguments that really has no place in the discussion of sexual orientation and the validity of those orientations. As Civ said, it's a disease and is not relevant to a way of life

The spread of HIV is an horrific thing and it's spread three ways:
1. Sexual intercourse
2. Intravenously through needles
3. From mother to unborne child

To track to another area discussed in this thread. Civ also mentioned sexual experimentaion. I believe you said:

The "experimentation" of sex with multiple partners is the cause of alot of pain in this world. I don't see how you could see this as healthy practice.

. Civ, gave you one aspect of this so I'll throw up another. Your refernece seems lend itself to the arguement for illegitmate children and conception outside of marriage. This becomes less of a problem when people take the proper precautions. I know it sounds dated but the reality is it's still the truth. There are just as many examples of pain caused through single partner realtionships as there are for those that experiment. I will point out that this is anecdotal and not based on stats. I spent for years working as a counsellor and you get to see a lt of this side of thing when dealing with families

You have stated an opinion, but it is an uninformed opinion, both from your biblical and non-biblical stand points. It is very clear from other discussions that you are very intelligent guy. I think Civ has given a pretty accurate description of you as an intellectual so I wont go further. All I'm going to do is reiterate the need to question what you are presented with. I will admit that this recent thread has caused me to see you as a little more intollerant than I would have originally perceived, but to that I'll say, doesn't Jesus preach tolerance. You're a smart guy and I know it's going to come to you (that sounds really condesending and I apologises for it but it's really something that you will encounter as life moves further on).

Remember, with the introduction of the New Testament, Christ (in a very broad sense) said, here are the most important things for you to do, Love the Lord your God & Love thy neighbour as thy self. These are the most important commandments of the 10 written. They are special because they also do not start with "Thou shalt not..."

Damn! Another long post. What are you guys doing to me.

[Ferris Wiel]

Wow, lots of vitriol in here... and anger, too.

Look, gay pride parades are silly. Their entire purpose is not to show the "normalcy" of homosexuality, but instead to flaunt that they can do as they please in the face of any system that would attempt to halt them. The parades are designed to thumb the collective community's nose at those who believe in traditional family values as they lube up, grease up and pole dance on their brightly colored floats. The behavior itself is dangerous both to the individuals performing it and society.

So, no, it isn't any kind of "political speech" unless profanity and sexual perversion are now means of communicating a logical ideology. If that is the case, though, expect my version of "Ferris loves many lovely ladies - a debate about Tax reform" to be coming to a town near you. I'll be performing on stage in an orgy with a pile of nubile young girls with different topics painted on their naked bodies. I will also occasionally supply oration on abolishing capital gains, estate and marriage penalties.

Ironically, if these folks were having their parade in New Orleans during Mardi Gras, they wouldn't even stand out, because the debauchery of the GGW types (not porn, by the way) would likely put them to shame.

--FW

[Heccubus]

Ah, they're all in good fun, so who cares?

[Ferris Wiel]

Remember, with the introduction of the New Testament, Christ (in a very broad sense) said, here are the most important things for you to do, Love the Lord your God & Love thy neighbour as thy self. These are the most important commandments of the 10 written. They are special because they also do not start with "Thou shalt not..."

Well, Christians aren't bound by the ten commandments or the Levitical law in the sense of everlasting fire and all that. As a matter of fact, they don't even need to observe the washings, feasts and tithing practices.

To be completely honest, and this is going to anger many ill-informed Christians, when you get to the technical nitty-gritty, as a Christian, all sin and misbehavior is permissible, sexual immorality included. Of course, if a Christian were to engage in repeated acts of debauchery it does beg the question of whether the person is a Christian at all to begin with: I mean, why, if your life has been changed and you've been rescued from fire, would you want to go and start burning yourself with matches again?

To clarify, though, Biblically speaking, Christians are supposed to shun that type of behavior and discontinue relationships with other Christians who engage themselves in a sinful direction. They are to embrace and attempt to lead into the fold those who are not Christians, but they are to sever ties with those Christians who are steeped in sinful behavior. That isn't to say stop loving or even to attack, but they are to inform the person in the wrong that their actions are unacceptable.

--FW

[Ferris Wiel]

I'm going to hit the bible, then come back and see if the following is true

Jesus does not care about sexual orientation.

I'm sure, right now, that it's false. But will try prove it with scripture.

In the first three books of Romans, I believe it is even Romans 1, Paul, speaking on authority of Jesus, says that homosexuality is wrong. Now, if you are looking for a direct quote from Jesus in his earthly ministry, then no, there are no verbatim condemnations of the following on the part of Jesus:

*Homosexuality
*Pedophilia
*Incest
*Computer-hacking
*Puppy-kicking
*Theiving in the month of May

That isn't to say he would approve, though.

--FW

[sinister grinner]

first of all.
the bible does include stuff about stoning adulterers, but god didn't approve of it. theres a whole lot of stuff in the bible that god didnt approve of.

yes civil rights for blacks have gone a VERY long way. but the cruel truth is, there will always be racists, and they will never have complete equality. thats cause there are lots of racists left, and although they arent clear as to who they are, they are there.

yes, social pressure shapes just about everything. if the majority likes or thinks a certain thing, the rest will too. it's crazy and complicated.

you have a very awesome point #2. gays are more accepting than everyone else. and it's true, they are just as interesting, friendly, and humane as anyone else. basically:

it doesnt matter where your from, your color, or sexual preference. what matters is the person themself.

[sinister grinner]

jordan. i think what #2 meant by experimenting with other men or women, i dont think he meant just sex. i percieved that he meant just learning to know lots of people.

[civilian_number_two]

In the first three books of Romans, I believe it is even Romans 1, Paul, speaking on authority of Jesus, says that homosexuality is wrong.  Now, if you are looking for a direct quote from Jesus in his earthly ministry, then no, there are no verbatim condemnations of the following on the part of Jesus:

*Homosexuality
*Pedophilia
*Incest
*Computer-hacking
*Puppy-kicking
*Theiving in the month of May

That isn't to say he would approve, though.

--FW

Wow. There you have me, Ferris. Jesus din't specifically disapprove of the puppy-kicking. but we all know it to be wrong, right? So therefore we can speak on behalf of Jesus and say that he would have spoken against it if asked.

Your arguments are super formulaic and weak. Jesus thinks thus and so, even if there's no record of him ever having said anything of the sort. And to "prove" it I'll use false association and the old reductio ad absurdem. You also show your well-documented bias by using pedophilia and incest as your first examples before trying to lighten the tone with computer hacking and puppy-kicking. All to suggest that my claim was that anything Jesus approved of anything of which we can't find a specific statement of disapproval.

Problem is, I never said Jesus APPROVED of homosexuality. I just pointed out that he never said anything against it, and yet Christians believe that he did. The whole revulsion of Christianity is, as you mention, based on something that Paul said, and the book of Leviticus before him. Paul also said that women should keep their mouths shut in church (I Corinthians 14:34-35). Since church was the only public assembly for these people, he was essentially saying that women shuld keep their mouths shut all the time. Was he speaking with the authority of Jesus in that instance, or was that just Paul mouthing off? Because I'd love to know why you have the authority to derive the distinction.

I would also love to know whether you agree. Would you prefer it if women would refrain from speaking out in front of men? Or are you only willing to take it literally, that since Paul, in the name of Jesus, said that it is disgraceful for women to speak in church (they may ask their husbands for instruction, at home), then we should enforce that rule in churches today?

This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 11 March 2004 - 03:10 AM

[civilian_number_two]

You don't think mark is an apostle? There goes my arguement. I don't know how you came to that conclusion. I don't know if you want to waste the time explaining it on here. Direct me to a source, I need to see this for myself. I need references.

I'm feeling pretty lazy right now, so I'll just cite two sources; Mark 3:13-19, and Luke 6:12-16. Mark's not among the twelve. Doesn't say he wasn't a contemporary, but the received wisdom is that Mark's gospel was the first, and that it may bave been written as late as AD 64.

There are several places you can look to see the history of the books in the bible. Punch some words into a google search and see what you get.

[Ferris Wiel]

Wow.  There you have me, Ferris.  Jesus din't specifically disapprove of the puppy-kicking.  but we all know it to be wrong, right?  So therefore we can speak on behalf of Jesus and say that he would have spoken against it if asked.

Your arguments are super formulaic and weak.  Jesus thinks thus and so, even if there's no record of him ever having said anything of the sort.  And to "prove" it I'll use false association and the old reductio ad absurdem.  You also show your well-documented bias by using pedophilia and incest as your first examples before trying to lighten the tone with computer hacking and puppy-kicking.  All to suggest that my claim was that anything Jesus approved of anything of which we can't find a specific statement of disapproval.

Problem is, I never said Jesus APPROVED of homosexuality.  I just pointed out that he never said anything against it, and yet Christians believe that he did.  The whole revulsion of Christianity is, as you mention, based on something that Paul said, and the book of Leviticus before him.  Paul also said that women should keep their mouths shut in church (I Corinthians 14:34-35).  Since church was the only public assembly for these people, he was essentially saying that women shuld keep their mouths shut all the time.  Was he speaking with the authority of Jesus in that instance, or was that just Paul mouthing off?  Because I'd love to know why you have the authority to derive the distinction.

I would also love to know whether you agree.  Would you prefer it if women would refrain from speaking out in front of men?  Or are you only willing to take it literally, that since Paul, in the name of Jesus, said that it is disgraceful for women to speak in church (they may ask their husbands for instruction, at home), then we should enforce that rule in churches today?

The Bible is solid turf for me, it's my home-field advantage. But first, a word from our sponsors:

Hi, my name is Ferris Wiel and I'd like to say a few words about my earlier comments. My "reductio ad absurdem" and other attempts like it were an attempt to inject a degree of levity in these debates if only to amuse myself because I know that if I get too serious I'll end up alienating nice people who I would like to have be my friends in spite of our differing views, like you, by the way - not you, no, the gentleman behind you with the firey red hair dancing in curls all over his head, yes, you. Seriously, though, I think you, Civ, are hella sharp and I need people like you to keep me honest and to bounce my ideas off of. I also appreciate your bullshit detector.

I would like to point, though, out that the seeming outrage with the comparison of homosexuality to pedophilia and incest exposes biases in some ways, though. Because I, along with many others - and that's what psychology, behavioral science and even certain realms of other sciences (the speculative aspects thereof) have become anymore, they are no realm of fact, but instead of popular, or at least loudest, opinion - see homosexuality as a disorder, not a functional behavior and it is viewed akin to pedophilia and incest. By the way, for those who wish to argue homosexuality in nature (the NY penguins, for example) and through that "normalcy" I would point out that incest occurs in the animal kingdom with high frequency as does pedophilia, the answer to those, of course being, who cares? Cannibalism also occurs in nature, it doesn't make it right, particularly for humans.

Oh, and just to clarify, in case anyone was wondering, I didn't say homosexuals were pedophiles; I have said, though, that they are suffering a disorder on the same lines.

On to the point, though:

Every word Paul wrote, per his claims, was on authority of Jesus. He constantly pursued the validation of his apostleship and, except in a few cases where he specifically noted that he spoke from his own understanding, only spoke on the alleged authority of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit (thusly, God).

Jesus said he was God. Jesus also validated the Levitical law by stating that he did not come to abolish or revoke the law but to fulfill it. He was a practicing Jew who followed and upheld the law of Moses, as he was classified as righteous and sinless. So yes, while Jesus did not verbatim speak on homosexuality (or any of the other topics I cited), he gave implicit support and lent credence to the law of Moses.

Finally, the topic of "keeping silent" I won't go too far into, as it is a rabbit trail. Leave it at this, though, it had much to do with women not being clergy, something I stand by.

--FW

[sinister grinner]

since i have nothing else to argue about at the moment, i'll just say:
i think that was well said ferris.

This post has been edited by sinister grinner: 11 March 2004 - 06:22 PM

[Jordan]

That was well put.