Korskin

In Sweden we remember 9/11 both as the day the twin towers collapsed (2001) but also as the day Anna Lindh, the former swedish minister for foreign affairs, was stabbed to death (2003). I remember exactly where I was when both events occurred. The collapse of the world trade center was such big news that the largest commercial television channel in Sweden chose to broadcast CNN instead of whatever they were supposed to broadcast. To me it was more of a spectacular thing, like something out of a movie. It didn't make me sad. But then again, people dying on the news doesn't really affect me. It was very interesting though, not every day two planes crash into skyscrapers. The event and what followed actually made watching the news fun for a while.

I don't find macro-evolution objective. I think you need to be a metaphysical naturalist to experience that it's a proven theory. If there is absolutely nothing beyond natural science macro-evolution would be the reasonable thing to believe in. However, science is not philosophically or religiously neutral.

I totally agree with your statement: "Truth isn't dependant on who has the most popular ideas about what truth might be." But why would you then write this: "99%+ of all scientists accept evolution" as some kind of argument for evolution. I'd say it's rather similar as they assume that macro-evolution is true despite of the lack of evidence. Prehaps you'll say that there is evidence of macro-evolution but to me that evidence is about as strong as if I would be saying that there is evidence for christianity. Evidence such as the Bible or Jesus. What I find to be strange is that you seem to think that some random belief is as likely (or unlikely) to be the truth as christianity is. I'm actually puzzled by the vast amount of muslims in the world. Just the sheer number of believers makes me think that there is something to it. It's strange that th are so many people who devote their lives to an idea/belief. And not just to believe that there is a God but to live by ancient books who tells you what's wrong and right and how to live your life. I guess a solution would be that faith is some kind of mental disorder. But then it's a very common one as the non-religious people make up for only about 15% of the world's population.

Is the number of believers of an idea completely insignificant? Like if I'm saying that I, as the only person on earth, believe in a big almighty blob. Would that be as improbable as the christian God since you would claim that they both lack evidence?

I'd like to visit U.S.A, a land everyone has an opinion about. There is no more significant country in the world.

Sometimes (always?) there are people who voice their opinions about christianity (or any other religion) and say things that aren't true, thus giving false information. When this occurs it's necessary to explain why they're wrong or at least show another side of it. Although religion isn't always black or white, there are some things that just isn't true. Even if we won't change our minds, at least we can learn to understand other people's beliefs. Far too often we end up labeling others thinking "oh he's a christian" and then assume that person is exactly as our predefined christian person is like. Nothing strange about that, but if you only have met christians who are idiots then chances are big that you'll think all christians are idiots. Sure, it's a never ending circle. However, by discussing religion we'll end up hearing a spectra of opinions/beliefs. And hopefully acknowledge that other people's beliefs can be as valid as you're own.

The correct link would be: http://news.aol.com/story/_a/christ-like-bin-laden-image-stirs-debate/20070831000209990001 It doesn't really bother me. But obviously some people are offended and therefore it might not be the wisest thing to do. However, I'd rather have blasphemous art than be without freedom of speech.

So we should teach nothing about the origin of life instead? As Satenza said: "All science is theory." Science doesn't produce unquestionable absolute truths. What if Einstein was wrong? That can be said about any scientific theory. We should teach about evolution as a theory. However, we shouldn't say that's it's proven when it's not.

This is not a matter of "Hey son/daughter check out this cool thing I found." This is a matter of "Hey son/daughter check out this cool thing I found. I want you to destroy yours and use mine instead." I don't think the intention is to shove your own beliefs down someone's throat. It's more an intent to share a good thing that you're convinced would make other people happy. Then of course that intention might be interpreted like you said: "I want you to destroy yours and use mine instead." That's why I'm not sure if it's always the best thing to do.

I've also experienced people forcing their religion on me. Especially my father. He dragged me to church many times even though I didn't want to go. That was of course very annoying. Today I'm actually thankful that he was so eager on getting me to church. I now understand that he just wanted me to get to know Jesus and become a christian for real. Still, I don't think I'll be as persuasive as my father was/is as I'm by nature rather laid back. And I''m generally against forcing people to do anything. But can you really blame someone who wants to share with others the greatest thing he's ever found?

Even though I laughed, I think there might be something to it. Society today is going toward an even more liberal view of sexuality. Interspecies sex might be next. I think you're joking, but...you know, interspecies sex is really not possible. ok, possible, yes, but animals of different species dont produce the right pheremones for them to get funky, except the very closely related species like horses and donkeys to create a mule. Otherwise the forests would be chock full of mountain lion-bear hybrids... or bird-elk... The image implies interspecies sex but what I was addressing was actually bestiality.

Even though I laughed, I think there might be something to it. Society today is going toward an even more liberal view of sexuality. Interspecies sex might be next.

Someone (preferably a girl) smiling at me.

Yes, christians should concentrate on abortion. Homosexuality issues compared to abortion seem insignificant. But the topic is "Homosexuality: Right or Wrong?" so I guess we should concentrate on homosexuality on this thread. I think that if you are a christian you should be against a homosexual lifestyle the same way you should be against a promiscuous sexual lifestyle or anything else that the Bible condemns. Homosexual thoughts/acts are not some kind of unforgivable sin or a reason to look down on someone. It has a tendency to blow out of proportion. A situation where it gets complicated is when two homosexuals want to marry in church. If I was a priest I wouldn't feel good about marrying them in front of God, when it's pretty clear that marriage according to the Bible is between a man and a woman. It's not very tolerant to force priests to go against their religion.

A former teacher of mine expressed his views about abortion: Hopefully I managed to make a fair translation. I pretty much agree and I feel disgusted with the way abortion is treated today. In Sweden there is virtually no debate whether abortion is right or wrong. If you're pregnant and contacts a midwife, chances are big that the first question you get is: Are you going to keep the baby? Abortion is no longer a last resort, it's an alternative as good as keeping the baby.

It can't be logically explained yet "logically, it's totally possible." :?: Do you see something wrong with your argument? He/she probably meant that there is no scientific explanation to miracles. However, logically it works fine. If there is a God, miracles are possible. If there is nothing beyond science, miracles are impossible.

Perhaps because this topic is about homosexuality. The reason why I brought up the law against homosexual sex was that there has been one before (generally talking about the western world). And I'm questioning whether removing it has made the world better or worse. Sure, we can throw in a law against sex before marriage as well if you want. But I don't see the point as my law would still have a purpose if there was or wasn't such a thing as heterosexual sex. I'm not saying we should bring back the law. Just saying that a law like that would "prevent promiscuity and lower the STD frequence". Even if you don't want to marry me, all christians are not the same. Saying all christians are close-minded isn't true, nor very open-minded. There are many branches of christianity, prehaps the super liberal ones would be your cup of tea?

I think you have a good point. The reason why "2 consenting gay adults who are married or have a civil union or whatever shouldn't have sex" originates from the Bible and I don't really have a solid argument against that particular case. But a law against homosexual sex would prevent homosexual promiscuity and lower the STD frequency. I knew I would regret bringing up that story. But let's try to stay on topic.

There's nothing wrong with being born homosexual. It's the sex I'm arguing against. If homosexuals aren't having homosexual sex, I doubt they would be having sex with women. An example is the story of Lot, where Lot offers his daugthers to homosexual men (instead of the angels). It wasn't such a bad move considering the homosexuals probably wouldn't want to have sex with his daugthers anyway.

I didn't pick anything at random. Prove me wrong with statistics that the legislation of homosexual hasn't increased the amount of STD's among people. Then I'll admit that I'm wrong. That's pretty much all I'm saying. Even if it's heterosexual promiscuity that is accountable for 95% of the increase and the rest is homosexuality, I still think it contributes. The only thing that it proves is that I got a much stronger case when arguing against premarital-sex. The reason why I think it's immoral as with everything in the world that's immoral is because of the Bible. We have to differentiate between why it's immoral and why it does more harm than good. But it seems as if homosexuality leads to more bad things than good things. Is the world better off with or without cars? I don't know, perhaps it would be better without them.

To explain how I think. I look at the world today. I see what has happened since homosexuality was taken out of the sin bin and considered normal. Are there more promiscuous homosexuals now or let say 100 years ago? Have sexually transmitted diseases become a bigger problem? My answer to both questions would be: Yes.

If I put it like this then. Would the world be a better place without homosexual sex? I fail to see how it improves anything really. However, I see some problems caused by it.

I don't think I've said that homosexuals are more prone to spread diseases. Feel free to come with statistics proving which ones are more promiscuous as I have no idea.

It's not really that they encourage others. It's just that if there are millions of homosexuals having sex, chances are almost 100% that some of them are promiscuous. My only reason why married homosexuals shouldn't have sex is that the Bible says that homosexuality (the act) is wrong and a marriage should be between a woman and a man.

The more homosexuals having sex, the more promiscuous homosexuals. If homosexuals didn't have sex there would be no promiscuous homosexuals. This could be said about heterosexuals as well but if no heterosexuals were having sex it would mean the end of the human race. Of course I suppose we could use artificial insemination so maybe we all should stop having sex.