RexMilotic

Subjective or not is does matter, because going by what you're saying, it's impossible to be a fact. A fact would be something supported by data, and what you're saying is not something that can be accurately measured. Instead, you're speaking of something that is not a science and calling it fact. As for it meaning nothing, I meant your "fact" is complete BS.

But religion is one of the main reasons people believe homosexuality is wrong. More like ignorance\prejudice. There are plenty of Christians who are fine with Homoesexuality, and plenty of Atheists who despise it. Of course not all Christians feel that way, but as seen in this thread, some people are against it solely because the Bible is against it. Without bringing religion into the debate, we've hit a barrier and can't really discuss why that line of reasoning is flawed. Without bringing the religion into the debate, I could fine no other logical reason to be against it. Unfortunately, others could. Many guys hate gays so not to be seen as feminin, not only for religous reasons. Thus the whole "gay is gross" trend :( ... That's why I said logical. Reasons like that would be illogical. One could argue that religous reasons are illogical, or that social reasons are. Also, whether the reasons are or aren't logical is pretty much pointless to take into account, simply because they exist whether they are or aren't. I would easily argue religious reasons are illogical, and that many social reasons are also. Whether or not reasons are logical is important, because dealing with a logical reasons gives grounds to back it, which for a legal battle is something you need. [/hide] I'm afraid logic on it's own is not enough for legalization :/... No, but being able to back it by logic, reasons, and use of other laws is a step towards legalization.

But religion is one of the main reasons people believe homosexuality is wrong. More like ignorance\prejudice. There are plenty of Christians who are fine with Homoesexuality, and plenty of Atheists who despise it. Of course not all Christians feel that way, but as seen in this thread, some people are against it solely because the Bible is against it. Without bringing religion into the debate, we've hit a barrier and can't really discuss why that line of reasoning is flawed. Without bringing the religion into the debate, I could fine no other logical reason to be against it. Unfortunately, others could. Many guys hate gays so not to be seen as feminin, not only for religous reasons. Thus the whole "gay is gross" trend :( ... That's why I said logical. Reasons like that would be illogical. One could argue that religous reasons are illogical, or that social reasons are. Also, whether the reasons are or aren't logical is pretty much pointless to take into account, simply because they exist whether they are or aren't. I would easily argue religious reasons are illogical, and that many social reasons are also. Whether or not reasons are logical is important, because dealing with a logical reasons gives grounds to back it, which for a legal battle is something you need.

But religion is one of the main reasons people believe homosexuality is wrong. More like ignorance\prejudice. There are plenty of Christians who are fine with Homoesexuality, and plenty of Atheists who despise it. Of course not all Christians feel that way, but as seen in this thread, some people are against it solely because the Bible is against it. Without bringing religion into the debate, we've hit a barrier and can't really discuss why that line of reasoning is flawed. Without bringing the religion into the debate, I could fine no other logical reason to be against it. Unfortunately, others could. Many guys hate gays so not to be seen as feminin, not only for religous reasons. Thus the whole "gay is gross" trend :( ... That's why I said logical. Reasons like that would be illogical.

Has it ever occured to you that you're not willing to learn? I've been one side, I've been religous and I've seen what it's like to feel a deity is there. I've also been (and still belong to) another side. I definitely say that I've learned. As for the joy of that book. Yes, it's been proven times and times again- Religous people are happier. That's not necessarily good though, it's just like a drunk man could be happier than a sober one. I don't know about you, but I prefer being sober most of the time. I've been on the Christian side, and it does feel happy to be ignorant there. Then I realized that I'm tired of living a lie, and instead I prefer the real world. All those things I believed happened because of God are things that I was going to accomplish anyways. That and praying to God for help on an issue is ineffective compared to actually getting it done myself. The only reason people find joy in that book is because they ignore a majority of it, which would be considered depressing and immoral to people (including the people who believe in it, who don't realize it's there). The idea that religious people are happier with proof backing it is just insane. You even offered a decent example of how the happiness thing could be taken in the wrong way. No it isn't. Religous people are happier than those who aren't. That's a fact. The reason doesn't matter, I was simply stating a fact. That's not saying that a theist can't be depressed and such, or that one who isn't can't be happy, or happier than those who are. I'm going to call BS on your fact, and the reason does matter. Happiness is subjective; it's not something you can simply measure and call a fact. I was also saying the joys of the book are simply placed on top of the real story, which is depressing and immoral, making it easier to find joy on the top part. No, it doesn't matter, because I wasn't referring to it. I didn't mean it doesn't matter in general, only that it doesn't within our discussion. You can call my fact BS all you want, but research has been made, and happiness was "measured" by the person itself. For instance, if you asked me if in general I'm a happy person, I'd say yes. It doesn't matter if my happiness doesn't compare to another's. Religous people are happier. But, again, that isn't necessarily a good thing, just beacuse a drunk man could be happier than a sober one. Again, your fact is based on something subjective. It's not really a fact. Happiness is something that can easily change between now and a minute later, and people have difference feelings as to what happiness is. Saying religious people are happier means absolutely nothing.

But religion is one of the main reasons people believe homosexuality is wrong. More like ignorance\prejudice. There are plenty of Christians who are fine with Homoesexuality, and plenty of Atheists who despise it. Of course not all Christians feel that way, but as seen in this thread, some people are against it solely because the Bible is against it. Without bringing religion into the debate, we've hit a barrier and can't really discuss why that line of reasoning is flawed. Without bringing the religion into the debate, I could fine no other logical reason to be against it.

Has it ever occured to you that you're not willing to learn? I've been one side, I've been religous and I've seen what it's like to feel a deity is there. I've also been (and still belong to) another side. I definitely say that I've learned. As for the joy of that book. Yes, it's been proven times and times again- Religous people are happier. That's not necessarily good though, it's just like a drunk man could be happier than a sober one. I don't know about you, but I prefer being sober most of the time. I've been on the Christian side, and it does feel happy to be ignorant there. Then I realized that I'm tired of living a lie, and instead I prefer the real world. All those things I believed happened because of God are things that I was going to accomplish anyways. That and praying to God for help on an issue is ineffective compared to actually getting it done myself. The only reason people find joy in that book is because they ignore a majority of it, which would be considered depressing and immoral to people (including the people who believe in it, who don't realize it's there). The idea that religious people are happier with proof backing it is just insane. You even offered a decent example of how the happiness thing could be taken in the wrong way. No it isn't. Religous people are happier than those who aren't. That's a fact. The reason doesn't matter, I was simply stating a fact. That's not saying that a theist can't be depressed and such, or that one who isn't can't be happy, or happier than those who are. I'm going to call BS on your fact, and the reason does matter. Happiness is subjective; it's not something you can simply measure and call a fact. I was also saying the joys of the book are simply placed on top of the real story, which is depressing and immoral, making it easier to find joy on the top part.

Has it ever occured to you that you're not willing to learn? I've been one side, I've been religous and I've seen what it's like to feel a deity is there. I've also been (and still belong to) another side. I definitely say that I've learned. As for the joy of that book. Yes, it's been proven times and times again- Religous people are happier. That's not necessarily good though, it's just like a drunk man could be happier than a sober one. I don't know about you, but I prefer being sober most of the time. I've been on the Christian side, and it does feel happy to be ignorant there. Then I realized that I'm tired of living a lie, and instead I prefer the real world. All those things I believed happened because of God are things that I was going to accomplish anyways. That and praying to God for help on an issue is ineffective compared to actually getting it done myself. The only reason people find joy in that book is because they ignore a majority of it, which would be considered depressing and immoral to people (including the people who believe in it, who don't realize it's there). The idea that religious people are happier with proof backing it is just insane. You even offered a decent example of how the happiness thing could be taken in the wrong way.

Since when did the bible say that you should kill someone that doesn't convert to your religion? o.O And btw murdering someone and executing someone isn't the same thing; but like someone else said before me, these laws weren't meant for our society, but people living in a desert years and years ago. Right here - Since when did the bible say that you should kill someone that doesn't convert to your religion? o.O And btw murdering someone and executing someone isn't the same thing; but like someone else said before me, these laws weren't meant for our society, but people living in a desert years and years ago. Ding Ding. I posted this a while ago, but all the laws saying gays are bad, etc. in Leviticus (the most infamous book in the Bible) was a rule book for JEWISH PRIESTS of ISRAEL in that TIME PERIOD. So it didn't apply to anyone else, especially not Christians, Muslims, Atheists etc. You're doing it wrong. Half of Leviticus refers to the priests, while the other part is for everyone. The part for everyone includes the murdering of gays and other faiths. Also, Christians have adopted that into their belief system, which means it would be part of the ideal world. I don't know about Muslims, and atheists don't care about fake Gods anyways.

Insanity cases are longer than jail time.

In the ideal Christian world, it wouldn't be a problem because all the homosexuals would be killed. About the mother part, I dislike that. Unless the father was someone who only had sex so the woman could have a child, then he should still be the father. The "extra-mother" should just be the stepmother. That's quite an ignorant comment and I hope you burn your tongue so badly you can never say something so stupid and horrible. Homosexuals are as equal persons to heterosexual persons. Neither is "worth" more. They are both given God's grace to an equal extent. They are both humans. In an ideal Christian world, there would still be gays. Scriptural supported by how God loves everyone and the commandment thou shalt not kill is part of the ten commandments (found in exodus and deuteronomy) and Jesus says this applies to everyone by extension since everyone is your neighbor. I forget what book of this catholic youth bible I had to use for scripture studies honors last year, they have sidestories of contemporary time that parallel the stories in the scripture. In one of them, it's about AIDS and its implied the guy is gay and he is diagnosed from AIDS and he's ashamed to tell his Church but when they find out they're supportive and tell him they'll be there for him til the end. THAT is the ideal Christian deed. I'm gay, why would I purposely advocate murdering them /fail? In the ideal Christian world the Bible would be followed. "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB) Going by what the Bible says, the homosexuals would be killed. Now, I suggest you pay a little more attention to everything the Bible says before you confuse your ignorance for me acting ignorant. AIDS is something that happens to everyone, because of experimentation with polio or hepititus B(conflicting sources) and monkeys. Everyone can get aids, no matter what orientation.

I'm waiting for one of the political parties to use it to cast blame on the other, or for it to be labeled as terrorism (it's not).

I agree, I don't have a problem imagining a race that live in lava like our fish live in water. I don't believe in Creation, but I don't support beginning of time evolution (I agree with more modern evolution though).

In the ideal Christian world, it wouldn't be a problem because all the homosexuals would be killed. About the mother part, I dislike that. Unless the father was someone who only had sex so the woman could have a child, then he should still be the father. The "extra-mother" should just be the stepmother.

Alcoholism or drug addiction - R v Tandy (1 That should not be in there, while the others can make sense. I do believe that anyone suffering from those should have to take more than counseling, and should be dealt with in a way similar to insanity cases (which normally take more time than a jail sentence).

Furthermore, omniscience does not equal predestination. God knows, knew, and will know what we do, he sees time from a different perspective as us. He may know what we do, but it doesn't mean he decided that's what we'll do, we picked it, he saw it.. How do you not see how incorrect this is? I don't understand this. If he knows what you're going to do, it's been decided. You don't have the power to change what God knows, and everything you do is something that he already knew was going to happen. He knew whether or not you're going to hell before you existed, otherwise he wouldn't be be omniscient. Knowing does not mean deciding. And as I said, God is outside of our vision time, so when we are still to decide something it has already happened for him, it is currently happening for him and it is still to happen. Just because he knew you'd do something doesn't mean he decided it. Plus there is a concept in Catholicism and some Orthodoxies called purgatory, where you get purged for your sin if you are sorry, and you don't go to hell. God sees your actions, but he especially does not determine the level of repentance you respond to something with. You don't understand what predestination is. Say you are given free will, and that you decide how you're going to act, which determines how where you're going after you die. God already knew everything you were going to do, and whether or not you're going to Hell/Heaven. It was already going to happen, it's been decided. You're trying to push the idea that knowing doesn't mean things are decided, but that's wrong. We're not discussing things on a human level, where we can't ever "know" things. We're discussing this on the idea God knows everything that's going happen, which MUST include whether or not you're going to heaven or hell.

I have a friend who's considering buying one of these, and we actually talked about it like an hour before I saw this thread.. I hope she gets one, since I know she won't quit smoking. Dealing with secondhand smoke is almost bad as actually smoking, and I hate to be around her when she smokes. It smells horrible, and because I deal with the smoke, it causes me problems also. I do swimming and track, so I'm starting to dislike it even more now since it could ruins things for me in multiple ways. I have no problem with her wanting to smoke, but having it cause me problems is a bit too much.

And so is most of everything else that people do daily. Something like this fits in nicely with all of the other sin that people have been doing since whenever it was that the first human was born. To assume that nobody changed it because it says so is just too trusting of human nature... That's true, but to what degree do you think it was changed? If the Bible lacks the ability to keep itself safe, then how can we assume any of it is still true? Especially since most of what it says would be considered immoral to most people. That's something I wonder about constantly actually. In response to your last comment that's probably its biggest weakness in that it's a perfect indicator as to how much our morals have changed over the past however many thousand years. I'd treat it like any other legend/fable. Based at least partially (not touching how much is partially) in truth but overall intended to teach its readers from the time it was conceived. I personally plan on rereading the Bible (I haven't done so since I was forced to in Christian school), but as a fiction this time. I'm wondering if the story is going to seem different this way XD The views expressed then about things are very different from now, and I'm hoping that soon we see more advances over this story.

Personally I think this title is better for it, because it tells you that it's going to be about religion. Double post oops - Meant to edit my old post. I hate the multiquote system on this.

Furthermore, omniscience does not equal predestination. God knows, knew, and will know what we do, he sees time from a different perspective as us. He may know what we do, but it doesn't mean he decided that's what we'll do, we picked it, he saw it.. How do you not see how incorrect this is? I don't understand this. If he knows what you're going to do, it's been decided. You don't have the power to change what God knows, and everything you do is something that he already knew was going to happen. He knew whether or not you're going to hell before you existed, otherwise he wouldn't be be omniscient.

And so is most of everything else that people do daily. Something like this fits in nicely with all of the other sin that people have been doing since whenever it was that the first human was born. To assume that nobody changed it because it says so is just too trusting of human nature... That's true, but to what degree do you think it was changed? If the Bible lacks the ability to keep itself safe, then how can we assume any of it is still true? Especially since most of what it says would be considered immoral to most people.

Please. Just stop. Don't pretend like you know about the Bible. I didn't know the Trinity was Father, Son, Bible. The Bible is a sacred inspired writing yes, the Bible is part of God? No! The Bible is written by humans. Any subtle changes of God in the Bible isn't because God changed his mind and therefore reconsiders a decision. It signals the change in reception to a theological idea by the worshiping people. Misconceptions as large say saying the Bible is part of the Trinity is just... no. As for the big errors that you see in the Adam & Eve myth, I don't see what they are. Please, point them out. I think the story presents its moral quite blatantly, which is the point. ========================================================================== And as I said, some morals are intrinsic. Some are not, as they are more complex fabrications. 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. - John 1:1 I will give you that it's not the Trinity, I did confuse that portion of it up. The Bible is still part of God though, or so it is according to God and the Holy Spirit - "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter 1:21) The Holy Spirit in that example is mentioning only the prophecies, but the entire Bible was written through the movement of the Holy Spirit. That's where I got confused, but oh well, I was still close enough for me to be happy. Anyways. the change in reception should not be allowed, because changing the Bible is a grand sin. The ideas of the Bible are not meant to be changed, but to stay the same way. The big error I'm referring to is the fact God created Adam and Eve without knowing what sin, right, or wrong are. He told them not to eat the fruit, but because they lacked knowledge of good and evil, they ate from it without knowing it was a sin. I consider that a huge error for a perfect, all knowing being to create a flaw that huge with humans, then blame them for his flaw. I'm not a homophobe; I love watching my girlfriend get off with girls for me. Still think [bleep]s shouldn't be put in men. Thats my belief - Be more tolerant. ;) Edit: Homophone isnt a word. Oooh, unless it refers to those gay2gay premium chatlines? Irrelevant regardless! Why not? I personally don't plan on doing it, but I do know that males have a prostate that actually makes sexual intercourse that way pleasurable. Even then, if you don't want to do that, there are other ways for two males to have sexual intercourse without that.

Well, I could do a 115 Tortoise. Breaking it's next shouldn't be too hard, and because it's a land/water animal, I should be able to fight it on land.

Using Adam and Eve as an example to prove a point is fine, but whenever I use Adam and Eve to also prove a point, you just said it's a metaphor and doesn't really count. I see problems with that. You don't get what omniscience and predestination is do you? If you have an all knowing God, then that God knows if you're going to Heaven or Hell before you existed. It's just that simple, and trying to say otherwise would mean that God is not omniscient, which causes error in the Bible, which is part of God. Next, having God intervene into human affairs causes us to change things that we shouldn't, which is interfering with our free will. Again, you don't understand what you're talking about. A century ago it was immoral to have a black person and white person be married, but now that's accepted. That's just one example of how morals have changed. Morality is subjective, it is not a universal constant. I didn't say Adam and Eve doesn't count, I said the moral of the story is an example but the reason why there was a physical tree was to show that with the creation of man there has always been the desire to acquire said fruit. Knowing something and deciding something are two different things. Perhaps you don't understand the difference between knowing all and deciding something without the person having any effect on it is. You obviously do not know what the Bible is if you think its "part of God". The point of the Bible is to show the inspiration of God's good news through His inspired followers (the writers). Faults in the Bible, which there are some contradictions and repetitions if you read closely, do not say God is imperfect. They show the blending of several sources of accounts in the Bible. Intervention does change the course of things, but if I killed someone, that would change his course of free will as well. We ourselves do things that change the course of other people's futures. Any interventions that occur are triggered by an acceptance of agreement though. Abraham's family is blessed with promises of numerous descendants. Why? He made a covenant with God, etc. Intercessions are the same deal. You prayer for intercession with the idea that you are asking and accepting of it. Some morals are bent by society and formed on our own accord, morals that accompany a further inspection of conscious that are compiled by society. But we are infused with certain morals and human responses. There is Natural Law which guides morals. Laws are made that are separate and not Natural Law, and they eventually evolve into what society would deem a moral. However, on the other side of the planet one might not say so. But a common ground of morals are developed from the same universal Natural Law. The story has it's errors though, which ruins the entire thing, especially when the error is something that huge. I'm not going to continue arguing with it because it's pointless and doesn't further the topic anyways. Again, this is much too confusing. Predestination is where you're destined to go after death before you ever existed. God knows where you're going to be going, because he knows everything. Where you're going after death has already been determined, and every choice you make regarding it is already known. Any choice you make was already going to happen, because he knows it. There's no other way around this. Everything you do was already going to happen, the reason is because God knew it would happen. The Bible is part of the Trinity of God, which is what I'm referring to. The Bible says it's infallible and the God in it is perfect, but then it contradicts itself, and leads to errors in the God inside of it. I'm going to give you free will, because I know everything you're going to do. I'm also going to interfere in your life multiple times, and purposely change the things that are going to happen to you, and the choices you're going to make. That is not what I call free will. Since I can't even fathom how you believe universal laws exist, I'm just going to have to ask for an example. 1230abcz, I love your post.

No, something that holds true would be something that can be backed other than by your opinion. I'll tell you you're wrong, give you my opinion, and then back it, which you're going to be unable to do. 1. It's not a choice. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm http://nortonbooks.typepad.com/everydaysociology/2007/08/does-finger-siz.html Now, even though those traits may not always occur, the fact they occur that often is something to be looked at. Those are things that you can not change by choice. 2. It's not unnatural http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior There are multiple accounts of this occurring with animals, which are as much of nature as we are. 3. Comes from Lust. Homosexuality deals with attraction, in the same manner heterosexuality deals with attraction. Just because you're attracted to someone doesn't mean all you want to do is have sex with them. Backing this is as simple as asking you if you want to have sex with every single girl you see? The answer should be no, if it's different, you may have a problem.