Satenza

Well of course, to go down that avenue would be a silly endeavor. Oh, I do not doubt that as humans we are constantly influenced by different things at every moment of our existence. What I doubt is the leap from believing in the effect of these influences, and believing we are determined by them. The problem I foresee with your own argument is that fate would exist whether you enjoyed or loathed life and the conclusion would be exactly the same. That perhaps you hated life because it was for the greater good, and when your arguments have no impact on the conclusions, they are not really arguments.

What is the greater good? Or are you simply using the term in its crudest sense?

Thats not an argument for determinism, thats not an argument against it either. Its not an argument at all. I do not see any reasonably connection from the premise of that (if indeed there is one) and the conclusion.

How does life being good result in determinism? Does that mean that the people that life is bad for are those who are truely free?

Im not suggesting homosexual people can not unconditionally love another person of the opposite sex. Just like I would not suggest a heterosexual person could not love a person of the same sex. The problem is that this kind of love is not a romantic love, nor is it one that would make two people want to devote themselves to one another. I'm not sure on the secular rule of marriage, but I was not criticizing the Church for not allowing the marriage of a homosexual person to someone of the opposite sex, because well, such a marriage would be ridiculous. Regardless though, the Church would not let a homosexual person marry any gender of person. Which would seem to counter your argument.

My favourite Comedy is Blackadder.

We allow homosexuals to get married, as long as it's a marriage that fits the religious definition. Wait... am I repeating myself? I seriously doubt any Church in its right mind would knowingly allow a gay man to marry a woman. Unless of course what you are saying is that the only rule of marriage is that partners have to be of the opposite sex. Which is obviously untrue.

Oh, I'd love to do something like that. Anyway, last film I watched was Pat Garrett & Billy The Kid. Seen it before still as good as ever. Not quite as good as The Wild Bunch maybe, and Bob Dylan really can not act. However his music more than makes up for that.

The Bible is a lot more complex that what you boil it down too. It is somewhat if not totally subject to a hermeneutic circle, and therefore parts that require interpretation should be interpreted in reference to the whole. The maxim in my earlier post was that those parts that are interpreted are irrelevant in a discussion of absolute morality, but that being said, just for the reason that mankind does not know the correct interpretation, that does not mean there is not one. I think it would be safe to write that the ambiguous passages in the Bible unmistakably require thought and time, and so are akin to everything to do with Christianity, it all seems to require thought and time.

United 94, the film about the plane destined to hit the Capitol on Septermber 11th. Shockingly bad.

I would argue that it isn't a fact. Many stories and legends are not literally true but have much to offer in the way of morality and general life principles. You saying the Bible is either entirely literal or entirely false is like saying a math textbook is entirely false because of a fictional story it uses to illustrate a true mathematical principle. You have to understand that certain books are used to illustrate a certain type of truth. Math textbooks reveal truth about math, and the Bible reveals truth about God's character. Just like it's ridiculous to suggest an illustrative story invalidates all of the mathematical principles contained in a math textbook, it is ridiculous to suggest an illustrative story invalidates all of the principles about God's character contained in the Bible. I agree with you that it remains quite a big leap to suggest that the Bible is either literal or worthless. However there is a point behind that conclusion, but perhaps not one quite that drastic. If the Bible does illustrate certain truths that do remain ambiguous to the reader and interpretation is necessary. It does not under any circumstance invalidate the Bible, it does however appear to me to invalidate all incorrect interpretations of the Bibie, which makes any interpretation quite irrelevant to us if our aim is to find an objective moral law. Unlike the example you gave of a mathematics book using illustration to demonstrate a maths problem, the illustration in the Bible can lead to all sorts of conclusions many of which will share the same credibility.

The unicorn argument just given actually decends from Russells teapot argument, that concludes to essentially the same point.

Its not about having faith in science as opposed to having faith in a God. To attempt to synthesize both science and religion to share that commonality is insulting.

I don't think any of that makes sense. Firstly you assume being brought up by a homosexual couple leaves the child without a masculine figure, which is what Zierro suggested is the reason as to why people are gay. Obviously that assumption is ridiculous. Then apparently the parents would then force a sexuality onto a child? Honestly I can not understand what that even means, how does this process work? The first and foremost rule of parenting is putting the child first, and parents, whether they are straight or not on the whole try to do just that. Arguing that gay parents would try and push their own sexuality onto a child not only doesn't make sense but also is quite a puzzling perspective. Although I would like to hear how you believe this "forcing" of sexuality occurs.

Sly_Wizard, are you going to answer my question?

Most of these arguments are not even relevant to the issue.

There's nothing to explain, because it is an indisputable fact which history attests to. I missed some history lessons, care to fill me in?

Obviously everyone's opinion is merely a belief and not proven as complete fact... but if God exists, He exists whether or not you believe in Him, so if you don't believe in God and God in fact exists (contrary to belief), it is an extremely relevant statement. Yet still entirely irrelevant in this lifetime. Why not explain a point, rather than making it look like you're citing some indisputable fact.

I don't see how your post had anything to do with mine.

I always felt there was something romantic about chasing after the wind.

u ppl like how i stile him???Q?!?!? RATE 1-10!!!!!!

u outfit kool. want me to style u so u can look good in tha game

How does it not make sense to you? Discrimination based on skin colour is exactly the same in principle as discrimination based on sexual orientation.

:o I want that baby.

y u baconate me