Still think [bleep]s shouldn't be put in men. Thats my belief - Be more tolerant.

 

Oh come on, don't throw that phrase around. We can tell you to be more tolerant of our intolerance for your intolerance. :-X

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.

 

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.

Wasnt the trinity like God, son and spirit?

IDK, never had any Christian [cabbage] (al my education of the bible is due to metal songs)

^You are indeed correct. It consists of father, son, holy spirit (also known as the holy ghost).

Still think [bleep]s shouldn't be put in men. Thats my belief - Be more tolerant.

 

We can tell you to be more tolerant of our intolerance for your intolerance. :-X

 

That's actually quite brilliant.

 

I can tell YOU'RE not married to another man!

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.

 

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.

 

 

 

You know, homophobe, not every gay male has sex, and not every homosexual is male.

 

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.

because changing the Bible is a grand sin

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...

because changing the Bible is a grand sin

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.

am i against gay marriage? no

im not gay(not quite. im bi, though, if it matters), but i have alot of friends irl who are gay (or bi) and when they have had partners, they were very happy with it. had they wanted to stay together forever (they, however, were too young to considering a permentant relationship) i think that they should have the right to make it "official".

 

there is no reason to make it illegal, especailly based on "religious" reasons, which very often is referring to christianity in these arguments. they act as though they INVENTED marriage and own the right to it, and they have the final say in who can have the benefits from it. marriage has been around since ancient times in 1 form or another.

 

im fine with people not wanting to see gays makeout/show affection publicly, i understand it (personally i dislike anyone doing it in public really), but their personal beliefs on the subject shouldnt mean it has to be banned

 

 

 

also out of curiosity, anyone know what the laws are in australia involving it? i dont know and dont know where to look >_>

Still think [bleep]s shouldn't be put in men. Thats my belief - Be more tolerant.

 

We can tell you to be more tolerant of our intolerance for your intolerance. :-X

 

That's actually quite brilliant.

 

I can tell YOU'RE not married to another man!

 

 

lmao. nice troll

im fine with people not wanting to see gays makeout/show affection publicly, i understand it (personally i dislike anyone doing it in public really), but their personal beliefs on the subject shouldnt mean it has to be banned

 

Why should it be okay for straights and not for gays?

also out of curiosity, anyone know what the laws are in australia involving it? i dont know and dont know where to look >_>

The wonders of the internet

Seeing the great discussion of God's existance here, I created another thread for it.

HI BLEEPING JACK

ah well can we all make an own religion now?

im fine with people not wanting to see gays makeout/show affection publicly, i understand it (personally i dislike anyone doing it in public really), but their personal beliefs on the subject shouldnt mean it has to be banned

 

Why should it be okay for straights and not for gays?

personally i dislike anyone doing it in public really

im fine with people not wanting to see gays makeout/show affection publicly, i understand it (personally i dislike anyone doing it in public really), but their personal beliefs on the subject shouldnt mean it has to be banned

 

Why should it be okay for straights and not for gays?

personally i dislike anyone doing it in public really

 

To me it seemed like he was talking only about gays... Hard to tell.

im fine with people not wanting to see gays makeout/show affection publicly, i understand it (personally i dislike anyone doing it in public really), but their personal beliefs on the subject shouldnt mean it has to be banned

 

Why should it be okay for straights and not for gays?

personally i dislike anyone doing it in public really

Yah, I don't like seeing gays or straight people eating each others facing or [bleep]ing in front of me. Personally I'm against most PDA other then holding hands, quick kiss, etc. but if one allows gay marriage but not the right for equal PDA, then that's as equal as Plessy vs. Freguson.

because changing the Bible is a grand sin

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.

because changing the Bible is a grand sin

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.

I support it, honestly I believe that if they really love each other, let them.

I'll try to share my point of view.

 

My first point is that I, in a religious point of view, believe that homosexuality not is right; that it's not the way that we are meant to be.

And I could also hope, that in an ideal world, then everyone would be Christian as well, and then we wouldn't even have to have this argument.

 

But, the reality is that that there are also people that do not think it's morally wrong, and it's important to remember that homosexuals also love each other.

Out of that point of view, I do not think that homosexual marriage should be illegal.

 

For the next, I'll tell how the situation in Norway is at the moment.

We have had a "partnership" law in 15-20 years. (Some time in the 90's, if I remember right) which have pretty much worked like a marriage, just that it have used the word partnership instead.

But about two years ago, the law was changed, so that homosexual marriage is made possible. But this is not the only part of this new law. One of the most important parts is that if the mother of a child marries another woman, then that woman is legally "extra-mother" to the child. The father is no longer legally it's father. A lot of people have problems with this point, and a lot think that it's just fair.

 

The problem is that there's nothing the other way around. No "extra-father" Which is based on that a girl can go to a "sperm bank" and get impregnated, but a male homosexual couple can not use a surrogate mother.

I believe that both of these are wrong, but the second is worse than the first. However, this "discrimination" that makes the difference of couples of men and women will probably be changed, because in Norway, everyone is really, really frightened of the word discrimination, and everything that could be slightly similar.

 

Another problem about this law however, is that the religious parts of Norway, that can already marry people may end up having to marry homosexual people, even though this is against their religion. The evangelical-lutheran church of Norway have avoided this by not accepting the new liturgics for this (as the old one always uses "this man", and "this woman"

Because of this, I think that only the state should be able to marry people.

 

 

A lot of stuff from Norway here. But short: For me, this is a hard question, but I have ended up being for homosexual marriage, as long as this doesn't continue to push on the rights of the children (the right of both a mother and a father, as long as this is possible), and does not offend the right the different religious communities aren't forced to marry people of the same sex, if this is against their theologic sights.

My first point is that I, in a religious point of view, believe that homosexuality not is right; that it's not the way that we are meant to be.

And I could also hope, that in an ideal world, then everyone would be Christian as well, and then we wouldn't even have to have this argument.

 

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.

My first point is that I, in a religious point of view, believe that homosexuality not is right; that it's not the way that we are meant to be.

And I could also hope, that in an ideal world, then everyone would be Christian as well, and then we wouldn't even have to have this argument.

 

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.

My first point is that I, in a religious point of view, believe that homosexuality not is right; that it's not the way that we are meant to be.

And I could also hope, that in an ideal world, then everyone would be Christian as well, and then we wouldn't even have to have this argument.

 

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.

So they still haven't let go that AIDS is a plague set on homosexuals by god?

I'm unaware of any secular reasons as to why same-sex marriage should be disallowed; hell, it's basically impossible to have a secular dispute about this topic.