Homosexual Books for First Graders

[Rambunctious Jamirus]

Rambunctious: Supernatural powers is a very broad category indeed, and I do believe in them as does the Bible say they are real. When Moses turned his staff into a snake, Pharoah's magicians were also able to do so, however, Moses's snake devoured the magicians'.

They are real as I know yet the Bible says they are not to be used or practiced. Why when so many people in its history have used these powers? To prove something of greater good while they practice them and God gives them a pardon into heaven? The others who do it because they believe in it are blocked out from heaven because of that, 'hey sorry, you did wrong. Bye.' Now we could say that God did the snake thing but then we would have to agree that God parted the Red Sea, not Moses.

So Joan of Arc may not have been practicing witchcraft? Oh and yes, modern politics are the most honorable thing to date...

She could of, that's the thing. We don't know. It was viewed as witchcraft by the people and maybe the minister thought she was talking to Satan instead but because of what was written in the Bible, she was doing "witchcraft" and had to be condemned for it.

I know, aren't they? Let's see how many more witches are burned in the future!

Them continuing to resist change after the initial reaction to it is their fault. Also, instinct can be overcome.

That's when psychologists come in handy though they cost a lot. The question would be is what kind of change? Several changes will be applauded if the person does not change and some, if they do change they will be applauded. A religious change in which the group of people fight will most likely think they are being applauded by their Gods while if a killer changes, then they will be applauded on changing.

Instinct cannot be overcome as it always comes back. No matter how far you suppress instinct, it will always come back, to help or render. That's why we have reflexes as they are instinct. We cannot stop reflexes, they just happen unless someone has a slow mind but that's another story.

Murder is wrong, yes, but we will continue to have it no matter what you do. On the case of overpopulation, even murder doesn't do much to keep that in check.

Because society and others breed them. The wrongs of others get magnified in a person's mind and can lead them for punishment or payback. Since sometimes no one stops the obvious signs, we have murder. If we were to have a world without murder, it would be a dull, dull, world indeed.

Yep, but we can always hope now can't we?

That's my point. Animals don't understand right and wrong because they were not designed to. Animal intelligence only goes to a certain level, one that still remains below that of human intellect.

Human intelligence only goes to a certain level when understanding animals, like animal intelligence only goes to a certain level when understanding humans. Fact is is that we don't know the capacity of the animal mind. But we've gone over that they do know right or wrong because of:

1. Knowing right or wrong must be taught to something or learned by something
2. Understanding right and wrong is not doing the wrong thing again and continuing to do the right thing

Because we learn right and wrong, everyone knows it. We get congratulated or rewarded for doing the right thing and are hurt/scolded/yelled at when we do the wrong thing.

The thing I think you're trying to say is that animals don't understand human right and wrong. Well, we don't understand animal right and wrong. I think we're even on that.

Actually, the mantids that eat their mates are not the slow ones (all females are slow when ready to lay eggs), but the ones who need the nutrition for the eggs and whos mates are not fast enough. If people start doing that, then we've got quite a problem.

The mates aren't fast enough to get away, though the thing I wrote was supposed to say the same thing. It's like spiders, if you're not fast enough then yum!

But we don't so let's not go there.

Knowing the problem does help, but homosexuals know they're homosexuals, and from their they need to decide if they're going to change. I myself am absent minded. I don't know how many times I have forgotten my library books for months at a time (I had a some thirty five dollar fine not too long ago and am sitting on a fifteen dollar one right now).

Homosexuality is a broad problem in your opinion. There can be several things appointed to it being there in the first place. We can "cure" it without finding the problem but the problem will come back and worse than ever. That's avoiding a whole chunk of reason right there.

The people in Iraq rebel not because they don't accept change (that's only part of the reason), but also because the people doing the change are the ones who just beat them back in a war and are forcing it upon them (I'm neutral on this argument). About the assassins, hey, what can I say? Some people have very flexible morals.

Exactly what happens with all countries we try to change. We waged war when it's not official war and then force change on them, like beating a person down and rebuilding faulty. Forcing changes on another is not as brutal but can mentally hurt a person.

Assassins we need, to kill people we don't like and to make it look like a terrorist attack.

Thing is though, forcing change upon a person's general way of life is much different than saying one particular thing they are doing is wrong and why it is wrong.

Saying one thing is wrong changes the person in more than that way as well. Saying homosexuality is wrong means the person has to change their lifestyle to that of a heterosexual one.

I imagine they loosely named the creatures to identify them (thing with hump on its back). But this is up for speculation.

Neutral then. Let's move on.

[Sorovis]

Rei Zero, I did not reply to the post because I did not think it was worth replying to. Once again, have you listened to my argument? A dog not doing something because it is told not to is different than a person who actually knows WHY not to do it.

Homosexuality and heterosexuality are two different things; one is natural the other isn't, so you cannot compare them and say that circumstances would be the same only different if it was the other way around (homosexuals hating heterosexuals).

Rambunctious: Yes, all miracles done in the Bible were direct intervention from God, not some sort of sorcery or witchcraft. From the rest of that, I think you are saying that God does not allow those people who practice supernatural powers into Heaven. He still does; He warns them not to practice these powers because they do not come from Him, so they come from the only other source: Satan, the Devil, The Lord of the Flies, whatever you want to call him. In practicing these arts, the people involved become more susceptable to the Devil's influence, which is not good at all. The people who practice it are like those who drive while under the influence: they do not believe what is warned about practicing these wonderful powers would apply to them (or they just don't believe in the Bible at all).

People in the middle ages generally overreacted; you already know this. If good has come from advancement and the current years, it's that the church no longer has as much control. Many will think this is a strange thing to say, but every living person can be corrupted, and after a while the governing church would bow under temptation and abuse its power.

Could you clarify your last post, it may be I'm so sleepy or it may not have made much sense (or both).

Instinct can be overcome in instances. Over all, you are right, it will never be completely conquered.

A world without murder wouldn't be dull; a world without sin wouldn't be dull. What
would be dull is a world without inividuality.

Still, animals do not know moral right and wrong. Learning not to attack a hedgehog is a different right than learning not to kill your fellow man because you have no right to. Humans do understand animal right and wrong though; that's how we study and understand their actions; like how we know why cheetahs attack the weakest of the herd. Animal right and wrong is a basic knowledge in creatures adapted over time. Humans also have this.

That's the way it is with a lot of insects. Spiders, mantids...other bugs...okay never mind.

I never said it was a broad problem: It comes psychologically, so the cure is psychological.

I never said what we were doing in Iraq right now was completely sound. But that's another debate, one we don't need here with all that's going around already. I ment assassins outside of war; hitmen, basically.

Homosexuality alone is not an entire lifestyle, just like heterosexuality isn't. Those who choose to dress and generally act like girls have something else to deal with. This is also another topic not to be continually discussed here because there is enough to deal with.

[The Rusted One]

Homosexuality and heterosexuality are two different things; one is natural the other isn't, so you cannot compare them and say that circumstances would be the same only different if it was the other way around (homosexuals hating heterosexuals).

Says Sorovis, who has no basis to make such claims. Would he, or any present who agree with him, say that Progeria, a condition which make children age before their time, is natural or unnatural? It isn't necessarily good, because it means they die before the age of 13 - but it's still natural. And, oh, it isn't something they inherit from their parents, either - but it is genetic. It's a mutation of their genome after conception. This would actually seem to refute the weak argument given against homosexuality that it isn't genetic because they haven't found an inherited gene across families. While they believe they have found the single base misplacement responsible for the condition, this same feature of the genome wasn't present in all of the people in the sample of sufferers - meaning that it's still genetic, but it isn't fully accounted for in terms of cause. Could this not, perhaps, also refute the claims that because some people who were gay didn't possess this marker on their X chromosome, homosexuality wasn't caused by genes? Yes, yes it could - and of course, this doesn't take into account that the X chromosome is only one out of a possible total of 45 that could harbour the genes responsible for sexuality (the Y chromosome is invalid because females do not possess it and yet lesbianism isn't unheard of [although this theory may have no meaning anyway, because male homosexuality and female homosexuality may be caused by a slightly different or vastly different set of genes from each other]).

[Rambunctious Jamirus]

Rei Zero, I did not reply to the post because I did not think it was worth replying to. Once again, have you listened to my argument? A dog not doing something because it is told not to is different than a person who actually knows WHY not to do it.

Dogs know it is wrong. Humans know it is wrong. What is the difference? There is no 'well it's wrong because you kill a fellow person' involved with this since animals do not kill each other of their own species unless it is necessary (disease that spreads quickly, self-defense) or on accident (water buffaloes locking horns and one ripping the other's horns out when trying to get away). It is the same with us. They know that they should not do it because it doesn't "feel" right as you say it shouldn't "feel" right with humans.

Rambunctious: Yes, all miracles done in the Bible were direct intervention from God, not some sort of sorcery or witchcraft. From the rest of that, I think you are saying that God does not allow those people who practice supernatural powers into Heaven. He still does; He warns them not to practice these powers because they do not come from Him, so they come from the only other source: Satan, the Devil, The Lord of the Flies, whatever you want to call him. In practicing these arts, the people involved become more susceptable to the Devil's influence, which is not good at all. The people who practice it are like those who drive while under the influence: they do not believe what is warned about practicing these wonderful powers would apply to them (or they just don't believe in the Bible at all).

Then why say Moses split the Red Sea when God did it? Why do the ministers preach about Moses doing this from my knowledge instead of God doing it for them? Then the question would be about why get a human to lead when you are their leader...

So I may 'make evil on my brother's soul' and still be allowed into heaven? Then what is the point of having it in the Bible when 'oh, just because the book says it's wrong, doesn't mean I won't let you in, come on in.' In this way, we are contradicting ourselves saying though you are more involved with the Devil you may still be allowed into the 'Pearly Gates' because you are you. So go ahead, be like Miss Cleo and practice all you want, get thrown in jail for fraud. It's all good.

People in the middle ages generally overreacted; you already know this. If good has come from advancement and the current years, it's that the church no longer has as much control. Many will think this is a strange thing to say, but every living person can be corrupted, and after a while the governing church would bow under temptation and abuse its power.

So the witch trial in the 1950's doesn't count? Let's see what happened...

A psychic was convicted of witchcraft in the 1950's for telling information not yet released to the public about WWII. Because she had no way of getting the information, the judges dubbed her a witch and killed her. She was convicted of fraud earlier in her psychic years.

With what the general Christian public is arguing about now, we will have no separation of church and state anymore with marriages. With homosexuals not allowed to have marriage maybe, we are contradicting the Bill of Rights because the churches are fighting this. You know what? Churches don't have to marry anyone that comes their way. They could refuse a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple all the same. That's why Las Vegas was built, to have legal but crummy weddings.

Could you clarify your last post, it may be I'm so sleepy or it may not have made much sense (or both).

Which part could you please point out for me to clarify?

Instinct can be overcome in instances. Over all, you are right, it will never be completely conquered.

Overcomed in some instances but it will surface for a moment before we can push it back down. Panic, fear, anger...all instincts

A world without murder wouldn't be dull; a world without sin wouldn't be dull. What would be dull is a world without inividuality.

That's what anybody would think...until they gaze at the news. All that is mostly on the news is violence, murder, drugs, accidents, the list goes on. Thing is, the loving of violence started back when civilization began so even if we could go back and prevent murder, it wouldn't help.

Though yes, a world without individuality is dull.

Still, animals do not know moral right and wrong. Learning not to attack a hedgehog is a different right than learning not to kill your fellow man because you have no right to. Humans do understand animal right and wrong though; that's how we study and understand their actions; like how we know why cheetahs attack the weakest of the herd. Animal right and wrong is a basic knowledge in creatures adapted over time. Humans also have this.

No it is not. You learn it, someone tells it to you, you read about it. Let's try and go back to before rights were established. People pretty much thought about what was right for their survival and what was wrong. Killing your fellow species was wrong. Killing animals to eat was right. What humans thought was right are basically the roots of all laws today, some not even needed. Animals know this because this is a will of survival. Killing oneself is not helping us to survive. Having tolerance with a neighbour of the same species is an act of survival as you don't want to be weak and taken over and you don't want to be aggressive and kill your neighbour.

That's the way it is with a lot of insects. Spiders, mantids...other bugs...okay never mind.

Neutral here then.

I never said it was a broad problem: It comes psychologically, so the cure is psychological.

I interpreted it from it. Since there are different reasons these people are homosexual, then it's a broad problem. Some were abused, others molested, others confused, others have been it for their entire lives. How can we say that we can cure some that have felt this way their entire life without any of these problems beforehand? How do we cure this, when there is no problem to begin with? We can "force it down" but it will come back, like the memory of a death does.

I never said what we were doing in Iraq right now was completely sound. But that's another debate, one we don't need here with all that's going around already. I ment assassins outside of war; hitmen, basically.

I never said you said that. And an assassin is an assassin, no matter how sugary you put it.

Homosexuality alone is not an entire lifestyle, just like heterosexuality isn't. Those who choose to dress and generally act like girls have something else to deal with. This is also another topic not to be continually discussed here because there is enough to deal with.

Moving into a new way of living is a large change. Going from homosexuality to heterosexuality provides serious thoughts and thinking of what to do after going through the conseling and contemplating of what to do next. It's almost like going through puberty, the world is seen differently, for better or worse. We do not have the same reactions to things we used to and we must get used to them slowly.

But sure, we'll drop this because hey, who cares what happens to them after they changed? They could become scared of the world, be more confident, find differences they never noticed before, for better or worse.

[Sarcastic Assassin]

Whats the big deal? Japan has lots of homos in children's manga. CCS anyone?

But yeah, to have a book focusing on gay relationships is pushing it too far. If u say its acceptable, then its arguable to say that porn is acceptable in some families too. Sick ones, that is.

It's amazing how dichotomous one can be in their post. Your first comment was fairly relevant and supportive, which I appreciated. Your second comment was completely opposite: If you consider porn and homosexuality on equal moral levels, I'm afraid you need to seriously re-examine yourself.

Anyway, I could care less if kids are exposed to homosexuality at a young age. In fact, I think it's better for them to have the fact that homosexuals are just as normal as anyone else reinforced, before they get other ideas in their heads.

[Green_Pikachu]

"A world without murder wouldn't be dull; a world without sin wouldn't be dull. What
would be dull is a world without inividuality." - Sorovis


interesting. you preach individuality, but then you say you hate homosexuality. seems to me like a you're being a little contradictoy there. care to explain?

[Rei_Zero]

Rei Zero, I did not reply to the post because I did not think it was worth replying to. Once again, have you listened to my argument? A dog not doing something because it is told not to is different than a person who actually knows WHY not to do it.

A dog won't know why because it doesn't understand our language. A wolf would know why though. An omega understands that for social order in pack life its supposed to be the lowest level, and to challenge that would be threatening to break social order, something not advantageous to the group as a whole.

[yeah5]

sure he can explain. i can't speak for him, but sin is not "individuality". you know why he beleives it is sin.

[yeah5]

Rei Zero, why do you say the Bible was written AFTER the events. We have old old old ancient manuscripts. i mean like BC. why owuld you even say that. Never heard of the dead sea scrolls? anyway, the Bible wasn't all written at once. It's an accompilation of scripture written over years and years. Form early BC. to early A.D

[Sorovis]

The Rusted One: Now that I've cooled off I'll occasionally reply, but don't expect a reply for reply debate which you and Checkmate seem to have going. I have no basis for such claims? How about that men and women are designed to reproduce with each other. Seems natural to me. As for your information on the possible causes, I'm still going to ask for a site to support it so I can investigate it further.

I also feel I must apologize for any snide comments sent your way.

Rei Zero: You still did not counter what I said.

[Sorovis]

Rei Zero: You still did not counter what I said.

[Checkmate]

No, of course one person's feelings can't be the sole basis for an argument - but, when a person is claiming for themselves that something is true of themselves, then it cannot be refuted by someone who has no similar experience.

I agree with this to a point. And I don't think I am refuting what is true of you. From what I can analyze from your posts, you sincerely believe homosexuality is not morally wrong. I am not refuting the fact that you feel that way, but I am refuting the truth of that feeling. Now, I believe morals are absolute. I think the 'truth is relative' statement is ridiculous because, for one, it contradicts itself. (for it to be true the statement would have to always be true similiar to the question True or false, this statement is false?) Now I consider some things to be ok for some people and wrong for others (based on the way a person sees the action) but I believe homosexuality is always wrong. In short, morals are not open to interpretation.

That said, (probably a bit long-winded than it could have been) I don't think your perception of what is can properly dictate what truly is.

Also, when there are countless people in similar situations to the person making the claims, and they make similar claims, then it would be the most logical thing to believe that they are speaking not about some freak occurence, but of something that holds true for almost all, if not all, people in their situation. I base what I believe on what I know; and I don't believe in things which are unsupported by something universal, like science. I'm not Christian, and many millions of people are not either; specific religions are not universal, particularly when compared to the fact that science is (and even those parts of science that many Creationists discount because they're theories; science doesn't fabricate things, but rather observes and theorises based on what the observations say).

Nothing is universal. Some people don't believe in science, and many people don't believe in the idea of a completely chaotic event creating the order of the universe. (I am one) Also, the reason I can discount is one, (and yes I admit this) it goes against what I personally have more proof of. (this proof includes my personal experiences) Two, it cannot be completely proven. Scientific Law are made through constant experimentation, and if the theory superbly holds up against all rigorous testing it becomes a law. Something we cannot observe, like the big bang, will probably never be considered more than a highly plausible theory. Also, I would say there are at least as many Christians in the world as homosexuals. Of course, the agreement of millions of people is considered plausible evidence, but not certain.

It dates back to a joke of mine. Q: Can 40% of all americans be wrong? A: Of course not. Unless 60% of Americans are right.

Also, I don't believe in trusting common culture for my moral basis considering it's never sure of itself. In America, slavery in the 16-1800's is considered one of the greatest mistakes ever made, but 300 years ago the only great number of objections to that were the slaves. In america, sodomy was only legalized a couple years ago. Culture always changes, therefore making it unreliable in my opinion.

The thing is, if something is deemed accurate, it needn't mean it is entirely accurate - rather, those parts that refer to something that we know happened (not necessarily anything to do with Jesus at all) are reported in a fashion that portrays all facts we know to be true of that specific incident.

Yes, but the truth we can verify (specifically involving Luke) testifies to the veracity of what we can't verify. That's basically what the Bible's all about. It makes itself testible on some grounds so that it can be trusted on all grounds. (again, very little to do with blind faith) Luke basically recorded history.

[/i]The point of that drawn out comparison was to demonstrate that while an account of something may be full of historically accurate facts and bits of information, it is by no means accurate in its entirety; nobody is a proponent nowadays that Athene actually favoured a man called Odysseus over all others in the Greek army, or even that Odysseus existed; nobody purports that the war was indirectly caused by three quibbling goddesses and was about the most beautiful woman in the world. It would be folly to suggest so, given that there is no reason to believe, aside from the accounts, that any of these things are real. The same is true of the Bible - it contains some fact, some serious embellishment.[/i]

For one thing, comparing the Bible to the Illiad was a very crude analogy. The Illiad was intended fiction. Homer was a professional Bard. A story teller. Luke was a doctor. He researched the facts. He interviewed eye witnesses. Homer didn't interview Odysseus or Hectar.

As Yeah5 stated, the seal of historical accuarcy placed on the book of Luke is one of extremely rare quality. And it's also preposterous to suggest that Luke was a flawless recorder of that which we can verify and yet embellished, and didn't double check the lesser known historical evidence (i.e. Jesus' miracles)

[Checkmate]

Also, when there are countless people in similar situations to the person making the claims, and they make similar claims, then it would be the most logical thing to believe that they are speaking not about some freak occurence, but of something that holds true for almost all, if not all, people in their situation. I base what I believe on what I know; and I don't believe in things which are unsupported by something universal, like science. I'm not Christian, and many millions of people are not either; specific religions are not universal, particularly when compared to the fact that science is (and even those parts of science that many Creationists discount because they're theories; science doesn't fabricate things, but rather observes and theorises based on what the observations say).

Nothing is universal. Some people don't believe in science, and many people don't believe in the idea of a completely chaotic event creating the order of the universe. (I am one) Also, the reason I can discount is one, (and yes I admit this) it goes against what I personally have more proof of. (this proof includes my personal experiences) Two, it cannot be completely proven. Scientific Law are made through constant experimentation, and if the theory superbly holds up against all rigorous testing it becomes a law. Something we cannot observe, like the big bang, will probably never be considered more than a highly plausible theory. Also, I would say there are at least as many Christians in the world as homosexuals. Of course, the agreement of millions of people is considered plausible evidence, but not certain.

It dates back to a joke of mine. Q: Can 40% of all americans be wrong? A: Of course not. Unless 60% of Americans are right.

Also, I don't believe in trusting common culture for my moral basis considering it's never sure of itself. In America, slavery in the 16-1800's is considered one of the greatest mistakes ever made, but 300 years ago the only great number of objections to that were the slaves. In america, sodomy was only legalized a couple years ago. Culture always changes, therefore making it unreliable in my opinion.



[/QUOTE]The thing is, if something is deemed accurate, it needn't mean it is entirely accurate - rather, those parts that refer to something that we know happened (not necessarily anything to do with Jesus at all) are reported in a fashion that portrays all facts we know to be true of that specific incident.[/QUOTE]

Yes, but the truth we can verify (specifically involving Luke) testifies to the veracity of what we can't verify. That's basically what the Bible's all about. It makes itself testible on some grounds so that it can be trusted on all grounds. (again, very little to do with blind faith) Luke basically recorded history.

[/QUOTE] The point of that drawn out comparison was to demonstrate that while an account of something may be full of historically accurate facts and bits of information, it is by no means accurate in its entirety; nobody is a proponent nowadays that Athene actually favoured a man called Odysseus over all others in the Greek army, or even that Odysseus existed; nobody purports that the war was indirectly caused by three quibbling goddesses and was about the most beautiful woman in the world. It would be folly to suggest so, given that there is no reason to believe, aside from the accounts, that any of these things are real. The same is true of the Bible - it contains some fact, some serious embellishment.[/QUOTE]

For one thing, comparing the Bible to the Illiad was a very crude analogy. The Illiad was intended fiction. Homer was a professional Bard. A story teller. Luke was a doctor. He researched the facts. He interviewed eye witnesses. Homer didn't interview Odysseus or Hectar.

As Yeah5 stated, the seal of historical accuarcy placed on the book of Luke is one of extremely rare quality. And it's also preposterous to suggest that Luke was a flawless recorder of that which we can verify and yet embellished, and didn't double check the lesser known historical evidence (i.e. Jesus' miracles)

Also, Tro, please merge this post with my last and edit out this sentence.

[Green_Pikachu]

sure he can explain. i can't speak for him, but sin is not "individuality". you know why he beleives it is sin.

first off, sin is individuality, and secondly, being homosexual isn't a sin. plus, i still haven't received any explanation for that very contradictory statement by Sorovis.

[Sorovis]

Rambunctious: The difference would be that dogs know it is wrong on a different level which I have frequently stressed. Humans know that each individual has his/her own unique mind and their own future ahead of them. Essentially murder for humans is thievery; taking away what chances they had of applying their own unique skills is something no human under any circumstances should do. Dogs not challenging the alpha male is also exhibited in human families to a degree, where the child or person living under the father/mother's house do not directly challenge the dominant member because they are in their territory and under their command. Teenagers challenging their parents is a sign of independance that they need in order to leave and start their own family. This could be considered instinct, as it is something humans do without consciously deciding. Aside from this, humans know that murder is wrong for the aforementioned reasons.

Saying Moses parted the Red Sea is basically saying who did that particular miracle. When people see these types of amazing things, they do not immediately or always attribute them to something higher up. People saw and read that Moses parted the Red Sea, and seeing that it was from God requires thinking into it. Essentially God parted the Red Sea through Moses and people tend to acknowledge that it came from Moses before crediting God, who is the only possible being who could have actually done it.

What do you think sin makes us closer to, God or Satan? Practicing these arts is sin, and allows the Devil more influence on us, much like any other sin (like breaking the habit of stealing). Because sin always has and always will seperate us from God, a sacrifice will be necessary in order to make up for that sin. Jesus was that sacrifice. Now, no matter what the sin, if you accept that Jesus died so you could go into Heaven and believe in that, you are able to enter. Obviously if you refuse it you will not go in, much like not entering a room someone invited you into. That is free will, you see. It lets us decide ultimately whether we go to Heaven or Hell.

I never said the current system of government was without its flaws.

The seperation of church and state did what it was supposed to do. No longer do religious organizations have the power to govern these things, but the public and government does. The church's argument against homosexual marriage technically has no firm grounds; at least no more than other organization does. What is being dealt with now is the general public's opinion on the matter.

I will get back on what clarification is needed tomorrow, when I have more time.

There are other forms of entertainment other than violence. Love of nature, mechanics, science, etc.. None of those require violence to entertain anyone.

What about pity then? What is it, where did it come from, and why don't animals have it?

Like I said, homosexuality is psychological, so no one is born with it; it is acquired after some instance or something else, like something gradual. This is the case, and it can be changed by will as it was started by the person's mind.

Calling an assassin a hitman is certainly not sugary (not the way I ment it).

The entire view of the world does not change, only that of sexuality. With many becoming homosexual means broadening their views of what is acceptable and what isn't, which isn't the same thing as homosexuality. Your view of the world may change, but the same thing happens when you come to Christianity. It's the person's choice whether the change is good or bad (if they're changing it's most likely good).

[Checkmate]

Pariah, one can be individual without necessarily sinning. I already stated some info on personalities. While you disregarded that info, you cannot deny that different people have different tendencies toward those four personalities.

One person might super obsessed with duct tape. Another might kiddingly tease that person for being very weird. It's not complicated to say that people can be different without sin.

Damien, as far as your Quirinius post, I merely asked you who you say was Caesar at the time of Luke. Either you have an answer to that or you think Quirinius governed Syria at a different time period. Either way, I need a more detailed statement of your flaw.

The Bible doesn't necessarily call Belshazzar the son of Nebby. The word 'son' in the NIV version could also be translated to successor or descendent. I think you said Belly was Neb's grandson.

I gave a website for your thing on Daniel 5:31. (though it answers differently than my Darious reply.) Or if you'll except this source, I could just tell you the study Bible I got the Darious thing out of. Tell me which source you prefer. Each state possible reasons for that alleged discrepency.

As far as John 1:28 I just had an analogy. If I tell someone "New York City is on the other side of the Atlantic" they'd think I was an idiot, to say the least. (assuming we're in the US) but I'd be right if I was talking in Europe. It's a perspective difference to say what's 'beyond the Jordan'

I think Yeah5 also said something on this point of yours. I think that's all you had.

This doesn't include what you said about Tyre. I'm leaving that one up to Yeah5 for now.

[Heracross20]

Wow, I love how people continue to argue it as a religious debate and a question of morality (and morality is shaped by religion or the lack there of and the other values of a society at any given point in time).

What people should really consider is the political side. I have stated the political points before.

First Amendment Rights.

That's all anyone should have to say.

In my opinion, to deny homosexual and write it off as wrong and promote hate against it is simply ignorant. It shows a lack of intelligence and wisdom in a person, and there seems to be no point of arguing. People who are extremely, crazily religous, have their beliefs, and it's sad that something like religion can lead to such close-mindness (which really is another whole topic in itself: has religion done more damage to society than help), especially when in reality, at least within the Catholic Church, despite it's lack of agreement, you are still supposed to accept it and love the person anyways (and if anybody tries to refute that, you are simply retarded. I am Catholic, look it up in the book that explains the Catholic Interpretation of the Bible).

A truly intelligent person can think for themselves (yes I realize everybody here seems to think for themself, but this is my opinion and my take so you'll have to deal). Everybody is a little biased, it's hard not to be. I try my hardest not to be biased, but to be perfectly honest, little ignorant jerks like yeah5 really annoy me to death. I can't stand people who use their faith as justification for their actions. That's violating First Amendment Rights (FREEDOM OF RELIGION), and forcing a set of values on a person. And Freedom of Relgion includes being atheist. The terrorits of September 11 justified their actions because of their religous beliefs. Never should religion be a basis for justification, because there is no evidence supporting the existence of God. It is simply faith. What people like yeah5 need to realize, is that just because Jesus existed and died though crucifixition, it doesn't mean he's the son of God. The Romans crucified thousands of people, Jesus was nothing special to them. Any person could claim to be the son of God, and Jesus may have just done that: claimed to be. There is no proof of the existence of God, it's simply faith. To use faith as justification for acts would be like saying in a murder trial "I have faith that he killed my client" when all evidence points to somebody else, or no evidence exists at all simply because no client was killed.

Homosexuality is not wrong. You don't have to agree with it, but it's not wrong, and so far, I have seen nothign to support any reasons why homosexuality would be wrong other than ignorant statements about the Bible, and about people who have no understanding of homosexuals at all.

Don't Hate.

[Checkmate]

You and your "historical evidence" for the Bible is silly. You have assumed a lot of things. Yes Jesus existed and was crucified, BUT if you ask most historians, they will give you a completely different explanation for how. Most believe he was crucified on a TREE, not on a CROSS. The Romans crucified thousands of people, it wasn't something special done just for Jesus. They lined the roads leading to Rome with the victims as a warning, and in the day and time that Jesus lived, instead of building crosses they had resorted to using trees because of lack of time and willpower to spend the money to build a cross.

We've verified the Bible (specifically the NT) much more than you have verified your tree idea.

And besides, so what that he died on the cross. There is no proof that he was put in a tomb, that is assumed (they do have theories on where the tomb could have been).

Again, I'd like to see someone other than you backing any of these theories. A lot of the information Yeah5 (from what I can tell) and I submit are from a book called "The Case for Christ". An atheist investigated Jesus and found the evidence to be compelling. True story. You haven't given us anything to back your ideas.

You do not think, and that's the problem. Many books have been written in history based on a true person or an actual event with tons of made up fiction intertwined to spice it up. Just because Jesus existed does not mean he is the son of God. That's your problem. You are assuming it as fact and trying to push your faith on people

His existence doesn't prove he's the son of God. His claims backed by his miracles and prophesy fullfillment prove he's the son of God.

Just because you don't agree with something does not mean it's wrong.

Our disagreeing would mean little except we're basing it on a higher authority.

Grow up, use actually support. Jesus did exist, but there is still no proof that he is the son of God or that God actually exists. Politically speaking, is it right to defy Democracy, to defy the American Constitution that has been the reason for bring our great nation to his current sole superpower status, to it's current prosperity? Is it right to get rid of our freedoms, simply because your religion might not agree with them?

We have used actual support. I just don't remember what you've used.

It is fine to have faith, but it is not right to force it on anybody else.

Unless you're claiming, that Yeah5, Sorovis, or I have threatened your life or welfare I don't see we're forcing anything.

[Rei_Zero]

Rei Zero, I did not reply to the post because I did not think it was worth replying to. Once again, have you listened to my argument? A dog not doing something because it is told not to is different than a person who actually knows WHY not to do it.

A dog won't know why because it doesn't understand our language. A wolf would know why though. An omega understands that for social order in pack life its supposed to be the lowest level, and to challenge that would be threatening to break social order, something not advantageous to the group as a whole.

Do you need me to restate it in a less detailed easier to understand way?
Ok...fine. An omega knows defying social order will only cause troubles for the pack, something unfavorable for the individuals as wolves rely on pack life for success. I guess they do know why.

Yes, but the truth we can verify (specifically involving Luke) testifies to the veracity of what we can't verify. That's basically what the Bible's all about. It makes itself testible on some grounds so that it can be trusted on all grounds. (again, very little to do with blind faith) Luke basically recorded history.

This is called propaganda.

He interviewed eye witnesses.

Often times, secondary sources are not the best way to obtain information. This is recognized by most historians and archaeologists.

Rei Zero, why do you say the Bible was written AFTER the events. We have old old old ancient manuscripts. i mean like BC. why owuld you even say that. Never heard of the dead sea scrolls? anyway, the Bible wasn't all written at once. It's an accompilation of scripture written over years and years. Form early BC. to early A.D

The very fact that different parts were written at seperate times hampers reliability. Some parts may hold more truth than others, as some of the writers may be more truthful and honest than others. And even the portions written during B.C. (the old testament), the so called "prophecies" may not actually be prophecies, but rather more of a historical retelling. The dead sea scrolls have been dated at about 100 B.C. 400 years after the events you said were prophecised, which leaves plenty of time to just go to some libraries and copy history. Until there are actual sources dated to the time that the Bible was writing about then it could just as easily be filled with info copied from scriptures in a library.

[Scythemantis]

Sythemantis: I suppose you may be right about the man who tried to kill himself so many times, but you also must be aware there are miracles. If you were to do a little research on the topic you would find quite a few 'notable' instances, to put it that way.

Like I said, I don't rule them out at all, since I cannot rule out God, Angels, or anything else. I accept "earthly" things first and foremost but my mind is always open.

interesting. you preach individuality, but then you say you hate homosexuality. seems to me like a you're being a little contradictoy there. care to explain?

Just because you're morally opposed to certain things doesn't mean you want everyone to be exactly the same.

Anyways, I personally would not want a world devoid of all rape, murder and wrongdoing. It would mean a DRASTICALLY different world culture and, frankly, I can't see it being a positive one. It would only mean that the next evilest acts would carry that weight. If someone has never known death, a punch in the nose will be as bad to them as a bullet through the skull. The news would be EXACTLY the same in a crime-free world. We'de have headlines like "teens steal pie" instead of "six killed in drive-by" but people would react no differently, and we'de all shake our heads and sigh at what an awful world this is becoming, just as they did centuries ago for things we laugh at in this day and age.

[The Rusted One]

The Rusted One: Now that I've cooled off I'll occasionally reply, but don't expect a reply for reply debate which you and Checkmate seem to have going. I have no basis for such claims? How about that men and women are designed to reproduce with each other. Seems natural to me. As for your information on the possible causes, I'm still going to ask for a site to support it so I can investigate it further.

The fact that you claim that reproduction between men and women is natural takes nothing away from what I've been saying. Of course heterosexuality is natural - nobody disputed that at all. The thing is, though, that just because that's natural it doesn't preclude anything else from being natural, either. Reproduction can only happen naturally between a man and a woman, of course - but that doesn't mean that if it doesn't, for whatever reason, the relationship is unnatural. A barren woman is incapable of reproduction, which means that she is about as able to have children with a man as another man is - but does her relationship with a man count as "unnatural"? No. Love is the basis. Companionship. Not reproduction.

Also, people aren't "designed"; men and women aren't "designed" to be together. That this is the way that sexual reproduction works means that physical gender is inherited; but not all relationships produce children, nor plan for it. Not all people born are either male or female, either - there are those who are born with both male and female organs. There are those that have a male body but a female mind; or female body and male mind. Are they, too, designed? No. They're the results of genetics, as you are, as I am, as everybody is.

As for sites - I'm suggesting what could be the case for homosexuality, I'm not saying, "look, this is the way it definitely is." I base what I suggest on the facts of such things as Progeria (and biologically speaking, both homosexuality and conditions such as Progeria have the same effect on the breeding population - the inhibit members of the wider population from breeding (unless there are other conditions that mean that the individuals do end up having children before they die).

Like I said, I'm suggesting - look here on page 2; it states clearly that Progeria is not a condition passed down from parent to child, but rather that it is a genetic mutation limited solely to the person with the condition. It does, however, say that it is far rarer than homosexuality is, but this may be because it requires a specific, single base or gene to be affected, while homosexuality is not known to be caused by only one gene or base transposition or duplication. I'm aware that Progeria has no connection to homosexuality, and that is not why I reference this resource or condition - it is because there may be parallels between the two, such as, perhaps, the fact that it may not be strictly passed from parent to child (although this is in dispute about homosexuality, anyway, because there is no way to state conclusively that homosexuality isn't passed down from parent to child).

I also feel I must apologize for any snide comments sent your way.

No problem, I bear no grudge when I have no need - and I'm sorry for any such comments I aimed at you, also.

I agree with this to a point. And I don't think I am refuting what is true of you. From what I can analyze from your posts, you sincerely believe homosexuality is not morally wrong. I am not refuting the fact that you feel that way, but I am refuting the truth of that feeling. Now, I believe morals are absolute.

I don't see homosexuality as wrong, no - and nobody is yet to give me any reason as to why I should, aside from citing a story I give no more respect to than I do the tale of Snow White and the Seven Dwarves. I know you're not refuting that I feel that way; and I'm not refuting why you feel morals are absolute - because you believe they are, and there is no refuting the fact that someone believes something. I do refute, as you do, the truth of that belief - and I don't think anyone can claim that morals are absolute beyond what they think is right. Just because it's written somewhere doesn't mean it's anymore right than something that isn't. I don't believe morals are absolute; they're subject to societal views - and it would be folly to suggest, as I said, that this is not the case. Humans make morals. Morals are not universal.

I think the 'truth is relative' statement is ridiculous because, for one, it contradicts itself. (for it to be true the statement would have to always be true similiar to the question True or false, this statement is false?) Now I consider some things to be ok for some people and wrong for others (based on the way a person sees the action) but I believe homosexuality is always wrong. In short, morals are not open to interpretation.

And again, I am given no plausible evidence to show me why it is wrong. The truth is relative, to a point. The truth of what is moral and what isn't is totally relative; the truth of how water boils, however is not. It depends on what the truth is. Morals are human invention, based on behavioural patterns and how we need to live in order to live together. Racism is wrong, because it hurts other people. Prejudice is wrong, too. Following that, regarding something like homosexuality as wrong, and making it something to frown upon, is wrong, too. If anything, prejudice and willingness to discriminate should be considered a sin.

That said, (probably a bit long-winded than it could have been) I don't think your perception of what is can properly dictate what truly is.

This is true of everyone, even you, and it's what I've been saying. You can perceive something as being so but this does not mean it actually is. But looking at yourself, into yourself, you aren't perceiving something that you don't already know. You can dictate for yourself what you know your truth is - but anything outside yourself (for instance, whether or not "god" exists), you cannot know is right. You can also not purport that morals are absolute - the only thing you can say is that nobody should be frowned upon for being themselves if what that involves is the same for some comparable situation (i.e., homosexuality and heterosexuality - both involve love, companionship, friendship, sexual attraction, etc., etc.), and that other than this, the only constant is inconstancy. This is supported below with your statement that nothing is universal.

Nothing is universal. Some people don't believe in science, and many people don't believe in the idea of a completely chaotic event creating the order of the universe. (I am one) Also, the reason I can discount is one, (and yes I admit this) it goes against what I personally have more proof of. (this proof includes my personal experiences) Two, it cannot be completely proven. Scientific Law are made through constant experimentation, and if the theory superbly holds up against all rigorous testing it becomes a law. Something we cannot observe, like the big bang, will probably never be considered more than a highly plausible theory. Also, I would say there are at least as many Christians in the world as homosexuals. Of course, the agreement of millions of people is considered plausible evidence, but not certain.

Science is far more universal in both application and veritability than any religious order or doctrine is, though. Someone may decide not to believe that we are immense shapes formed of nothing more than subatomic particles, then they can - but this doesn't mean that they can't be proven wrong. Religion, on the other hand, can't prove anything beyond doubt; if it were able to do so, then there would be one religion. Now, as for the Big Bang - it's far more plausible a theory than Intelligent Design, which is not actually at all scientific; it cannot be supported by scientific observation, it cannot be tested, and there is no scientifically recognised proof of it. The Big Bang, however, is a theory supported by the fact that the universe is expanding outwards, and there is residual radiation in the universe itself, among other things. All we do know of the laws of gravity, etc., intermesh to support the theory itself - so it is, basically, only lacking in that nobody was around to record it when it happened.

Now, of course there are many Christians; there are many homosexuals - neither is a very good argument, if taken at face value. A large amount of people doesn't make something right, necessarily - unless they are the ones who will know beyond a doubt, and their testimony is all the same. A Christian person can be sure that they're right in what they believe only to a point, at which faith takes over. They have no proof, so they end up believing in something based on what they think is right. This is not the same as knowing it is right. Nor is it comparable to what an equally large amount of people say is true for them, because the Christian religion is based around what the followers see in the world outside themselves. A gay person knows something is true for themselves because it is part of themselves, within themselves, not something they observe outside of themselves. A large amount of gay people can be confident that their collective testimony is more correct than what someone says of them from the outside, because that person is on the outside - but even a gay person can't be sure that what someone else knows is what they themselves know. A gay person may be able to say, "no, I didn't choose", and another one might, as well - but each one cannot say for certain that it is fact; they can only use their own knowledge of themselves and judge how likely it is to be true of someone else in the same position. This doesn't weaken the claim, though, because if many people claim something, then the more likely they are to be right - unless it's something based on interpretation, which isn't necessarily more likely to be right or wrong just because of numbers.

Also, I don't believe in trusting common culture for my moral basis considering it's never sure of itself. In America, slavery in the 16-1800's is considered one of the greatest mistakes ever made, but 300 years ago the only great number of objections to that were the slaves. In america, sodomy was only legalized a couple years ago. Culture always changes, therefore making it unreliable in my opinion.

But would you say that the best thing is for people to be respected, free, able to express themselves, and not suffer from negativity just because someone else wants to interpret something they do a certain way? I would. Whether or not it's societal convention, it comes down to the simple premise that you wouldn't want something bad to happen to you, so there is no justice in acting against someone else. Unless you wanted someone to claim that all people are actually gay, but most choose to follow societal trends and be straight, you couldn't justifiably say the opposite of gay people (disregarding the societal trends).

And, might I add, if you can't trust society as a whole, how can you trust your religion?

Yes, but the truth we can verify (specifically involving Luke) testifies to the veracity of what we can't verify. That's basically what the Bible's all about. It makes itself testible on some grounds so that it can be trusted on all grounds. (again, very little to do with blind faith) Luke basically recorded history.

So then it is absolutely fine for me to regard the mention of the Olympian gods in the Iliad and the Odyssey as accounts of what did happen, given that both do possess factual evidence within their bounds? Many stories possess verity in some instances - for example, and again I refer to the Odyssey, the channel between Sicily and Italy was said to be the home of Scylla and Charybdis - one of which was a large monster with aspects of a woman and aspects of dogs, fish, and other creatures, and the other was a monster that sucked down the sea in the area thrice daily in a whirlpool. In the area, there is indeed a current that does swirl around in whirlpools - so, because this is testable, can I claim that a monster lies at the bottom, or that travelers nearby must be wary of Scylla's six heads, which wait to snatch people up and eat them?

For one thing, comparing the Bible to the Illiad was a very crude analogy. The Illiad was intended fiction. Homer was a professional Bard. A story teller. Luke was a doctor. He researched the facts. He interviewed eye witnesses. Homer didn't interview Odysseus or Hectar.

Ah, but that's the thing - from our perspective nowadays we might say that the Iliad and the Odyssey were intended to be fiction, but that would be fallacious. They weren't purported to be false at all - they were thought to be factual history, and very few people thought little of any of the Greek religion of the time. The gods were real, the creation of the universe was real, and the myths they told weren't myths but recounted history. Homer was a bard, yes; but that doesn't mean that, just because he was skilled at reciting a poem, he didn't regard the poem to be factual - and there is nothing to suggest that his audience regarded the poems to be false, either. It seems, perhaps, unlikely, because we don't see things as they did - we have greater knowledge of the world - but that doesn't mean that they thought any of the myths or poems they heard to be anything other than actual history.

As Yeah5 stated, the seal of historical accuarcy placed on the book of Luke is one of extremely rare quality. And it's also preposterous to suggest that Luke was a flawless recorder of that which we can verify and yet embellished, and didn't double check the lesser known historical evidence (i.e. Jesus' miracles)

But these miracles aren't historical fact. Besides that, you cannot verify that eyewitness accounts are anymore than the same story repeated, anyway, nor that Luke didn't leave out any conflicting details and go instead for the versions most often given. Many ancient historians judged what was and wasn't the most likely progression of events; one of the few who didn't was Herodotus, and his Histories were full of conflicting accounts and stories that said one thing and then another on the same subject.

[Toxicity]

Don't say homosexuality isn't natural...some become homosexual for various reasons, such as child abuse(I personally think that's what happened to Michael Jackson) and many others. I can say that if you're saying homosexuality isn't natural, then bisexuality isn't natural either...and if that's the case, love isn't natural at all. Sure, I will accept the beliefs that marriage is kept between a man and a woman, but you cannot let it get to your heads religion is one of the key factors in marriage, and it isn't. There is only one factor in all: love...which, thus, I cannot trust because I've been used and betrayed.

Also, people aren't "designed"; men and women aren't "designed" to be together. That this is the way that sexual reproduction works means that physical gender is inherited; but not all relationships produce children, nor plan for it. Not all people born are either male or female, either - there are those who are born with both male and female organs. There are those that have a male body but a female mind; or female body and male mind. Are they, too, designed? No. They're the results of genetics, as you are, as I am, as everybody is.

True. If I ever can have another sucessful relationship again, I would not plan on children...and if I did, my only option would be adoption(only because I think I inherited endemitriosis(?sp) from my mother). As above, I was born in a female body, yet I think I realized I have a mind of both male and female(my views are mixed on a few things, as in I like boys, but I'm not boycrazy, yet I do have a slight crush once every few months).

But I will not stand to let religion take its toll too much. Sorovis, the Illiad was composed for entertainment, not for telling the truth. Though the Trojan War is showing signs of existance(discoveries have shown so), Homer still composed the Illiad for the entertainment of the audience, so you cannot deny that Homer was probably one of the greatest bards in the ancient world. Yet, is their actual historical proof of the miracles listed in the Bible? Maybe not. The Bible was written years after the supposed time of these miracles...and the ideas were practically stolen from The Torah, which I can't remember when it was written.

And is there evidence God created the universe? I haven't noticed signs, but personally, I somewhat believe in the Big Bang/Big Crunch theory. There is no needed time of the start of the first universe(if there was a 'first' universe, that is), yet this universe resulted in the beginning of universe, 'The Big Bang', and the ending of those universes, 'The Big Crunch'. Yet, there may not be just one universe...there may be mutliple universes parallel to ours, as in the 'Farnsworth Parabox' episode of Futurama. Whatever part is true, there must be some scientific support to the start of the universe(s).

[RedStarWarrior]

Don't say homosexuality isn't natural...some become homosexual for various reasons, such as child abuse(I personally think that's what happened to Michael Jackson) and many others. I can say that if you're saying homosexuality isn't natural, then bisexuality isn't natural either...and if that's the case, love isn't natural at all. Sure, I will accept the beliefs that marriage is kept between a man and a woman, but you cannot let it get to your heads religion is one of the key factors in marriage, and it isn't. There is only one factor in all: love...which, thus, I cannot trust because I've been used and betrayed.

Who the f*** said Michael Jackson was gay? That is a completely different issue altogether as to whether he actually did molest little boys and whatnot so I don't think it should be brought into this debate. Also, are you referring to Mike (TMM) when you say you have been used and betrayed? If so, forget about it. You are too good to waste your time upset over that.

[Rambunctious Jamirus]

Rambunctious: The difference would be that dogs know it is wrong on a different level which I have frequently stressed. Humans know that each individual has his/her own unique mind and their own future ahead of them. Essentially murder for humans is thievery; taking away what chances they had of applying their own unique skills is something no human under any circumstances should do. Dogs not challenging the alpha male is also exhibited in human families to a degree, where the child or person living under the father/mother's house do not directly challenge the dominant member because they are in their territory and under their command. Teenagers challenging their parents is a sign of independance that they need in order to leave and start their own family. This could be considered instinct, as it is something humans do without consciously deciding. Aside from this, humans know that murder is wrong for the aforementioned reasons.

The problem with that is that we told them that murder was wrong. If a kid was to go about life without knowing that murder existed, would he say it was wrong or right? He can't because he doesn't know about it. Because we learn this from our parents/guardians/teachers. Just because dogs don't know the human language doesn't mean they know wrong or right because morals are religious creations. Because animals don't give a crap about religions since they don't need them, they don't have the "great morals." They have right and wrong because they were taught it by their parents. If a deer wants to survive, it would be wrong to yell and jump about. It would be right to stay quiet and still because the mother told it to. Like kids, mothers will tell them to not to hit their siblings. They will ask why and mothers will say it is wrong.

Saying Moses parted the Red Sea is basically saying who did that particular miracle. When people see these types of amazing things, they do not immediately or always attribute them to something higher up. People saw and read that Moses parted the Red Sea, and seeing that it was from God requires thinking into it. Essentially God parted the Red Sea through Moses and people tend to acknowledge that it came from Moses before crediting God, who is the only possible being who could have actually done it.

By the time people figure out that God did it, they will have probably have read the part about "supernatural arts." And the way Sunday School teaches it, Moses parted the Red Sea, not God. Wouldn't it be better to teach it right the first time and not go about with the odd questions of kids asking about the "supernatural arts" Moses had? Or did Moses gain "supernatural arts" from God because he dealt a lucky seven for the man?

What do you think sin makes us closer to, God or Satan? Practicing these arts is sin, and allows the Devil more influence on us, much like any other sin (like breaking the habit of stealing). Because sin always has and always will seperate us from God, a sacrifice will be necessary in order to make up for that sin. Jesus was that sacrifice. Now, no matter what the sin, if you accept that Jesus died so you could go into Heaven and believe in that, you are able to enter. Obviously if you refuse it you will not go in, much like not entering a room someone invited you into. That is free will, you see. It lets us decide ultimately whether we go to Heaven or Hell.

Heck, we're all pretty close to Satan then if humans sin every minute of their life. Thing is, we're all flawed so we are let into heaven because of our flaws. If we were to commit, I don't know, maybe murder, we'd have a harder time getting into heaven.

Now, I think the devil is just like the boogyman, a thing made up to scare people into doing something "right." Since we all flaw but if we confess our sins to God before we die, we get sent into heaven. Then again, down below is probably filled with beauty advertisement makers, lawyers, and CEOs of big box companies...

I never said the current system of government was without its flaws.

I never said you said that.

The seperation of church and state did what it was supposed to do. No longer do religious organizations have the power to govern these things, but the public and government does. The church's argument against homosexual marriage technically has no firm grounds; at least no more than other organization does. What is being dealt with now is the general public's opinion on the matter.

Yes it does. Churches are scared people will be mad when they don't marry a homosexual couple. Because the government is getting on about marriage of homosexuals in particular and marriage deals with religion, there is no separation. This is the Bill Congress is considering, only marriage is in, not civil union. If they had said civil union, then there wouldn't be any church crap thrown in but it didn't so we are here.

I will get back on what clarification is needed tomorrow, when I have more time.

There are other forms of entertainment other than violence. Love of nature, mechanics, science, etc.. None of those require violence to entertain anyone.

Yes but TVs are a lot to do with this, now aren't they? Most people flip on the TV and see destruction, gore, and death. Sure, we could get rid of those channels that have the destruction and the "immoral" junk and what are we left with? Barney, Teletubbies, Bob the Builder, you get the idea. We could enjoy nature and others but violence does come into it in one way or another. Robot Wars, predator and prey, etc.

Problem with today is that humans want to hear about violence on the news and then make up about that with different other forms.

What about pity then? What is it, where did it come from, and why don't animals have it?

Animals have it. It's just not viewed as pity. When an elephant is dying, other elephants gather around to comfort her as she passes on (I say she because most males are loners). Elephants help injured elephants even if it will slow them down. Some animals just kill a dying animal to get it from mercy and leave, because they know the cycle of life and tolerate better than humans do. They will feel sorry about the death but move on quicker.

Like I said, homosexuality is psychological, so no one is born with it; it is acquired after some instance or something else, like something gradual. This is the case, and it can be changed by will as it was started by the person's mind.

Actually, I will now propose that homosexuality is genetic. Our English classes presented their presentations of identity in America. We did kinda good but I went to see the other class during my aide period for about seven minutes. One was about homosexuality. I missed the first half but asked the big question to the person behind the table. "Is homosexuality genetic or choice?"
She responded, "Homosexuality is genetic because there are quite a few genes involved with it. They are all recessive, meaning after about ten generations of heterosexual people, one could be homosexual. It's like having blue eyes, it's recessive but even if two parents have brown eyes, their children could still have blue ones."

Now, someone will ask "Well, their children aren't homosexual." Let's think back, why can't homosexuals have children? They're missing the opposite gender. The opposite gender will most likely be heterosexual, thus pushing down the homosexual genes. The other thing is that all of the genes must be in the "homosexual switch" for it to happen.

Now, someone will say the people that changed were homosexual. According to the above, the people are either homosexual because of fear of the opposite gender or because they want to. That can be cured, genetic can't be.

Now, somone will say that this person was lying. It couldn't be as then our English teacher would've given her a failing grade because of poor research skills and wouldn't let her present the project.

Calling an assassin a hitman is certainly not sugary (not the way I ment it).

Hitmen are usually not as dedicated to the job as assassins. That's sugar coating it a bit.

The entire view of the world does not change, only that of sexuality. With many becoming homosexual means broadening their views of what is acceptable and what isn't, which isn't the same thing as homosexuality. Your view of the world may change, but the same thing happens when you come to Christianity. It's the person's choice whether the change is good or bad (if they're changing it's most likely good).

The entire world changes to them as now, they aren't hiding from the opposite gender because they are scared. They become more acceptable to the world or more scared of it.

By coverting to a new religion broadens some parts, it also shrinks the acceptability of some things around them. While one could be accustomed to homosexuals, it is now a forbidden thing. One could not eat beef and now you can, except on Fridays.

Change is not always for the better good as it sometimes sucks when involving anything. Some people are forced to change, a bad thing. Some choose it, a good thing maybe unless they don't like it.

I haven't changed my mind set from child to adult yet really, I can think like an adult but I act like a child would because that's the way I want to be since it's right for me. Kids like you more when you act like one to a point (meaning no tantrums). Why do I this just for kids? I babysit and kids enjoy it more when you play with them and know about the cartoons and games. If I were to change to actually act like an adult, it would be bad for my business as kids tell their parents what you did there. That would be a bad change in me.

Let's all debate now!

[The Rusted One]

But I will not stand to let religion take its toll too much. Sorovis, the Illiad was composed for entertainment, not for telling the truth. Though the Trojan War is showing signs of existance(discoveries have shown so), Homer still composed the Illiad for the entertainment of the audience, so you cannot deny that Homer was probably one of the greatest bards in the ancient world. Yet, is their actual historical proof of the miracles listed in the Bible? Maybe not. The Bible was written years after the supposed time of these miracles...and the ideas were practically stolen from The Torah, which I can't remember when it was written.

It was me who said the Iliad was "historic", because it is true that it wasn't composed purely for the entertainment of the audience. The Homeric version of the story, which is in the Iliad, was, of course, how he earnt food, etc., but the story itself that he based it on was taken to be historic recounting of actual events during the great "Bronze Age" that was purported to be the generation(s) of heroes - Homer's own time was the "Iron Age", when men were supposedly base and degraded. However, we also know that the Iliad is a very much embellished account of the details of an invasion of Troy and the areas of Asia Minor, which happened during the Mycenaean Age of Greece, which preceded the Greek Dark Ages where all writing was lost and the palatial system of government was utterly lost. Like you question we don't have proof for the intervention of Apollo in the shooting of Achilles, nor that there was anyone called Achilles - so why should we believe it? We shouldn't. The same is true of the Bible, as far as I see it - just because the Bible says Jesus walked on water doesn't mean that Jesus did anything like it, nor that Jesus actually existed and wasn't a character of invention (like Lycurgus was to the Spartans; he was supposed to have traveled to Delphi and returned with the "Great Rhetra", which was the law system of the Spartans - he was, in other words, held to be responsible for why Sparta was so great to Spartan eyes. However, there is no actual evidence that such a man existed, and it is far more likely that he was just a figure created by merging all past leaders who had a role in the formation of Sparta, because he was easier to remember than however-many-others there might have been).

[Damian Silverblade]

It's worth noting that the Bible and the Illiad share great similarities in how they came to be. The Illiad was written down around the seventh century or so BC (IIRC), based on oral traditions which gives the source of the original poem as Homer (whose historicaly existence cannot be confirmed).

The first few books of the bible were written by a single jewish religious person sometime between the 7th and 5th century BC or so, based on oral tradition. The same oral tradition claims these texts were originall written by Moses (whose historical existence cannot be confirmed).

In both case, archaeology has confirmed a number of the claims made by the books.

In both case, the book claims to depict history with divine intervention repeatedly thrown in.

[Sorovis]

Rei Zero: How do you know the wolf in the lowest order in the pack recognizes the importance? Is this a researched and proven thing?

For the rest, instead of risking making mistakes now, I am going to post later when my focus is stronger.

[yeah5]

"The very fact that different parts were written at seperate times hampers reliability. Some parts may hold more truth than others, as some of the writers may be more truthful and honest than others. And even the portions written during B.C. (the old testament), the so called "prophecies" may not actually be prophecies, but rather more of a historical retelling. The dead sea scrolls have been dated at about 100 B.C. 400 years after the events you said were prophecised, which leaves plenty of time to just go to some libraries and copy history. Until there are actual sources dated to the time that the Bible was writing about then it could just as easily be filled with info copied from scriptures in a library."

the fact that different parts were written at different times makes a lot of sense, considering that different things happened at different times. The events of the Bible took place over thousands of years. Of course different parts were written at different times. if they were all written at once, how reliable would that be?



that New Testament manuscript was said to be written very very shortly after Jesus died.

also, you shouldn't expect people to find originals or even too close to it. During the time the events happened, or soon after, when they were writen down, why would people have copied tons of them right after it as written? thus, originals, or documents dated from exactly (relativley exact) when events happened would be hard to find. it is possible that only a few copies were needed until much later, when they would be copied more. if only a few copies existed when the events happened, and they happened thousands of years ago, what would be the chances that we would find those copies? this is just my idea of a possible reasonable explanation of what could have happened.

yes. but, who said that the dead sea scrolls were the originals ? i never did (neither did you), but they are still ancient.

still, read this

this is a New Testament manuscript (not a dead-sea scroll i imagine)
"Magdalen Papyrus (P64)
The papyrus scraps had been housed at the library of Magdalen College for more than 90 years, the gift of a British chaplain, Rev. Charles Huleatt, who bought them at an antiquities market in Luxor, Egypt. Using new tools such as a scanning laser microscope along with more conventional handwriting analysis, Thiede re-dates the fragments, previously dated in the mid- to late second century, to sometime between 30 and 70 A.D."
http://biblefacts.org/history/oldtext.html#P64


and about Homer's Illiad. There are tons and tons more Bible manuscripts than Homer's Illiad. There are about 600 and something manuscripts of Homer's Illiad and 24,000 manuscripts of the New Testament. Some people use this to decide a document's "trustworthiness"

[Damian Silverblade]

The amount of surviving manuscrips is patentedly irrelevant.

Incidentally, even religious sources can't agree on the Magdalen fragment you mentionned above.

http://www.kjvonly.org/other/jdprice_magdalen.htm

"While some King James Only advocates allege that the date of the papyrus fragment is about AD 60, the expert papyrologists do not support this date. Most authorities date the fragment at about AD 200.[8]"

[The Rusted One]

and about Homer's Illiad. There are tons and tons more Bible manuscripts than Homer's Illiad. There are about 600 and something manuscripts of Homer's Illiad and 24,000 manuscripts of the New Testament. Some people use this to decide a document's "trustworthiness"

And most people regard this as faulty logic and grasping at straws. If I write a book with 21 chapters, is it more or less trustworthy than a book of 41 chapters? No. I just had more or less to say, that's all. Trying to suggest the amount of pages, chapters, manuscripts, etc., reflects historical worth is folly; the story itself is what is to be judged, not the length of it.

[Heracross20]

We've verified the Bible (specifically the NT) much more than you have verified your tree idea.

Again, I'd like to see someone other than you backing any of these theories. A lot of the information Yeah5 (from what I can tell) and I submit are from a book called "The Case for Christ". An atheist investigated Jesus and found the evidence to be compelling. True story. You haven't given us anything to back your ideas.

Right, because the First Amendment isn't backed up. Hmmm, I wonder where we can find that? I don't think I can....*end sarcasm*

His existence doesn't prove he's the son of God. His claims backed by his miracles and prophesy fullfillment prove he's the son of God.

You have no proof that these miracles actually happened other than a 2000 year old piece of literature. It could be nothing more than a fairy tale like that of Snow White.

Our disagreeing would mean little except we're basing it on a higher authority.

A higher authority which has not been proven to exist nor does everybody believe in. Therefore, it is wrong to use this higher authority's will as justification for actions agaisnt anything.

We have used actual support. I just don't remember what you've used.

Really what support? All I see is constant references to people who a) believe in the Bible b) The content of the Bible or c)people who used to not believe in the Bible but now do. So what.

The point is, God has not been proven to exist and therefore the validity of the Bible has not been proven.

Unless you're claiming, that Yeah5, Sorovis, or I have threatened your life or welfare I don't see we're forcing anything.

Obviously you know nothing about politics since everything about the First Amendment flew right over your head. I will not take the time to explain it again since you obviously missed the content the first time (and honestly, it's not that hard to understand, try reading the post next time).

THE BOTTOM LINE:

The existence of God has not been proven, therefore the Bible is not an adequate source of justification for actions against homosexuality.

You are forcing your Christian beliefs on a group of people by forbidding first graders to read homosexual content simply because your story doesn't agree with it.

OMG, now let's look at what I just said. Any rational person would read those lines and understand them. Ooooo, let's stare in awe.

[Rei_Zero]

And how do you know it doesn't, Sorovis? The things is, you don't know, because you aren't a wolf, you never saw into the minds of a wolf, and you don't know how to talk with wolves, which means you don't know how the wolf thinks or what it thinks, ruling out the certainty that wolves don't think about these things. In that case, you have no support for your claims that they don't know, and we are at a draw for this particular arguement. (this does apply to other animals you know)

yes. but, who said that the dead sea scrolls were the originals ? i never did (neither did you), but they are still ancient.

So long as there are no original copies there is the open possibility that the scrolls, or the predecessors to them, could just be copied known historical events mixed with fiction.

the fact that different parts were written at different times makes a lot of sense, considering that different things happened at different times. The events of the Bible took place over thousands of years. Of course different parts were written at different times. if they were all written at once, how reliable would that be?

Noted. But it still doesn't say against the reliability of different authors over the different periods of time, as well as the different pressures from society these authors had to face whilst writing their parts during the different times.

And of course we may never find the originals or something close. We may never find manuscripts old enough to verify that the Bible wasn't just a nice story containing a lot of historical events (ex. The Illiads), in which case, the nature of this very debate is subject to the uncertainty that is history.

[Heracross20]

Yes the Bible may have been written over a few thousand years, but the Bible also says that Earth is only a few thousand years old sure it is *end sarcasm*

[Sorovis]

The Rusted One: What I am saying is natural is the sexual intercourse between men and women. If the woman is barren, that does not make the sex unnatural: it is still between men and women who would normally have the potential to reproduce. Homosexuality is in no way natural. There are no organs in the male body designed to make it possible for sex. If there were, then it could be compared to heterosexual intercourse.

If no one is 'designed', then where do different genders come from exactly? In evolution you might say, but what caused the single or multicellular organisms to begin the process of two gender reproduction? What advantages would it have over being asexual?

The information you give is very good and supports your case well. However, like you said, there may only be parallels between progeria and homosexuality. The genetic cause for homosexuality has not been found. Until (and if) it is, you can only suggest ways it may be genetic (by the way, I could not get to the site you posted. If you could go ahead and post quotes in future posts, I'll take it as from the site itself).

Kikyo: What would these various reasons be? Do you have any evidence? The logic you give for love being unnatural makse no sense at all. So because you've been used and betrayed love cannot be trusted by anyone?

I don't exactly see how the Bible could be written for entertainment, especially when it takes on the task of tracking the lines of the people in it.

So the Bible stole things from the Torah? Maybe you should research into that before making such claims.

Signs can be seen by things we've posted in this debate and by looking for them. Of course, you have seen no signs of the Big Bang either; you just follow what scientific evidence is provided that says it happens. Creationism has proof as well, but you must look for it or listen to it as you have done with the Big Bang theory.

Rambunctious: I doubt they have actually raised people and given them no ideas on whether murder was right or wrong, so that cannot be used. Animals cannot speak in human language, as you said. So how come they have not created morals on their own? If their intelligence is close to humans, certainly similar things would happen to them over generations and they would have created their own laws. They have not.

I imagine the fact that Moses prayed to God frequently before his miracles and the fact that the staff he had which caused a lot of these miracles was given to him by God would be a pretty good indication that he was not using supernatural powers.

It does not matter how big the sin you commit is; when Jesus died to allow us into heaven despite sin, He meant ANY sin. No matter how big or small. The consequences for sin are payed in day to day life, which is one reason why life is so miserable for people. Also, the Devil is very real and is still very much active in the world today. If you don't want to call him the Devil than fine, he has many other names. But let me ask you this: if there was no Devil, then what tempts people to sin in the first place?

It has been said before that people don't have to be married by churches.

We can have no idea what life would be like without violence, since we have never been alive to see it happen. So it cannot be said what a world without violence would be like, or that violence is completely necessary.

That would be called empathy, something humans have as well. The elephants could be trying to encourage the fallen elephant to travel on as a preservation of their group. I am talking about pity on your mortal enemy, what has kept people from killing others when the chance had come on, even though that enemy may have done something terrible.

I have posted many sites that have already clarified this: there is no homosexual gene. There are genes that may make a person more likely to be homosexual, but not one that outright causes homosexuality.

Taking on Christianity only limits those things that are a sin. Meaning not to have a talk about something perverse, or becoming involved with some sort of sinful act. Becoming Christian does not at all mean that you cannot be tolerant of homosexuals. Like I said, I've had normal conversations with known homosexuals before, but I disagree with their sexual preferences. Christianity also does not forbid the eating of meat or anything like that at all (except human flesh).

But acting like a kid isn't sinful. What would be a better example is if for all your life you were a thief, stealing things here and there to make life easier for you or people around you. Obviously change would be difficult, as stealing is something you have grown accustomed to and the temptation to would be overwhelming in many instances.

Also, no homosexuals are forced to change (or if they are they shouldn't be).

Rei Zero: And you do suddenly know how wolves think?

[Rei_Zero]

I said we are at a draw, which means that obviously, I also don't know how a wolf thinks.

[Green_Pikachu]

i still find it humorous how people are using the bible as evidence.

just give it 10-15 more years. they'll figure out that homosexuality is genetic. and i will enjoy that day.

[Sorovis]

Rei Zero: Okay, I guess I have to agree on that. All we can really do is study them and make educated guesses on how they think.

Pariah: I still find it humorous how you aren't contributing to the debate in any way whatsoever.

[Green_Pikachu]

Rei Zero: Okay, I guess I have to agree on that. All we can really do is study them and make educated guesses on how they think.

Pariah: I still find it humorous how you aren't contributing to the debate in any way whatsoever.

i already did. i provided good arguments. i'm done arguing. i'll just laugh at you. this debate is pretty much dead, i believe anyway. it was dead the second someone mentioned the bible basically, as if that is important in any way, shape, or form to our lives.

[Heald]

I've just read the last two pages and have concluded that this debate has gone off course completely.

Wolf pack mentality?! Homer's Illiad?!

You people spout a load of bullsh*t. Congratulations.

[Green_Pikachu]

I've just read the last two pages and have concluded that this debate has gone off course completely.

Wolf pack mentality?! Homer's Illiad?!

You people spout a load of bullsh*t. Congratulations.

wait, who the hell brought up the Iliad? And in what context? I'm too lazy to look it up, but I don't see how that factors in at all, and I'm sure whoever brought it in misinterpreted it.