Thanks. Can I have a cookie, teacher? Still, I think homosexuality is one of the biggest "sins" that Christianity (and Islam for the matter) rails on about, but they have yet to provide any rational proof on why it is considered so heinous. If they have an issue with the rampant promiscuous sex between partners, then how is that different from heterosexuals who conduct the same behavior. But in and of itself, I fail to understand how two consenting adults engaged in a loving relationship is anything other than glorious in the eyes of God.
Sure! On this we agree. I do not see anything in the Bible that says that homosexuality is worse than a lot of other things. If the Bible singles out one sin more than any other, I think the prime contestants for that "honor" would be pride and lying. But certainly not homosexuality. Absolutely. I don't think the Bible has any problem with the principle of loving. Personally, I think the Biblical condemnation is based more on considering as "normal" something that might or might not occur spontaneously (the jury is still out on whether or not it is the result of some in-born trait or of conditioning) but which in either case does not correspond to the physical orientation of the sex organs. The Bible also uses physical deformities, that clearly are not the result of anything that can be called "sin," as an illustration of the fact that not everything is "normal." Blindness, for example, can be the result of genetics and does not have to involve any sin on the part of anyone, but is still not "normal" in the sense that the "normal" function of eyes is to see. That, as far as I can see, is about as far as the Bible goes with homosexuality. I certainly don't see any place in the Bible for the "bash the homos" mentality that is popular with certain people who do so in the name of Christianity.
I always thought homosexuality was frowned upon in the bible because it was associated with pagan cultures.
Homosexuality's in there for the same reason the kosher rules are; most of those rules were for keeping them alive and producing in a pre-iron age world.
Wrong. You always have free will to choose as you want, even when the time comes. Only religious dogma tries to frighten people into believing that you don't have any choice in order to control them. The same goes for "sin". It's all a means of controlling the sheeple.
I see Bear's still tilting at windmills for the christian side, even though he's not a christian. Endlessly amusing.
Why? Is being atheistic about the roman gods stupid? Is being atheistic about the tooth fairy stupid? Is being atheistic about the greek gods stupid? Is being atheistic about the egyptian gods stupid? Is being atheistic about father xmas stupid? Then why is it stupid to be atheistic towards the frankly completely unlikely christian god?
No. Although my knowledge is strictly subjective, I *KNOW* the truth of what I believe. Of course, all religious and spiritual truths are strictly subjective and not objective truths.
So, you fully admit to being agnostic when it comes to the existance of the tooth fairy and father xmas, and you want anyone to take you seriously about anything?
That's for me to know. You have to find your own truth, and quit insisting that it applies to others.
Unless it's atheism, fundamentalism, or belief in Santa or any of the dead religions. Then you get to make a rash judgment call. But only if you're Bear.
It's not a secret, it's just NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS. And yes, that would be the nature of a subjective truth... I can only apply it to myself, and not to you. You, however, are taking subjective truth and insisting it's objective truth...which puts you on the same shit level as the Fundies.
Man it must be very bad if you're that worried about explaining it. I dont think there is any objective or subjective truth.
Well, you're saying the origin and nature of the cosmos is a subjective truth. May as well say the law of gravity is subjective to each individual. No gravity for you, eh, Superman?
