What do you believe in?

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Deus Ex Machina [/i]
[B] I believe the whole Adam and Eve thing. I don't care whether it was meant exactly as that, or just as symbolism for something different. Or maybe it was just a lot easier to chew than evolution at the time that Genesis was written. Either way I believe that the scripture is true in some respects, whether I know what they are or not. [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=#507AAC]At the time when Genesis was written, man had no knowledge of evolution. Nor did he have knowledge that the world was round and not flat.

The Adam and Eve thing didn't happen in a literal sense. It couldn't have. Genesis, as the bible puts it, could not have happened in a literal sense. There is too much scientific information to the contrary. You know as well as most people with basic scientific knowledge that the process of evolution exists and that without it, we wouldn't even have doctors. You need to have a basic understanding of evolution to become any sort of biologist or doctor. It's as simple as that.

People who try to discredit evolution (Creation "scientists" and lay individuals) are people who are either not scientifically literate, or who [i]do[/i] know better but are simultaneously pushing an extremist religious agenda.

So, if I were a Christian, I would not take Adam and Eve literally. I'd take it in one of two ways:

1) Either Adam and Eve is merely a story designed to provide examples and religious teachings or;

2) Adam and Eve is a metaphor for mankind's development over millions of years -- if you think about it, this is quite a possible explanation.

In fact, I believe that science and religion [i]can[/i] be very intertwined. People get defensive one way or the other, but they need not be. It [i]is[/i] possible to accept that God has intelligently designed the process of evolution and natural development, with specific intentions and goals in mind. In fact, I'd say that the theory of intelligent design sits quite well with the knowledge mankind has of evolution and its various processes.

People who can embrace both are, in my opinion, truly getting a three dimensional view. It is only when you deny scientific fact that you start getting into more dangerous extremist territory (especially if you're someone who should know better, unlike the lay individual).

And...Revenge...I would still really like it if you would put more clarity into your posts. It also would not hurt to quote things a bit more clearly.[/color]

[REVENGE2]

Er...damn.

You don't know how hard it is. I dunno, they make sense to ME.

Grr. Arg.

[Sara]

[size=1]It really only takes about twelve seconds to bold the text you're quoting, and people are much more likely to read and make sense of your posts, then. Especially, since you're always arguing, you often sound like you're contradicting yourself.

[b]On topic:[/b] I believe in Evolution...[i]and[/i] Creation, simply because that's the thing that..well...makes the most sense to me. I've heard it termed 'Continuing Evolution,' as opposed to 'Original Evolution.'

It bugs me that some of my Christian friends won't accept what I believe, like I've 'betrayed' Christianity. Please. This goes back to 'choosing a religion to fit your beliefs' vs 'choosing beliefs to fit your religion.' [i]I[/i] prefer the first. And it's honestly not that big of a deal.

I guess the reason I can't accept evolution has to do with the way I was raised. I was brought up on Sunday School stories, had tests on the what God created on each day, and other stuff. And It was fine for me, for a long time. In a way, it still is..

But I'm upset, partly because I've gone to parochial school most of my life, that I've never really been introduced to other theories/religions. So, frankly, I can't comprehend them.

The world was made in six days? Gotcha.

Big Bang theory? Wha?!

If I'd been taught it, I'd probably embrace it. As it is, I've been taught differently, and I don't think I could really change if I wanted to.[/size]

[REVENGE2]

SARA:

What does "Continuing Evolution" entail? Is it:

Yahweh set down some prototypes of life on Earth (i.e., single celled oganisms) and then let evolution take it's course?

I've given that a few moments of my time before. Didn't like it after I thought long enough, but it's the only form of Yahweh actually existing that I'll except.

***

Off topic: Want to see a neat trick?

Okay, first off, the Bible says that God breathed life into man, right? Here's something funky.

What is the origonal name for God? When romanised, it's Yahweh, but technicly, it should be spelled YHWH, as Hebrew has no vowles.

Well, try to pronounce "YHWH" litteraly, without any vowles. Just YH, then WH.

Sounds like breathing, doesn't it? My dad pointed that out to me.

[Charles]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by REVENGE2 [/i]
[B]What is the origonal name for God? When romanised, it's Yahweh, but technicly, it should be spelled YHWH, as Hebrew has no vowles. [/B][/QUOTE]

It's interesting that you bring up Yarway. I've always thought that Yarway seemed like an entirely different character than the Christian God that apppears in the New Testament. In the old testament he seemed anthropomorphic, walking through the Garden of Eden, enjoying the cool breeze--entirely different that the God that appears in Job.

Oddly enough, he wasn't omniscient either; he didn't know where Adam and Eve were hiding and didn't know that they had tasted the forbidden fruit until after he noticed that they had covered themselves up. Of course, like other classics sex began civilization and separation from nature. I found it interesting too, how the Yarway version of God feared man actually obtaining the power of the Gods through tasting the fruit of immortality.

I'm not arguing with anything you said this time, just building off it with my own interpretations and beliefs. :cool:

[Dan L]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by REVENGE2 [/i]
[B]As for Adam, Eve, Caine, and Abel, apparantly everyone thinks that they were the only humans around at the time despite what I've refferanced. Maybe I've refferanced a differant version of the Bible? It's possible. Regardless, here's a question for the idea that they were the only humans - Adam and Eve had two sons, Caine and Abel. Now, one of the two could have reproduced with Eve (this is survival of the species we're talking about here, so don't say 'that's sick'). However, Caine killed Abel, and then Caine was banished into the Land of Nod. Thus, who was around to create a new race? By the time Adam and Eve had sired another pair, or even just a single son or daughter, both would have become too old to raise them, and all three/four/five/however many would have died (Keep in mind that back then, you were considered an old man if you were 35). [/B][/QUOTE]

Funnily enough I've thought about this. There's a lot of difference between different translations of that chapter where Adam is created. Some translations say "God created man out of soil" whereas some say "God created [i]a[/i] man out of soil." Personally, I'm not sure if Adam actually was the first man. Nowhere in Genesis is it explicitly stated "Adam was the first man", and the Bible does tend to be extremely specific about that sort of thing. All it says is that Adam was made in the Garden of Eden, and Eve was made for his wife. Nothing is ever mentioned as to the possibility of people existing outside the Garden of Eden before that time. A lot of people won't necessarily agree with me on that one, and I'm not really sure whether I agree with it myself, all I know is I find it hard to accept that all Adam's descendants would pair off with either their mother or their sisters.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i]
[B][color=#507AAC]The Adam and Eve thing didn't happen in a literal sense. It couldn't have. Genesis, as the bible puts it, could not have happened in a literal sense. There is too much scientific information to the contrary. You know as well as most people with basic scientific knowledge that the process of evolution exists and that without it, we wouldn't even have doctors. You need to have a basic understanding of evolution to become any sort of biologist or doctor. It's as simple as that.[/B][/QUOTE]

My above point (replying to Revenge) is pretty much where I stand on that matter

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i]
[B][color=#507AAC]So, if I were a Christian, I would not take Adam and Eve literally. I'd take it in one of two ways:

1) Either Adam and Eve is merely a story designed to provide examples and religious teachings or;

2) Adam and Eve is a metaphor for mankind's development over millions of years -- if you think about it, this is quite a possible explanation.

In fact, I believe that science and religion [i]can[/i] be very intertwined. People get defensive one way or the other, but they need not be. It [i]is[/i] possible to accept that God has intelligently designed the process of evolution and natural development, with specific intentions and goals in mind. In fact, I'd say that the theory of intelligent design sits quite well with the knowledge mankind has of evolution and its various processes.

People who can embrace both are, in my opinion, truly getting a three dimensional view. It is only when you deny scientific fact that you start getting into more dangerous extremist territory (especially if you're someone who should know better, unlike the lay individual).[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

heh.. I remember this discussion, we've had it before.. and yeah I completely agree with you but from a believing the Bible point of view. I've been raised as a non-Christian, evolutionist for far too long to completely discount evolution. What I meant in my last post is that yes, I'm sure evolution is true, but I'm not discounting the whole Adam and Eve story, whether it's symbolism or if it really happened. I have a bible open to the book of genesis right now.. it says the following:

"the Lord God took some soil and formed a man out of it, he breathed life-giving breath into his nostrils and the man began to live"

it does not say "This was the first man ever created".. and the Bible tends to be very specific about that sort of thing (as anyone who has read it should know). It has merely been assumed that that was implied.

Another thing which bothers me is the fact that it clearly says "on the seventh day God created human beings" in the chapter before it talks about the Garden of Eden. This bothered me a while ago, and led me to think that maybe Adam was the first human being in his genetic lineage, (assuming he was created as described) but that there were other humans in existence at the time, which were just never in the Garden of Eden, as they weren't created to be there.

I dunno.. it's all very odd and more of a possible personal view of things (only "possible" cos I'm not sure of it), than an actual personal belief.


[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Sara [/i]
[B][size=1]I guess the reason I can't accept evolution has to do with the way I was raised. I was brought up on Sunday School stories, had tests on the what God created on each day, and other stuff. And It was fine for me, for a long time. In a way, it still is..

But I'm upset, partly because I've gone to parochial school most of my life, that I've never really been introduced to other theories/religions. So, frankly, I can't comprehend them.

The world was made in six days? Gotcha.

Big Bang theory? Wha?!

If I'd been taught it, I'd probably embrace it. As it is, I've been taught differently, and I don't think I could really change if I wanted to.[/size] [/B][/QUOTE]

I come from a different perspective entirely. I spent up to the age of 11 in a church primary school. The church primary schools here though tend to only be affiliated to the church, not necessarily teaching the whole christian belief as if it were fact. I believed in God until I was about 7, when I asked my dad if he did. Being the young kid I was, I just adopted his belief that there was no God, but I really wanted to believe it.

As I said, they didn't teach the christian faith in detail at the schol, but they did just enough to make me half-think the world was made in seven days, due to lack of any other input. Then in high school (which goes from age 11-16 here) I was taught about evolution and the big-bang theor, which I took to heart. The thing is, though I still accept evolution and the big bang theory, being in a church school for my early years makes me less rejective towards the first few chapters of the book of genesis, and I find that I can easily find a kind of middle ground where both my scientific side and my "believe what is written" are satisfied, without compromising either of them.

I do think it's a shame though that so many people are taught such a limited view of things, which means that when they eventually are taught, or come acroos new things, it seems to go against everything you know, and causes a conflict which results mostly in people either rejecting every new idea they come across, or slowly rejecting the old one because they were taught that it was a very black and white kind of thing.

I think my point is: it's hard to break away from what's familiar to you, especially when it's been engraved on your mind from an early age. It's possible for anyone to change their view on things, but it's difficult to keep the old as well as embrace the new.

[James]

[color=#507AAC]America is sort of in a weird situation because Creatonist organizations and the religeous right in general have blocked evolution from being taught in schools.

I find it funny when people say that they don't "believe" in evolution. Evolution is not religion -- it is scientific fact. You can either accept a fact and its supporting evidence or you can choose to ignore it.

Now, having said that...a lot of people [i]haven't[/i] been adequately educated on the subject. As I've said before though, throughout most of the world, evolution is taught as a component in both science education as well as specific courses on biology and genetics.

Also, as I've also said, many who criticize evolution are either people who don't undertand it (the lay individual) or people who have a hidden agenda and who can't afford to understand or promote scientific fact.

So, certainly...if you've never had a proper scientific education, it's probably easy to discount evolution. Especially since what you know about it is probably what you've heard from those who have an interest in discrediting science.

On the most basic level, any doctor, biologist, geologist etc will tell you that the world is several billion years old and that life has evolved over more than a billion years (or about a quarter of the Earth's lifespan). This is [i]fact[/i]. There are many, many scientific methods for accurately dating the Earth (specifically in the field of geology). And some cultures have records that extend far beyond the 6000 years cited by the Bible (there is evidence that Australian aborigines' culture stretches back some 40,000 years). Not to mention ancient Egyptian society which stretches back anywhere from 7,000 to 12,000 years.

But anyway, most of that is kind of beside the point.

Deus makes a really good comment toward the end of his post. And it makes me wish that you (Sara) would go hunting for Telling Lies for God by Dr. Ian Plimer. You are just the person who should be reading it, in my opinion.

The great thing about the book is that it explains why Creationism is actually [i]contradictory[/i] to mainstream religion. And why, ideally, one can (and should) accept the factual science surrounding evolution whilst also embracing their religious beliefs.

That's the beauty of being educated on both evolution and religion; you will actually find that the facts of evolution are far more wonderous and beautiful than any synthetic man-made story that you find in much of Genesis. And ultimately, as I've said earlier...you can accept the facts of evolution whilst also taking the view that God is responsible for intelligent design. There are many scientists who actively study evolution (did you know that you can't even find oil without evolution? There's a whole section in the book I mentioned earlier which talks about how evolution plays a role in choosing appropriate drilling sites, due to fossil records or something...I forget, but it was very interesting). And many of those scientists are [i]also[/i] religious and believe in intelligent design.

I think it's quite healthy to be able to study science whilst also believing that God is [i]responsible[/i] for the wonderful complexity and perfect inner workings of natural science.

(Note: Sorry if this post was a bit sloppy -- it's late here and I was pushing a few thoughts out there lol).[/color]

[Juu]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i]
[B][color=#507AAC]America is sort of in a weird situation because Creatonist organizations and the religeous right in general have blocked evolution from being taught in schools.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=deeppink] [size=1]They...have? oO
We're learning about Austrolopithicus/Homo Habilis/Homo Sapiens/Cro-Magnons right now... (I forgot one.. u.u)

Does that count as Evolution? ^_^; I knew for some reason, it was weird how they weren't teaching us that stuff...[/color] [/size]

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Juuthena [/i]
[B][color=deeppink] [size=1]They...have? oO
We're learning about Austrolopithicus/Homo Habilis/Homo Sapiens/Cro-Magnons right now... (I forgot one.. u.u)

Does that count as Evolution? ^_^; I knew for some reason, it was weird how they weren't teaching us that stuff...[/color] [/size] [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=#507AAC]They sure have. This is why the United States is just about the only civilized nation in the world that doesn't include evolution as standard in various high school science courses.

But the Creation "science" organizations and the fraud they frequently practice is, again, slightly beside the point. I don't want to us to really go off on too many tangents here.

But anyway, it sounds to me like you [i]are[/i] learning something about evolution, which is good. And really, even if you don't get taught evolution in any major way, you [i]will[/i] learn it in an indirect way.

For example, in biology you might learn that viruses are living organisms which, over time, have become resistant to human antibiotics. And guess what that is? Yep, a process of evolution.

The virus builds a resistance to antibiotics as each generation passes. This is actually potentially causing a huge problem -- some medical organizations have projected that within twenty years, most antibiotics will be nearly ineffective.

And so, that is why there is an effort to continually develop new forms of antibiotics. We develop a new form, viruses evolve to compete with it and resist it. And the cycle of life continues. ^_^[/color]

[Mnemolth]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Shyguy [/i]
[B][size=1]I don't believe in god, I [i]can't[/i] believe in god. At least not the Christian/Catholic/Whatever/etc. "God". Doing so would give into the belief that I am going to suffer eternal punishment, regardless of what kind of person I am, because of a lifestyle choice.
[/size] [/B][/QUOTE]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'lifestyle choice'. No one that I personally know who are gay have ever considered their sexuality as a 'lifestyle choice'. That's something usually framed by others to describe them.

As for the incompatibility of Christianity and homosexuality, I'd say this. There are those that continue to be gay and remain Christian. I assume it would not be easy. And how they are able to manage it I'm not sure. But maybe you can ask them? ;)

[Duo Maxwell]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by REVENGE2 [/i]
[B]-Then what happened with your precious 'order' brought about by dear oh dear Yahweh after Rome fell? Let me quote something:
"NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!" - Monty Python

That's right! How many died at the hands of the Inquisition?! HUH?! How many pagans, how many innocents...for crying out loud, the Inquisition burned the JEWISH, to whome they owed their entire relgion!
If this was a mere hundred-year thing, I could understand. but NO. When did Rome fall? Doesn't matter. The point is, it went on for HUNDREDS of years! Do you know when the last official burning of a pagan was? Around 1912.
As if that wasn't enough, Christians weren't satisfide with simply ahnialating the former glories of Europe's relgions. They have gone from place to place, trying to destroy the founding relgions which kept 'order' there for so long![/B][/QUOTE]

When I read this it reminded me of a conversation I had a while back, it was about my former feelings towards Germans.
And during it one person said to me:
"Mo-Chan, have you ever heard of the "Holy" Crusades.. what I mean is, times when Christians have gone around slaughtering Muslims and such, just because they (the Christians) have a grudge against them. If you're gonna dismiss all Germans because some of them followed Hitler, you'll have to dismiss all Christians cos some used to do that"

Now as a Christian I never thought of the past actions of fellow Christians because it was further in the past than WWII, but I beleive that God was speaking through him when he told me this because I'm an ignorant and hypocritical person, and I reckon that God was trying to tell me that I shouldn't judge pople for one person's mistakes. Even so I still had to take time off and think things through and prioratize them, but mainly it comes down to it that I changed my veiws because I didn't want to turn my back on my beleifs and religion.
But even though I'm a christian I don't always beleive some of the things in the bible, and it doesn't make me any less a christian. I don't always ask for forgiveness from the Lord, because I beleive that just praying and asking for it isn't enough. I learnt from my Mother (and an anime series) that if you have sinned and done so willingly but know its wrong you should spend most of your time repenting for it; like if you were in a major car crash because of drunk driving, voulenteer to do some social work and help out in the comunity or voulenteer to work at an "Alcohol Awareness" type company, thus trying to make up for your mistake and more than deserve forgiveness.

[Defcon5]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Mnemolth [/i]
[B]I'm not sure what you mean by 'lifestyle choice'. No one that I personally know who are gay have ever considered their sexuality as a 'lifestyle choice'. That's something usually framed by others to describe them.

As for the incompatibility of Christianity and homosexuality, I'd say this. There are those that continue to be gay and remain Christian. I assume it would not be easy. And how they are able to manage it I'm not sure. But maybe you can ask them? ;) [/B][/QUOTE]


I don't see why it would be so hard to be gay and be a christian. A lot of people tend to get the wrong impression about the church and homosexuals. The church finds nothing wrong with them. In fact it says in the caticisum of the Catholic church that homosexuals were born that way and God calls them to be celebent (sp?) and that they should in no way be discrimanated against.

[wrist cutter]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i]
[B]They sure have.[/B][/QUOTE]

Interesting... I started learning about evolution in 6th grade in science. And I know others who have told me about learning it in school too.

[Roxie Faye]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Duo Maxwell [/i]
[B]When I read this it reminded me of a conversation I had a while back, it was about my former feelings towards Germans.
And during it one person said to me:
"Mo-Chan, have you ever heard of the "Holy" Crusades.. what I mean is, times when Christians have gone around slaughtering Muslims and such, just because they (the Christians) have a grudge against them. If you're gonna dismiss all Germans because some of them followed Hitler, you'll have to dismiss all Christians cos some used to do that"[/B][/QUOTE]

[color=#9933ff]:eek: WHAT!?!?!?!? I hate to burst your bubble, but during the Holy Crusades, the MUSLIMS attacked the Christians. It doesn't change the principle you're trying to prove(that you shouldn't hate everyone in a particular group just because of a few selected people's bad choices), but I just thought I'd like to correct the actual facts in there. ;)[/color]

[Sara]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i]
[B][color=#507AAC]Deus makes a really good comment toward the end of his post. And it makes me wish that you (Sara) would go hunting for Telling Lies for God by Dr. Ian Plimer. You are just the person who should be reading it, in my opinion.

I think it's quite healthy to be able to study science whilst also believing that God is [i]responsible[/i] for the wonderful complexity and perfect inner workings of natural science.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE] [SIZE=1]Point One: I've been keeping my eyes open for it for a year and a half, James. ;)

Point Two: See, now...[i]that[/i] is something that makes sense to me. ^_^[/SIZE]

[Mnemolth]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Defcon5 [/i]
[B]I don't see why it would be so hard to be gay and be a christian. A lot of people tend to get the wrong impression about the church and homosexuals. The church finds nothing wrong with them. In fact it says in the caticisum of the Catholic church that homosexuals were born that way and God calls them to be celebent (sp?) and that they should in no way be discrimanated against. [/B][/QUOTE]

Celebent? If you mean celibate, well, that doesn't really work does it? ;)

I mean it'd be like saying the Church accepts straight men, provided they were neutered. I'm not sure how many hetereosexual men would tolerate that kind of 'acceptance'... :D

[Defcon5]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Mnemolth [/i]
[B]Celebent? If you mean celibate, well, that doesn't really work does it? ;)

I mean it'd be like saying the Church accepts straight men, provided they were neutered. I'm not sure how many hetereosexual men would tolerate that kind of 'acceptance'... :D [/B][/QUOTE]

Every single person is called to that also. So are priests and nuns. Just because you can't have sex doesn't mean it's the end of the world.

[Tasrai]

[COLOR=green]Mine is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, aka the Mormons or LDS.

And yes, to people who don't know if we are or are not, we ARE Christians.[/COLOR]

[Shy]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Mnemolth [/i]
[B]Celebent? If you mean celibate, well, that doesn't really work does it? ;)

I mean it'd be like saying the Church accepts straight men, provided they were neutered. I'm not sure how many hetereosexual men would tolerate that kind of 'acceptance'... :D [/B][/QUOTE]
[size=1]Exactly.

(I didn't want to post again in this, mainly because I don't know very much about Theology, or whatnot. But it seems that I have sparked a debate of sorts, bleh.)[/size]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by deus Ex Machina[/i]
Not really. That's a very common opinion. it's also logically drawn from scripture. But at the same time it's taught that we all live sinful lives, whether it's little things or big things, and the "big" things are really no bigger than the little things.

My logic goes something like this:

Even vicars have done things wrong sometimes. If they deny it, then they're doing even more wrong.

Everything you could do wrong is not considered any worse by God than what a "better" person may have done.

No matter what your choice of lifestyle, you're always able to be accepted.

I know what you're saying, Shy.. it's a very common belief among Christians that homosexuals are doomed to hell.. but that's because they only focus on the fact that they consider it a sin, rather than the fact that the sins are forgiven. I'm not gonna preach saying "you're living a life of sin", because that's not for me to decide. All I'm gonna say is that I believe strongly that anyone-- even someone as bad as Adolf Hitler, could have been, and maybe even has been forgiven for what they've done. I don't think you're anywhere near that bad, so no matter how you choose to live, you can never be denied your right to acceptance.
[/QUOTE]
[size=1]Eh, if I had a nickel for every time me and Adolf Hitler were put in the same paragraph...

My initial problem is that I don't see anything wrong with "it", that is why I can't accept Christianity's "You are a sinner, but we love you anyway" mentality. The Bible seems like it can be interpreted in a million different ways, and that bothers me too. Thanks for responding, I need to PM you one of these days, heh.[/size]

[QUOTE][i]Mnemolth, again...[/i]
I'm not sure what you mean by 'lifestyle choice'. No one that I personally know who are gay have ever considered their sexuality as a 'lifestyle choice'. That's something usually framed by others to describe them.[/QUOTE]
[size=1]I wouldn't really know, seeing as I don't have any gay friends. Really, I'm trying to figure certain things out on my own, but that usually doesn't work out. I worded it as "lifestyle choice" because that is what I think of it as, not because society is holding me back or anything.[/size]

[quote][i]Ditto...[/i]
As for the incompatibility of Christianity and homosexuality, I'd say this. There are those that continue to be gay and remain Christian. I assume it would not be easy. And how they are able to manage it I'm not sure. But maybe you can ask them? ;)[/quote]
[size=1][strike]But aren't there muderers and rapists who consider themselves to be Christian?[/strike]

Yes, I would also like to know how they manage that. It seems a little odd combining the two together, but who am I to judge?[/size]

[quote][i]Originally posted by Defcon[/i]
Every single person is called to that also. So are priests and nuns. Just because you can't have sex doesn't mean it's the end of the world.[/quote]
[size=1]The kind of faith the "average" priest has is probably nowhere near that of an "average" Christian. Asking every homosexual worshipper to remain celibate seems ridiculous.

-Shy[/size]

[James]

[color=#507AAC]Besides, I've always thought that if God hated homosexuals, he should not create them in the first place.

This whole "hate the sin" business is rubbish. It's an excuse for biggotry, in my opinion.

My point is, much of this is about interpretation. Someone who is inherently biggoted or homophobic is going to find a way of interpreting the Bible (or any religious scripture) and using it as a justification.

Deus also makes a good point; under the religion of Christianity, it [i]is not[/i] for man to judge man. God judges man. But many Christians seem to forget this concept.

Still, as I said...it brings me back to my original point: if God didn't like homosexuals, he would not bring them into the world in the first place. Of course, it's convenient to forget this basic idea.[/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Sara [/i]
[B][SIZE=1]
Point Two: See, now...[i]that[/i] is something that makes sense to me. ^_^[/SIZE] [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=#507AAC]Exactly. I think sometimes when I defend science, some people take that as a condemnation of religion in general.

But that's not true.

I'm saying that you don't have to have a fight between scientific facts and religion -- you can combine both and live quite comfortably doing so. And really, most people do. As I said, the Pope himself passed a ruling on evolution in 1989. If the Pope can live with science and religion, I don't see why other Christians can't.

And wrist cutter: I'm not saying that [i]all[/i] people in America don't learn about evolution in schools. I hope I never implied it. What I'm saying is that Creation science is often seen as [i]legitimate[/i] in the USA. Whereas here, it can't be taught in schools because it is "junk science", which is true. So I hope that clarifies what I was trying to say.[/color]

[Duo Maxwell]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by MistressRoxie [/i]
[B][color=#9933ff]:eek: WHAT!?!?!?!? I hate to burst your bubble, but during the Holy Crusades, the MUSLIMS attacked the Christians. It doesn't change the principle you're trying to prove(that you shouldn't hate everyone in a particular group just because of a few selected people's bad choices), but I just thought I'd like to correct the actual facts in there. ;)[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

That's what I mean though but I was just quoting what was said to me, everyone has done something wrong to others, like Japan bombing peral harbour, or America dropping the atom bomb, even Australia with the stolen generation so don't you think that Revenge should learn to forgive and forget to be abale to live in today's society.

[REVENGE2]

[quote]
Origonaly posted by MistressRoxie:
WHAT!?!?!?!? I hate to burst your bubble, but during the Holy Crusades, the MUSLIMS attacked the Christians. It doesn't change the principle you're trying to prove(that you shouldn't hate everyone in a particular group just because of a few selected people's bad choices), but I just thought I'd like to correct the actual facts in there.[/quote]

Did you learn that from the Chris DeBurg song "Crusade?" It's a great song, one of my personal favorites, but it is so incorrect that it makes me saying "I am a Christian" seem like a Golden Truth. Too much of it is incorrect.

***

Check some history.

The Crusades, the first one, was started for one reason: to bring peace to Europe by taking the war someplace else. If you check your history, you'll find someone, I forget who but I'm betting it was a Pope, one day said to a king "The Muslims have taken out holy land, pass it on". The guy's idea was this: Europe was so wracked with war that the simplest way to end it was to take most of the able-bodied people in Europe and move them someplace else. Thus, the wars started.

Now, the Muslims had not 'stolen' the Holy Land from the Europeans. First, it was theres to begin with through rights of inheritance (they had owned that land for as long as even the eldest of them could remember and longer) and secondly, they had no problems with letting Europeans in. You see, traveling Europeans comming to Jerusalem to pray to their Lord would need a place to stay, food to eat, and clothes to wear. Jerusalem was a gold mine! The Muslims were happy to let them in.

When King Richard the Lionheart attacked Jerusalem, he caught the Muslims completely off-guard, after all, no one expected Europe to unite. (The line in the Crusade "They quarrel to much, the Christians could never unite!" was, is, and probably always will be true). Using his armies and seige engins, King Richard managed to grab Jerusalem for only a few years, if that.

Next, Saladin, the Muslim leader of the time, is not the great slob every Christian believes he is. he was, instead, a brilliant lord and war-leader. He re-took Jerusalem and drove the Christians away from the lands that were his by right, and to the end of his days he probably had to fight of the "Damn Dirty Christians!". Not a nice way to spend your days and nights, driving off religious fanatics who have no right to try and attack you.

***

Just thought I'd correct you.

***

Also...I don't mind Christians today, as I said. Many of my freinds ARE Christians. However, I cannot and will never forgive the Christians which caused the fall of Rome. I mean...ROME! Let's put it this way: How much can of what we have today can be traced back to the Shang, or Yamato, or Choson, or Native Americans. With all due respect to those cultures - next to ntohing, if anything. How much can be traced back to the Greeks, Hebrews, Persians, and Phoenecians? Almost everything. And who controled the Greeks, Hebrews, Persians, and Phoenecians? You've got it - Rome. Go Rome!

[i]Hail Caesar! Hail Caesar![/i]

***

>>>EDIT<<<

Also, I DO have two bisexual freinds, so I'm obviously pro-homosexuality if it's your choice. Which it sometimes is, and sometimes isn't. You simply get what the fates deal. As far as I know, though the entire argument Christians have against Homosexuality is a line somewhere, I think in Revelations, that says "Trust not a man who lies with another man".

I'd like to take the time to point out two other lines in the Bible:

"Thou shalt not kill"

"Suffer not a Witch to live"

...ah...ha.

Case closed.

[Defcon5]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Shyguy [/i]
[B][size=1]


[size=1]The kind of faith the "average" priest has is probably nowhere near that of an "average" Christian. Asking every homosexual worshipper to remain celibate seems ridiculous.

-Shy[/size] [/B][/QUOTE]

What about all the single lay people in the church? There are many of those, they too are called to remain celibate. Wouldn't you also think that if God called them to remain celibate, knowing how hard it is to do that, that he thinks highly of them? That he thinks that they are capable of it?


JAMES

That's exactly what i've been triyng to say. God does NOT hate homosexuals. He actually holds them in high regard.

[Shy]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Defcon5 [/i]
[B]What about all the single lay people in the church? There are many of those, they too are called to remain celibate. Wouldn't you also think that if God called them to remain celibate, knowing how hard it is to do that, that he thinks highly of them? That he thinks that they are capable of it?[/B][/QUOTE]

[size=1]I'm not even sure what point you are trying to make. I never said that God questioned the faith of his homosexual worshippers. Ack, I have a headache now...

-Shy[/size]

[Defcon5]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Shyguy [/i]
[B][size=1]I'm not even sure what point you are trying to make. I never said that God questioned the faith of his homosexual worshippers. Ack, I have a headache now...

-Shy[/size] [/B][/QUOTE]

What i'm trying to say is God doesn't just ask homosexuals to remaine free of sex, he also asks straight lay people to do the same. He isn't asking them to do anything extra special just because there homosexual. And that God wouldn't ask that of them if he didn't believe that they could do it.

Sorry for the headache. (Tosses Shyguy a bottle of IB profin)