[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Actually, I’m a convert to Christianity.[/quote]
That doesn’t mean you haven’t been indoctrinated. I wonder how deeply and seriously you’ve considered that your beliefs may not be grounded in objective reality.
As a Mormon, I would have claimed adamantly that I had objectively considered if the church was true. I sincerely studied it, and deeply believed that God had told me it was the only true church.
Was I right about that?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
Are you claiming you’ve already cast the beam out of your eye?[/quote]
If I want to call my brother out on adulterey, or theft, I can do so without any reservations. The point is to examine yourself. Am I you pointing out my brother’s faults out of malice? Or, hypocrisy?
Or, have I repented and refrained my adulterey or theft myself. Do I point it out to make clear to him what is sinful, so he realizes that he has stepped off the path? I must examine myself and ask if I’m worthy of speaking up against the issue. Otherwise, I risk a scandal. “You said sleeping with my bosse’s wife was sinful, yet your sleeping with your friend’s wife.”
“And then shalt thou see CLEARLY to cast out the mote out of they brother’s eye.”
And my explanation also passes the common sense test when one notices judgements being made against fornicators, homos, etc. That one also can’t instruct others to repent, if they have no idea what kind of behavior that they must repent from, because telling them they’re sinning is a no-no. Etc.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
If I want to call my brother out on adulterey, or theft, I can do so without any reservations. [/quote]
Jesus said, “Let him that is without sin cast the first stone.”
By your logic, Jesus instead would have said, “Let him that is without adultery cast the first stone.”
You are being disingenuous if you claim you can judge someone else if you aren’t guilty of that particular sin. Jesus said that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and that judgment should only be made by one who is sinless.
So unless you are completely free of sin, keep working on that eye beam.
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
The gay relationship is infertile not the person. big difference.
How is it any different from an evolutionary perspective? You said evolution doesn’t support infertility, and I proved you wrong.
For the third time, which you will probably ignore yet again, gays serve an evolutionary function by supporting unwanted children.[/quote]
The ant analogy doesn’t make sense and here is why.
I was off base with stating reproduction is the goal of life. It is a true enough statement in humans as this is the means of passing along your genetic material (the real scientific goal of life).
An ant society is pretty much an immediate family all genetically almost identical. Hence ants can help pass on their genetic identify by furthering the goals of their society as a whole.
Gays supporting society is supporting and helping to pass on a genetic identity that is not their own.
The result of all this is the behavioral differences I alluded to before.
I?m not saying that nothing good comes out of gay society, but if it is a genetic trait it has to be viewed through evolutionary eyes as a defect that should eliminate itself.
The fact that it has existed for so long leads me to believe it isn?t genetically linked.
This doesn?t hold water for bisexuality however. In fact there are primate societies that are entirely bisexual. They will rub genitals as a way to resolve conflict and relieve tension. They still however pass on their genetic material.
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Actually, I’m a convert to Christianity.
That doesn’t mean you haven’t been indoctrinated. I wonder how deeply and seriously you’ve considered that your beliefs may not be grounded in objective reality.
As a Mormon, I would have claimed adamantly that I had objectively considered if the church was true. I sincerely studied it, and deeply believed that God had told me it was the only true church.
Was I right about that?[/quote]
Well I have studied pretty extensively. The reason I know a thing or 2 about Mormons is I invited them to my house to discuss their beliefs and see what they had to offer (I had a church missionary apartment next door).
The first discussion went on for about 4 hours. They cam over about 2 or 3 times a week after that and talked. I read the Book of Mormon and discussed it extensively with them. To determine if they had the truth. I even attended the local Morman church several times.
I even left the church I had been attending because they talked bad about me for even investigating the Mormons and not taking it that they were the devil by their word.
I am currently investigating the Quran, but haven?t gotten too far with it yet.
I for one do not just accept or reject because everyone is doing it. And I try not to toss out any religion or belief without educating myself first.
I’ve done my fair share of investigating my own beliefs, for you to insinuate otherwise is an insult.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
If I want to call my brother out on adulterey, or theft, I can do so without any reservations.
Jesus said, “Let him that is without sin cast the first stone.”
By your logic, Jesus instead would have said, “Let him that is without adultery cast the first stone.”
You are being disingenuous if you claim you can judge someone else if you aren’t guilty of that particular sin. Jesus said that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and that judgment should only be made by one who is sinless.
So unless you are completely free of sin, keep working on that eye beam.[/quote]
You are looking at someone being stoned, not at someone being rebuked or corrected, big difference.
Sexual immorality is a sin therefore.
2 Timothy 3:16
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
If I want to call my brother out on adulterey, or theft, I can do so without any reservations.
Jesus said, “Let him that is without sin cast the first stone.”
By your logic, Jesus instead would have said, “Let him that is without adultery cast the first stone.”
You are being disingenuous if you claim you can judge someone else if you aren’t guilty of that particular sin. Jesus said that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and that judgment should only be made by one who is sinless.
So unless you are completely free of sin, keep working on that eye beam.
You are looking at someone being stoned, not at someone being rebuked or corrected, big difference.
Sexual immorality is a sin therefore.
2 Timothy 3:16
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,[/quote]
Once again judge actions, not people.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
If I want to call my brother out on adulterey, or theft, I can do so without any reservations.
Jesus said, “Let him that is without sin cast the first stone.”
By your logic, Jesus instead would have said, “Let him that is without adultery cast the first stone.”
You are being disingenuous if you claim you can judge someone else if you aren’t guilty of that particular sin. Jesus said that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and that judgment should only be made by one who is sinless.
So unless you are completely free of sin, keep working on that eye beam.[/quote]
Um, I can judge that someone is sinning by carrying on as a homosexual, because homosexuality is a sin. I can’t judge the final destination of their soul, though I can warn them. I can’t PUNISH them for sins that harm themselves (thus no stoning for adultery). By I can point out their actions are sinful.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
2 Timothy 3:16
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,[/quote]
Shh. It’s shoots his understanding of Christianity right out of the water.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
An ant society is pretty much an immediate family all genetically almost identical. Hence ants can help pass on their genetic identify by furthering the goals of their society as a whole.
Gays supporting society is supporting and helping to pass on a genetic identity that is not their own.[/quote]
Still, it contributes to the survival of the species.
Regardless, you asked why homosexuality hasn’t been phased out. That it has existed among humans and among hundreds of animal species for the duration of recorded history is pretty good evidence that it isn’t going anywhere.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I for one do not just accept or reject because everyone is doing it. And I try not to toss out any religion or belief without educating myself first.
I’ve done my fair share of investigating my own beliefs, for you to insinuate otherwise is an insult.[/quote]
Not an insult, just a comment on human nature. The vast majority of people rarely question their faith beyond the surface level. The idea that there is no “god”, no divine purpose, and no afterlife is so frightening that most are unwilling to consider it might actually be true.
Meanwhile, people waste the one life they do have following fairy tales. It’s sad to me, but I support it as long as they don’t hurt others in the process.
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
An ant society is pretty much an immediate family all genetically almost identical. Hence ants can help pass on their genetic identify by furthering the goals of their society as a whole.
Gays supporting society is supporting and helping to pass on a genetic identity that is not their own.
Still, it contributes to the survival of the species.
Regardless, you asked why homosexuality hasn’t been phased out. That it has existed among humans and among hundreds of animal species for the duration of recorded history is pretty good evidence that it isn’t going anywhere.[/quote]
That wasn’t my point at all. I never said it was going anywhere. I was arguing that it is an unnatural defect brought about by choice and environment. Which supports the theory that the gay culture does indeed damage other people.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Um, I can judge that someone is sinning by carrying on as a homosexual, because homosexuality is a sin. I can’t judge the final destination of their soul, though I can warn them. I can’t PUNISH them for sins that harm themselves (thus no stoning for adultery). By I can point out their actions are sinful.[/quote]
What about legislating your religious beliefs on others by, let’s say, making homosexuality illegal or refusing to grant marriage rights to gays?
Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and unto God that which is God’s.
In other words, keep your beliefs to your churches and out of the courthouse.
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I for one do not just accept or reject because everyone is doing it. And I try not to toss out any religion or belief without educating myself first.
I’ve done my fair share of investigating my own beliefs, for you to insinuate otherwise is an insult.
Not an insult, just a comment on human nature. The vast majority of people rarely question their faith beyond the surface level. The idea that there is no “god”, no divine purpose, and no afterlife is so frightening that most are unwilling to consider it might actually be true.
Meanwhile, people waste the one life they do have following fairy tales. It’s sad to me, but I support it as long as they don’t hurt others in the process.[/quote]
I continue to search for truth. I figure if Christianity is indeed the full truth, my research should indeed reaffirm my beliefs.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
That wasn’t my point at all. I never said it was going anywhere. I was arguing that it is an unnatural defect brought about by choice and environment. Which supports the theory that the gay culture does indeed damage other people.[/quote]
Whatever, I’m sick of talking to assholes that tell me I’m a defect.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Um, I can judge that someone is sinning by carrying on as a homosexual, because homosexuality is a sin. I can’t judge the final destination of their soul, though I can warn them. I can’t PUNISH them for sins that harm themselves (thus no stoning for adultery). By I can point out their actions are sinful.
What about legislating your religious beliefs on others by, let’s say, making homosexuality illegal or refusing to grant marriage rights to gays?
Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and unto God that which is God’s.
In other words, keep your beliefs to your churches and out of the courthouse.[/quote]
Wow, that is an interesting take on that passage about taxes. I’d like to hear the logical steps that lead to that interpretation.
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
That wasn’t my point at all. I never said it was going anywhere. I was arguing that it is an unnatural defect brought about by choice and environment. Which supports the theory that the gay culture does indeed damage other people.
Whatever, I’m sick of talking to assholes that tell me I’m a defect.
[/quote]
Actually, I was just saying I don’t think there is anything wrong with you genetically.
I thought you just said I was a defect due to my choice and the environment. If someone called you a defect, would you not take that as a personal insult?
[quote]forlife wrote:
I thought you just said I was a defect due to my choice and the environment. If someone called you a defect, would you not take that as a personal insult?[/quote]
I do think homosexuality is wrong. I don’t think that it is necessarily your fault, or even that you can at this point change.
I was also speaking scientifically, on a genetic level. By the same token, people who adopt are scientifically unjustifiable.
And once again, I don’t think you are a defect, only your actions.
I think God has a purpose for everyone in the end. If thats the case, no person can be a defect.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Um, I can judge that someone is sinning by carrying on as a homosexual, because homosexuality is a sin. I can’t judge the final destination of their soul, though I can warn them. I can’t PUNISH them for sins that harm themselves (thus no stoning for adultery). By I can point out their actions are sinful.
What about legislating your religious beliefs on others by, let’s say, making homosexuality illegal or refusing to grant marriage rights to gays?
Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and unto God that which is God’s.
In other words, keep your beliefs to your churches and out of the courthouse.[/quote]
Ok, this is a different question. There is a difference between me saying something is a sin, and me believing that I have the right to physically punish someone for sinning. I don’t. In the legal sense, I’m more libertarian than conservative.
I don’t want the prostitute arrested. I don’t want the homosexual behind bars. I don’t want the drug user or pusher behind bars.