Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

why did god create cancer?

1…68101112

Comments

  • #212
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Sorry, when I said 'biologically', I meant that only a man and a woman can reproduce together naturally. Morality and God aside, this fact is probably the biggest indication of a normal/natural sexuality.

    Well evolutionary biology would seem to suggest otherwise.

    Homosexuality appears to serve an evolutionary purpose in the wider societal structure of social animals, including humans. Not only does it appear to be "normal" for social animals to evolve homosexuality as a trait effecting some of the population, but it appears to give benefit to those societies. One example, female relatives of homosexual men appear to have significantly higher fertility rate than female relatives of heterosexual men, due to shared genes.

    The idea that it is not normal because it rules out reproduction is quite short sighted. If that was the case it would not be normal for an animal to instinctively risk death while protecting it's siblings or parents (as many social animals including humans, do) as death rules out the animals own reproduction. But I think few would suggest that it is not normal for an animal such as a human to instinctively risk death to save one's brother or sister.

    Homosexuality appears to be a perfectly normal biological trait that evolution has kept around because it serves a purpose in the wider evolutionary scheme.

    this is getting slightly off topic of course.


  • #213
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Sapien wrote: »
    Oh, for gods' sakes...


    From Wikipedia. "Or discrimination against homosexuals".


    From Dictionary dot com. "Or antipathy towards homosexuals and homosexuality".

    Et cetera.

    If you think for a moment that the fact that phóbos is Greek for "fear" is esoteric knowledge beyond the ken of anyone who uses "homophobia" to mean things other than "fear of homosexuals" - then read the following very, very carefully. Homophobia encompasses all forms of prejudices against homosexual people and homosexuality. Its meaning is not defined by its philology. Philologically it doesn't even make sense - "fear of the same", "fear of sameness", "fear of the self"? It was a hastily hashed together term that has come to be widely used and understood - you gain nothing nor justify any of your beliefs by quibbling endlessly over the significance of Greek roots.

    Well any phobia I know of is an irartional fear of something. Its still a lazy term. As you said above, its meaning is sketchy. However, its usage is not. It has the same venom as racist, and is utilised in such a manner. Be you a guy that keeps it to himself or someone who goes 'gay bashing', all are liable to be bashed with the term. I'll state again, its a lazy, propaganda term.
    So you're not afraid of homosexuals. Congratulations. Whether or not you are homophobic is not a function of your manly bravery, but of the unreasoning, intolerant nature of your opinions. That you derive those opinions from your religion, and express it in religious terms, is completely irrelevant.

    Unreasoning? intolerant? Just another cog in the propaganda machine IMO.


  • #214
    iUseVi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    auerillo wrote: »
    Lol, that really made me laugh when I see the intolerance of some people and how their intolerance leads them to tell us that the bible advocates killing human beings for many things (in this case homosexuality, but generally you could substitute whatever your personal pet peeve is).

    If there is one message in the bible, it is to love everyone, and to forgive.

    The bible also teaches an eye for an eye and that it is a sin to eat pork, along with so many other things which are , in the main, contradicted by another piece of the bible elsewhere.

    If you want to take a piece of the bible out of context and if you believe that god wants you to kill homosexuals, why don't you begin your own personal crusade and see where that gets you?

    Ha ha, I think you misunderstand my position. :eek: I'm not a Christian, I don't want to kill homosexuals or anyone else.

    I am merely discussing certain parts of Christianity on this forum. The bible says what it says, and we are discussing the implications of such verses. Feel free to join in the conversation.

    As regards your statement that:
    If there is one message in the bible, it is to love everyone, and to forgive.

    I'm sure I would not be the only one to disagree with that. The bible consists of 66 books, that statement would only take one line. If that were in fact all the bible really consisted of, the world would probably be a better place, IMO.


  • #215
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Sapien wrote: »
    To be born homosexual is not a decision or an action. The only difference is that a homosexual can minimise his inferiority by abstaining from sex - be to be born incapable of unsinful sex is in itself a kind of inferiority. Please don't bore us with sin versus sinner sophistry.

    LOL. I'll tell you what, I wont bore you at all.


  • #216
    Me-momo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3 ✭Me-momo


    iUseVi wrote: »
    The bible clearly states that homosexuals should be put to death.

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev%2018:22;%2020:13;%201%20Cor%206:9&version=49

    EDIT: btw, several passages in that link there.
    Thaks for that insightful comment .... I am glad to see we are finally out of the DARK AGES ..................


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    iUseVi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    Me-momo wrote: »
    Thaks for that insightful comment .... I am glad to see we are finally out of the DARK AGES ..................

    Seriously, will you people read the other posts.

    I don't want to kill homosexuals. I don't want to kill anyone. I'm not a Christian and I'm not a homosexual. I'm just discussing Christian belief about homosexuals like everyone else in this thread.


  • #218
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    JimiTime wrote: »
    LOL. I'll tell you what, I wont bore you at all.

    indeed

    can everyone please stop shouting at Jimi. he is expressing an opinion, not enacting a law or anything.

    If people think he is wrong try and explain why he is wrong. Simply telling him he is wrong in some kind of self-righteous fever is exactly what atheists and alike complain about Christians doing.


  • #219
    iUseVi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    Wicknight wrote: »
    indeed

    can everyone please stop shouting at Jimi. he is expressing an opinion, not enacting a law or anything.

    If people think he is wrong try and explain why he is wrong. Simply telling him he is wrong in some kind of self-righteous fever is exactly what atheists and alike complain about Christians doing.

    Who did that?


  • #220
    thesoulfulldude
    Closed Accounts Posts: 240 ✭✭thesoulfulldude


    the bible is riddled with contradictions anyway and why be against homos, if it doesnt harm you why should you harm them? and god didnt create cancer, god doesnt exist......


  • #221
    auerillo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭auerillo


    iUseVi wrote: »
    Ha ha, I think you misunderstand my position. :eek: I'm not a Christian, I don't want to kill homosexuals or anyone else.

    I am merely discussing certain parts of Christianity on this forum. The bible says what it says, and we are discussing the implications of such verses. Feel free to join in the conversation.

    As regards your statement that:



    I'm sure I would not be the only one to disagree with that. The bible consists of 66 books, that statement would only take one line. If that were in fact all the bible really consisted of, the world would probably be a better place, IMO.

    If it were a statement, then you would be right that it would be only one line. It is the message of the bible, rather than one statement.

    the problem with trying to discuss the bible using snippets from here and there is that the snippets are taken out of context and are often contradicted by other snippets.

    Your "world would be a better place IMO" is not and unusual expression, but usually those who use the bible for justification for murder or torture do exactly what you are doing and quote the bible, using little snippets from here and there which by themselves and out of context, often mean something completely different from what was intended in the bible.


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    iUseVi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    auerillo wrote: »
    If it were a statement, then you would be right that it would be only one line. It is the message of the bible, rather than one statement.

    the problem with trying to discuss the bible using snippets from here and there is that the snippets are taken out of context and are often contradicted by other snippets.

    Your "world would be a better place IMO" is not and unusual expression, but usually those who use the bible for justification for murder or torture do exactly what you are doing and quote the bible, using little snippets from here and there which by themselves and out of context, often mean something completely different from what was intended in the bible.

    I'm no stranger to cherry-picking. But I did no such thing. I merely linked to bible verses on a certain topic. The surrounding context is available on the same site I linked to. Anyone who wants to read the surrounding context (if there is any) is free to read it.

    I am well aware that you can cherry-pick the bible and use it for any means. But some verses are so obviously black and white that their intention is unmistakable. One of God's commandments to kill people that take part in homosexual acts is one of those verses. Now you can justify this verse in a number of ways by talking about the law being fulfilled, etc. That is the kind of thing we are discussing. Welcome to the mature discussion.


  • #223
    auerillo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭auerillo


    iUseVi wrote: »
    I'm no stranger to cherry-picking. But I did no such thing. I merely linked to bible verses on a certain topic. The surrounding context is available on the same site I linked to. Anyone who wants to read the surrounding context (if there is any) is free to read it.

    I am well aware that you can cherry-pick the bible and use it for any means. But some verses are so obviously black and white that their intention is unmistakable. One of God's commandments to kill people that take part in homosexual acts is one of those verses. Now you can justify this verse in a number of ways by talking about the law being fulfilled, etc. That is the kind of thing we are discussing. Welcome to the mature discussion.

    One of gods commandments is to kill people who take part in homosexual acts? Do you mean its one of the 10 commandments or do you mean that its from somewhere else in the bible where god outlines commandments?

    In any case, I love the partonising way you welcome me to the
    iUseVi wrote: »
    mature discussion.
    .

    You seem to say, on the one hand that its not ok to quote snippets from the bible and rely on the literal out of context interpretation them, but that it is ok to do that where you judge these snippets to be black and white and "obvious".

    While I don't want to get drawn any further down this particular cul de sac, what is teh difference between you deciding that the intention of the snippet is obvious, and the differnece, for example, between both Hitler and Churchill both claiming that it was obvious to them that god was on their side in the second world war? they couldn't have both been right, but they were both convinced that it was black and white and obvious that they were right.


  • #224
    thesoulfulldude
    Closed Accounts Posts: 240 ✭✭thesoulfulldude


    iUseVi wrote: »
    Welcome to the mature discussion.

    curious but if a child came up to you and said they saw the tooth fairy would you beleive them? so if somebody preches about god and religion why would you beleive him because he's older? there's nothing mature about religion it cant be proven so how could you possably have a mature discussion? you may aswel be talking about the tooth fairy


  • #225
    iUseVi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    auerillo wrote: »
    One of gods commandments is to kill people who take part in homosexual acts? Do you mean its one of the 10 commandments or do you mean that its from somewhere else in the bible where god outlines commandments?

    This verse comes chronologically after the ten commandments. It involves God speaking to Moses, and setting out certain things that are not permissible to do.
    auerillo wrote: »
    In any case, I love the partonising way you welcome me to the .

    Hmm, I loved the way you rushed into the thread and implied I was intolerant and said I was taking parts of the bible out of context, but let's not go down the road of personal insults.
    auerillo wrote: »
    You seem to say, on the one hand that its not ok to quote snippets from the bible and rely on the literal out of context interpretation them, but that it is ok to do that where you judge these snippets to be black and white and "obvious".

    While I don't want to get drawn any further down this particular cul de sac, what is teh difference between you deciding that the intention of the snippet is obvious, and the differnece, for example, between both Hitler and Churchill both claiming that it was obvious to them that god was on their side in the second world war? they couldn't have both been right, but they were both convinced that it was black and white and obvious that they were right.

    Once again, I did not take any snippets out of context. I made a statement that came straight out of a bible verse.

    For example the verse:
    If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

    This is an example of a verse I would call black and white. There's no way anyone could twist that around into saying that God actually likes homosexual activities. (Well at least male ones, lesbians aren't mentioned here.)

    Either He does approve of such things, or He does not. Either I am right in saying that God disapproves of homosexuality or I am wrong. There isn't really any grey area. Is there anything about this verse that you think is ambiguous? This is why I say it is black and white. It's really quite impossible to take this verse out of context. These are the (supposed) words of God, and as such should be eternal and infallible, according to most Christians.


  • #226
    iUseVi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    thesoulfulldude wrote: »
    curious but if a child came up to you and said they saw the tooth fairy would you beleive them? so if somebody preches about god and religion why would you beleive him because he's older? there's nothing mature about religion it cant be proven so how could you possably have a mature discussion? you may aswel be talking about the tooth fairy

    No, I don't believe certain people because of their age.

    You can have a mature discussion about religion in the same way you can have one about any other topic. Good debates usually consist of research and well thought out points and counterpoints. Of course I would be naive to expect such debates most of the time on an internet discussion board. ;)


  • #227
    thesoulfulldude
    Closed Accounts Posts: 240 ✭✭thesoulfulldude


    iUseVi wrote: »
    No, I don't believe certain people because of their age.

    You can have a mature discussion about religion in the same way you can have one about any other topic. Good debates usually consist of research and well thought out points and counterpoints. Of course I would be naive to expect such debates most of the time on an internet discussion board. ;)


    you cant prove anything about religion.... end of


  • #228
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Sapien wrote: »
    You might also face legal intervention if you were to teach children that, say, black people are less intelligent than white people. Do you believe that a person should be allowed to teach children something like that? People should be allowed teach children in their care anything, or that a person, regardless of what they believe and seek to teach, should be allowed have children in their care?

    Is your objection really about freedom of expression, or are you, in fact, pleading a special case because you are religiou?
    PDN has answered well. But let me add that I am not arguing that every expression is to be granted - teaching hatred of our fellowman is not to be tolerated.

    But morality does impose further restrictions, and it is where society disagrees on the morality that the difficulties arise. I doubt any of us would object if our kids were taught in school that it is wrong to steal and right to give to those in need; many might object if they were taught it is wrong to have sex before they married, or that only heterosexual marriage is moral. The rest of us would be happy they are taught so, and not happy if they were taught against. Moral judgements are being made in all cases. None of us hold to absolute right of expression to our kids.

    So Christians and atheists happily agree that they must not be taught that colour or ethnic origin carry any moral weight, ie., one is neither better or worse a person for being black or white, etc. But we agree also that one is better or worse a person for stealing or giving to the needy.

    The issue is where does our sexuality come into this. The claim is often made that our sexuality is something we are born with, not a moral choice. I don't think it is an either/or thing, but in any case it is no justification for immorality. I may have been born with a quick temper, but it is sinful of me to allow that part of my fallen nature dominion over me. I may have been born with a high sex drive, making me vunerable to sexual lust in a way many others are not. That too is no justification for me sleeping with every woman I meet.

    I may have been born with an attraction to maleness. Ditto.

    But I want to make clear that homosexuality is not just (or even mainly) something one is born with. It is also a sinful response to enviroment, or in some cases,a direct judgement of God.

    "My mother made me a queer." "O, if I get her the wool, would she make me one too" is an old joke, but it points to a reality that was commonly observed - a disfunctional family leading to a disfunctional response in a child.

    Our sexuality is our sexual desire, a passion. Some of it lies in a fallen nature, much of it lies in our response to life.

    THe key text for the Christian understanding of homosexuality is found in Romans 1. There it is revealed that god sent homosexuality as a judgement on mankind, He gave them over to 'vile passions', degrading desires and practices as a punishment for their vile passion of loving false gods instead of Him.
    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%201:18-32;&version=50;

    Such judgemental passions are seen in the lives on some I know of, turning straights to all sorts of perverted passions when they had turned their lives away from God.

    To sum up - as I see it, homosexuality manifests itself from various origins; nature and nurture and direct judgement. In all cases it is sinful, but some have more aggravating factors than others.

    In all cases, repentance rather than acceptance is the answer. A confession of our sinful nature, a willingness and determination to forsake it, relying on the grace of God - like any other sinful way, God will forgive and enable us to put it to death.


  • #229
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Homosexuality appears to serve an evolutionary purpose in the wider societal structure of social animals, including humans. Not only does it appear to be "normal" for social animals to evolve homosexuality as a trait effecting some of the population, but it appears to give benefit to those societies. One example, female relatives of homosexual men appear to have significantly higher fertility rate than female relatives of heterosexual men, due to shared genes.

    Interesting stuff. Just taking a slightly different slant on your example. Would the overall potential for reproduction be increased or reduced if one considers homesexuality in the female population?


  • #230
    Sapien
    Closed Accounts Posts: 997 ✭✭✭Sapien


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Well any phobia I know of is an irartional fear of something. Its still a lazy term. As you said above, its meaning is sketchy. However, its usage is not. It has the same venom as racist, and is utilised in such a manner.
    Appropriately.

    Racists, for decades, when the civil rights battle was being fought, resisted the term. The hurt and righteous indignance of those beleaguered minorities who suffered under institutional racism was funneled into the pronouncement of the word - racist. The racists could not conceive of themselves as being wrong; as being the unreasoning monsters all society now recognises them to have been. They could not countenance being the subject of a term so coterminous with irrational hatred and dangerous prejudice. A term uttered with such justifiable contempt.

    "I'm not a racist, but..."

    A phrase so assinine and self-defeating that it has entered the language as a trope - a futile attempt to deny prejudice even as it is expressed.

    Think.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    Be you a guy that keeps it to himself or someone who goes 'gay bashing', all are liable to be bashed with the term. I'll state again, its a lazy, propaganda term.
    Lazy? Try tired. Exhausted. Fed, entirely, up. With people like you, who want to have your hateful cake and eat it. You wish to be allowed traipse around with your preposterous opinions and judgements; but never to have levelled at you any assessment of yourselves and your insane, antisocial dogmas. We are sinners? Fine. You are homophobes. Quid pro quo.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    Unreasoning? intolerant? Just another cog in the propaganda machine IMO.
    Just another unskilled appropriation of the language of liberal logic. You know not what you do.


  • #231
    Sapien
    Closed Accounts Posts: 997 ✭✭✭Sapien


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    PDN has answered well. But let me add that I am not arguing that every expression is to be granted - teaching hatred of our fellowman is not to be tolerated.
    And I have answered him well, and comprehensively. We establish then, that teaching of hatred may be limited by a responsible government. Good then.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    But morality does impose further restrictions, and it is where society disagrees on the morality that the difficulties arise. I doubt any of us would object if our kids were taught in school that it is wrong to steal and right to give to those in need; many might object if they were taught it is wrong to have sex before they married, or that only heterosexual marriage is moral. The rest of us would be happy they are taught so, and not happy if they were taught against. Moral judgements are being made in all cases. None of us hold to absolute right of expression to our kids.

    So Christians and atheists happily agree that they must not be taught that colour or ethnic origin carry any moral weight, ie., one is neither better or worse a person for being black or white, etc. But we agree also that one is better or worse a person for stealing or giving to the needy.

    The issue is where does our sexuality come into this.
    It's not much of an issue. Your conviction that certain sexual orientations, if indulged, are sinful, is rejected by the state. The state recognises no moral or legal distinction between homosexuality and heterosexuality. You may attempt to portray disputations on this count as subjective approaches to personal morality as much as you want, but the fact is that the logic that underpins these debates is so ineluctable that the state has determined to come down on one side - quite unambiguously.

    Deal.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    The claim is often made that our sexuality is something we are born with, not a moral choice. I don't think it is an either/or thing, but in any case it is no justification for immorality. I may have been born with a quick temper, but it is sinful of me to allow that part of my fallen nature dominion over me. I may have been born with a high sex drive, making me vunerable to sexual lust in a way many others are not. That too is no justification for me sleeping with every woman I meet.
    Dreadfully weak, wolfsbane. So, reign in your temper and your libido. Living a life without sex is quite another order of sacrifice.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    "My mother made me a queer." "O, if I get her the wool, would she make me one too" is an old joke, but it points to a reality that was commonly observed - a disfunctional family leading to a disfunctional response in a child.
    You are free to credit discredited theories about the cause of homosexuality as much as you may wish, to bolster the smaller tenets of your religion, but don't expect the arising arguments to be entertained by those who bother to keep conversant in the science that pertains to the topic.


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Sapien wrote: »
    Lazy? Try tired. Exhausted. Fed, entirely, up. With people like you, who want to have your hateful cake and eat it. You wish to be allowed traipse around with your preposterous opinions and judgements; but never to have levelled at you any assessment of yourselves and your insane, antisocial dogmas. We are sinners? Fine. You are homophobes. Quid pro quo.

    I agree that Sapien's use of the word 'homophobe' is not lazy. On the contrary it is very hard work and, understandably, leaves him tired, exhausted and fed up. He is using a pejorative term (homophobe - meaning a fear or hatred of homosexuals) and repeatedly mispplying it until it eventually comes to be invested with the meaning that he wants it to have (homophobe - anyone who doesn't enthusiastically concur that homosexual acts are wonderful). He is entitled to continue with his little semantic crusade - after all, words are defined by their usage not by their etymological origins - but it is a bit dishonest of him to expect the word to continue to be pejorative once its meaning has been changed.

    As for having a 'hateful cake', I think the pot is calling the kettle black. Any dispassionate and impartial reader of this thread will see the vitriol and hatred that Sapien expresses against those of us who accept the New Testament' teaching that homosexual acts are a transgression against God's will. We, however, should be prepared to state our views, and to do so calmly and with tolerance towards others.


  • #233
    auerillo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭auerillo


    iUseVi wrote: »
    This verse comes chronologically after the ten commandments. It involves God speaking to Moses, and setting out certain things that are not permissible to do.

    You seems to be now saying that it isn't a commandment, but is found in the bible somewhere after the ten commandments?

    iUseVi wrote: »
    For example the verse:

    "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them. "


    This is an example of a verse I would call black and white. There's no way anyone could twist that around into saying that God actually likes homosexual activities. (Well at least male ones, lesbians aren't mentioned here.)

    Either He does approve of such things, or He does not. Either I am right in saying that God disapproves of homosexuality or I am wrong. There isn't really any grey area.

    You seem to share a belief, along with Ian Paisley, that the bible was written in the english of King James, and so long as you can find a quote in there which suits your cause, then that all right then.

    Many fundamentalist groups across the world use the same logic which is scorned by biblical scholars and by the majority (if not all) serious theologians.

    The second thing to point out is the bible is not literally gods word. In fact, god didn't write a single word of it. Its written by many different people at many different times and, just like the game chinese whispers, it contradicts itself and remembers different events from different perspectives.

    Perhaps you are right and it is possible to take one quotation and rely on it for a definitive view of god's position on a topic. Most, if not all, and biblical scholars would not agree with you if you do think that. perhaps you are right, but my money is on the theologians and scholars.


  • #234
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    auerillo wrote: »
    You seems to be now saying that it isn't a commandment, but is found in the bible somewhere after the ten commandments?




    You seem to share a belief, along with Ian Paisley, that the bible was written in the english of King James, and so long as you can find a quote in there which suits your cause, then that all right then.

    Many fundamentalist groups across the world use the same logic which is scorned by biblical scholars and by the majority (if not all) serious theologians.

    The second thing to point out is the bible is not literally gods word. In fact, god didn't write a single word of it. Its written by many different people at many different times and, just like the game chinese whispers, it contradicts itself and remembers different events from different perspectives.

    Perhaps you are right and it is possible to take one quotation and rely on it for a definitive view of god's position on a topic. Most, if not all, and biblical scholars would not agree with you if you do think that. perhaps you are right, but my money is on the theologians and scholars.

    Auerillo, if you want to argue with iUseVi, who is an atheist, about the Bible then maybe you can confine yourself to addressing iUseVi's views rather than using him to take sideswipes at fundamentalists or evangelicals.

    For what it's worth, the verses iUseVi refers to came after the Ten Commandments, and they were also commandments addressed to Israel.

    I don't think iUseVi is basing anything on the King James Version of the Bible as the verses carry the same meaning in the Hebrew. Also, he has never expressed the view that the Bible was written in KJV English - so let's keep that particular red herring out of this - OK?

    Finally, as a theologian (but not always a serious theologian) I certainly do believe that the Bible is God's Word.


  • #235
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    I agree that Sapien's use of the word 'homophobe' is not lazy. On the contrary it is very hard work and, understandably, leaves him tired, exhausted and fed up. He is using a pejorative term (homophobe - meaning a fear or hatred of homosexuals) and repeatedly mispplying it until it eventually comes to be invested with the meaning that he wants it to have (homophobe - anyone who doesn't enthusiastically concur that homosexual acts are wonderful).

    Well in fairness PDN there are a lot of comments on this thread, and the forum at large, that have little to do with simply following the Bible's teachings (or interpretation as such).

    As far as I can see people's objection to the usage of the term homophobia seems to stem from their (some would say sincere) belief that their personal attitudes towards homosexuals are either a) not irrational or b) not a fear (or both)

    When it comes to the irrational that is largely in the eye of the beholder. Few people think their own beliefs are irrational, otherwise they wouldn't hold them. As Sapien himself points out few racists or xenophobics think it is irrational to make general statements about certain races, countries or ethnic groups. If they did they probably wouldn't do it. I certainly think a lot of the comments made on this forum are irrational, and I do think there is a rush by some posters on this forum (not yourself mind) to really try and link homosexuality with a host of bad thing to some how demonstrate that the Bible is correct beyond simply its religious teachings. Wolfsbane's post seems to be full of this, linking homosexuality with dysfunctional family and promiscuity, some quite tired and dispelled cliques about gay people and the gay "life style".

    As for fear, I think people are viewing phobias in terms of something like arachnophobia, where someone starts shreaking in panic at the sight of a spider. I don't think anyone means to imply that homophobia means that a person starts hollering in fear at the sight of a gay man. But then again that isn't the limits of what phobia means.

    Again a good example is xenophobia, a fear of foreigners. The "fear" is not a panic and scream fear, but it is a fear none the less. It manifests itself in the attitudes a xenophobic makes towards foreign people, and is characteristic by a rush to make derogatory judgements about foreign people because they are foreign. It is based on a quite natural and normal evolutionary instinct to be afraid of those who are foreign to what we know, but that doesn't make it any less irrational or any more acceptable behavior.

    There are a lot of parallels between xenophobia and homophobia. Most heterosexual people have a natural distaste for the idea of homosexuality as an physical action and fear of it if applied to them. This can often manifest itself in quite strong emotions of disgust and fear. A simple test of this is see how many men are happy to touch another man's arm and then seen how many are happy to touch another man's penis (as a control see how many men are happy to touch a woman's breast). Biological this is normal, most of us are after all not homosexual. Not only are we not attracted to men, but we are instinctively driven away from even the suggestion of such an attraction.

    The problem comes when this distaste manifests itself in how we form attitudes towards homosexuals. Do we conclude that because we are disgusted by homosexuality that it is therefore something bad, to be feared.

    There are a number of comments flying around this thread that have little to do with the Bible. People are concluding that homosexuality and homosexual actions are bad and wrong beyond simply being incompatible with a Christian lifestyle.

    It is difficult to debate on an internet forum whether or not this is or isn't homophobia, because really we know little about the actual motivations for what people are saying. But I can certainly understand Sapein's position, while not exactly being bowled over by his rather confrontational posts.


  • #236
    iUseVi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    auerillo wrote: »
    You seems to be now saying that it isn't a commandment, but is found in the bible somewhere after the ten commandments?

    You seem to share a belief, along with Ian Paisley, that the bible was written in the english of King James, and so long as you can find a quote in there which suits your cause, then that all right then.

    Many fundamentalist groups across the world use the same logic which is scorned by biblical scholars and by the majority (if not all) serious theologians.

    The second thing to point out is the bible is not literally gods word. In fact, god didn't write a single word of it. Its written by many different people at many different times and, just like the game chinese whispers, it contradicts itself and remembers different events from different perspectives.

    Perhaps you are right and it is possible to take one quotation and rely on it for a definitive view of god's position on a topic. Most, if not all, and biblical scholars would not agree with you if you do think that. perhaps you are right, but my money is on the theologians and scholars.

    PDN has graciously already done the job of rebutting most of your points for me, so I fall back on the question I previously asked. Was there anything ambiguous in that verse that I quoted? (Leviticus 20:13)

    I honestly don't see any way to take it out of context. If you do, please explain how. As I said before, its meaning may be enhanced by later verses. For example, Christians believe that the old covenant has been fulfilled, so the old law is not applicable any more. But that is not to say I took the verse out of context. If I had done that, it would have an ambiguous meaning, and I don't see one. Do you?

    I do understand that cherry picking occurs, but you have to take it on a case by case basis. Just because someone takes one verse out, doesn't automatically mean they are cherry picking. Some verses are robust enough to make a clear and ambiguous point by themselves, IMO.


  • #237
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Would the overall potential for reproduction be increased or reduced if one considers homesexuality in the female population?

    It certainly seems so, given that female homosexuality is common in a lot of species (biology tends not to favor things that decrease reproduction success). For example in some forms of chimpanzees it is common that female-female sexual encounters take place, this seems to help form strong alliances and cooperation units among females. Again this is an example of homosexuality serving a wider social function beyond simply reproduction.

    It is largely a myth that homosexuality as a detrimental effect on reproduction.

    Naturally in a sexual reproducing species a homosexual couple cannot have their own genetic offspring, but that doesn't mean they lose the desire to have children as a couple, or that such situations serve no purpose. At the suggestion of homosexuals raising children a lot of people throw their hands up and say what ever about homosexual sex, such a situation of a gay couple raising a child is completely unnatural. But interestingly homosexual couples raising children is found throughout the natural world.

    For example, it is not uncommon for a female swan to mate with a homosexual swan, leaving her eggs for the homosexual couple to raise. Male homosexual swan couples are documented as having a significantly higher success rate in raising cygnets (young swans) to the stage when they can fly (and thus survive).


  • #238
    auerillo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭auerillo


    PDN wrote: »
    Auerillo, if you want to argue with iUseVi, who is an atheist, about the Bible then maybe you can confine yourself to addressing iUseVi's views rather than using him to take sideswipes at fundamentalists or evangelicals.

    For what it's worth, the verses iUseVi refers to came after the Ten Commandments, and they were also commandments addressed to Israel.

    I don't think iUseVi is basing anything on the King James Version of the Bible as the verses carry the same meaning in the Hebrew. Also, he has never expressed the view that the Bible was written in KJV English - so let's keep that particular red herring out of this - OK?

    Finally, as a theologian (but not always a serious theologian) I certainly do believe that the Bible is God's Word.

    I'm sorry you think mentioning how fundamentalists view the bible is a sideswipe at them. It is certainly relevant to discuss the two ways of reading and understanding the bible, namely believing every word is literally true, or believing that the book should be viewed as a more complex document and that not every word is literally true. This goes to the very heart of understanding the bible and it is certainly a valid view, held by many scholars, that the bible should not be understood by reading individual sentences or phrases, and taking that sentence or phrase believeing it to be a truth without considering the wider context and the bible as a whole.

    The obvious exceptions are ten commandments which are the rules which christians are supposed to live by.

    I mention the King James version as it is a translation of a translation and so on, and while the language is beautiful (as it is in the 1662 bcp), it is not necessarily held to be the single authoratitive word.

    My point was not whether or not the bible is gods word, but that it was written by many different people over quite a long time, and quite evidently there are inconsistencies and contradictions throughout. While I am not a christian myself, it seems to be evident that to base ones understanding of the message god is trying to give us, from the bible, on one line seems unwise and unlikely to be accurate.


  • #239
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wicknight wrote: »
    For example, it is not uncommon for a female swan to mate with a homosexual swan, leaving her eggs for the homosexual couple to raise. Male homosexual swan couples are documented as having a significantly higher success rate in raising cygnets (young swans) to the stage when they can fly (and thus survive).

    In that case wouldn't it be a bisexual swan?


  • #240
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    auerillo wrote: »
    The obvious exceptions are ten commandments which are the rules which christians are supposed to live by.

    Many Christians would agree with you on this point, but many others (myself included) do not. I do not believe that the Ten Commandments are the rules by which Christians would live by, the Sabbath one is a particular example.


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    In that case wouldn't it be a bisexual swan?

    Well depends on what you mean by "bisexual"

    The male swan doesn't seem to have any interest in forming a mating relationship with female swans, even the one he has sex with. It does mate with the swan to produce a child, but it then raises the child with its male partner (raising children after being the ultimate purpose of sex and sexual orientation), and treats its male partner is a similar fashion to how heterosexual swans in mating partnerships interact.

    So while the swan is physical capable of having sex with a female to produce his child, there is a bit more to it than that. I'm not sure I would call the swan bisexual simply because it has sex with a female. Gay men have been known to have sex with women for the purpose of impregnating a surrogate mother, though many prefer to do this with a sperm donation, a facility not open to male swans unfortunately. :pac:


Advertisement