Religion, Homosexuality, Etc.

Error message

Deprecated function: implode(): Passing glue string after array is deprecated. Swap the parameters in drupal_get_feeds() (line 394 of /var/www/pied-piper.ermarian.net/includes/common.inc).

Pages

AuthorTopic: Religion, Homosexuality, Etc.
Shaper
Member # 73
Profile #0
I just posted on the AOL message boards, in regards to the recent marriage of Rosie O'Donnel and Kelli Carpenter. There are hundreds and hundreds of posts saying "AH IT SI EVOL BKUZ TEH BAIBUL SEZ SO". I responded like this (note that since underlining is not allowed by UBB code, I surrounded the paragraph I said is underlined with asterisks instead):

quote:
First off, I must tell you now. This is a long post. However, I suggest you read it through all the way. You may learn something. Even if you don't want to, at least read the underlined paragraph at the end.

I was once a Catholic. Now I'm agnostic (no beliefs whatsoever), since there really isn't any proof that any religion is the truth. There's the Bible, but there are a few things that you must remember about it:
1. There were at least two books left out of the Bible. Turns out, we do know what happened to Jesus between the ages of 10 and whatever age he was next time he showed up in the Bible. I forget what they're called at the moment though. I'll post when I remember. But you can still do research and find them.
2. In the Book of Genesis, there are two stories of the creation of the universe. One says that God created the universe in seven days, creating the sun, the Earth, Heaven, water, etc. I don't remember the specific order of those. But I do remember this: plants, sea creatures, something about things that creepeth, humans. However, in the next story, the Earth is there already, along with plants, but no animals. God created Adam, then put him to sleep and created Eve from his rib. He then created all the animals and let Adam name them. Those two contradictory stories (one says it was animals, then humans, and the other is the other way around) should prove that the Bible is clearly not infallible, or at least the modern one. Why do I say "at least the modern one"? Read on.
3. In the Middle Ages, the Pope had more political power than anyone else. It would have been a simple matter for him to tell people that God decided that he wanted to change the Bible, and then just add in whatever he wanted. I have heard the "homosexuals will not enter the kingdom of Heaven" bit was added in at this point. Don't hold me to that last part though. I just heard it from someone else.
4. The Bible is old. Very old. It was also not originally in English. I'm not sure what it was at first, but I'm guessing Hebrew. It was then translated into Latin, which was, for a long time, the language of the church. Two completely different languages. Then it was translated into German, another completely different language. Then it was translated into English, which although it is not completely different (it is mostly derived from German, at least the most commonly used words), is still quite different. Then there are probably several other languages it was translated through before reaching English. This should make it fairly obvious that the Bible is not the word of God, due to the countless inevitable translation errors. Maybe it was the infallible word of God originally, but it certainly isn't now.
5. Adding to the last two points, let's say that the Pope really is infallible and able to directly communicate with God. That doesn't necessarily mean that those who translated it were. They more than likely added in their own beliefs when translating the Bible.

Well, that's my two cents on the Bible. So, what am I saying here?
There is no absolute, undeniable proof that any religion is true. None whatsoever. You believe in God? Good for you. Not everyone does, because they were raised differently, or because they got fed up with contradictions, etc.

*Catholics think Protestants, Jews, and Muslims are going to Hell. Protestants think Catholics and other divisions of Protestants, Jews, and Muslims are going to hell. Muslims think Christians and Jews are going to hell. And that's just the three Yahweh/Allah/whatever you call him religions. I didn't even mention Hindus, Buddhists, and other religions. The point? Everyone thinks everyone else is going to Hell. Who cares? It is both arrogant and extremely stupid to say that you, as a mortal, can understand God, Brahma, or whatever you believe in. Someone should say in a public service announcement on TV, the radio, and wherever else they can get it, "These people think those people will burn in Hell for eternity. Those people think these people are evil. This group says that group will become rocks in their next lives." Then, everyone knows what everyone else thinks. None of us can be 100% sure what the truth is. All they can do is believe what they believe. We'll all find out who was right when we die. Until then, just try to be friendly and get along. And maybe listen to "Dreamer" by Ozzy Osbourne.*


--------------------
My BoE graphics archive is finally getting started! Yay! I hope you like my graphics.My BoE Graphics
An absurdly fun Flash game- Refridgerator Raid!
---------
The Lyceum- A board for BoE. Yes it is. Really. Stop staring at me! Stop it, I say! Oh, sorry...
Posts: 2957 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00
Fire! Fire! Fire! Fire!
Member # 919
Profile #1
...Your point being?

(Also, on that last section, mostly extremists believe that. You all know that I'm Christian, but I also believe that actions, thoughts, etc., not just faith, get a person into Heaven. Faith helps, of course, but it's not absolutely necessary.)

--------------------
And though the musicians would die, the music would live on in the imaginations of all who heard it.
-The Last Pendragon

TEH CONSPIRACY IZ ALL

Les forum de la chance.

Incaseofemergency,breakglass.
Posts: 3351 | Registered: Saturday, April 6 2002 08:00
Shock Trooper
Member # 4000
Profile Homepage #2
quote:
Originally written by The Almighty Doer of Stuff:



1. There were at least two books left out of the Bible. Turns out, we do know what happened to Jesus between the ages of 10 and whatever age he was next time he showed up in the Bible. I forget what they're called at the moment though. I'll post when I remember. But you can still do research and find them.


Hmmm...I actually have one of those Bibles. Here are the books:

Tobit
1&2 Maccabees
Wisdom
Sirach
Baruch

Those were just Old Testament, since even the Catholic Bible didn't use the two that you are talking about.

Here are the things that helped the elders of the church back in the Roman time decide which books would go in the Bible (note: if any of the rules did not comply with the book, it wasn't put in to the Bible):

1. Is the book authoritative? Was it written by a prophet or an apostle? Did the people that wrote the book submit to it's authority by governing their lives according to it's teachings?

2. Was it authentic? Was it free of known errors in geography, history, etc.

3. Has it been recieved? Have other Christians recognized it to be inspired? Has it been recognized for a long time?


2. In the Book of Genesis, there are two stories of the creation of the universe. One says that God created the universe in seven days, creating the sun, the Earth, Heaven, water, etc. I don't remember the specific order of those. But I do remember this: plants, sea creatures, something about things that creepeth, humans. However, in the next story, the Earth is there already, along with plants, but no animals. God created Adam, then put him to sleep and created Eve from his rib. He then created all the animals and let Adam name them. Those two contradictory stories (one says it was animals, then humans, and the other is the other way around) should prove that the Bible is clearly not infallible, or at least the modern one. Why do I say "at least the modern one"? Read on.


I assume you are referring to this verse:

quote:
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.
Notice the way the verse is worded: God "had formed" the beasts and only now did he bring them to be named. Meaning that they were already created, but just not been seen by man.

3. In the Middle Ages, the Pope had more political power than anyone else. It would have been a simple matter for him to tell people that God decided that he wanted to change the Bible, and then just add in whatever he wanted. I have heard the "homosexuals will not enter the kingdom of Heaven" bit was added in at this point. Don't hold me to that last part though. I just heard it from someone else.

The one that the pope had might have been one type of translation if any at all (if it even exists today), but look at how many translations of the Bible there are today:

New International Version
New American Standard Bible
The Message
Amplified Bible
New Living Translation
King James Version
New Life Version
English Standard Version
Contemporary English Version
New King James Version
21st Century King James Version
American Standard Version
Worldwide English (New Testament)
Young's Literal Translation
Darby Translation
Wycliffe New Testament
New International Version - UK
and a few hundred more that aren't at BibleGateway.com
Some of those translations sprung from each other, but EVERY single one of them agrees and coincides with the other, not word for word, but idea for idea and meaning for meaning. I would like to see you give any evidence at all that proves the Bible incorrect, as this book lasted for thousands of years unlike some other religions like with the Koran, which only exists for how long? And also unlike the Koran with one author (Mohammed), the Bible had over 40 authors to write it.

4. The Bible is old. Very old. It was also not originally in English. I'm not sure what it was at first, but I'm guessing Hebrew.

Correct.

It was then translated into Latin, which was, for a long time, the language of the church.

Incorrect, fot it was first translated into Greek when the Jews were conquered by them. Greek was the trader's language, thus some copies of the Bible remained in the Greek language, and some were even left, still, in the Hebrew lang. Then, when the Roman's conquered the Jews, it was translated into Latin (also known as the Vulgate Bible).

Also a note: The New Testament was originally written in Greek.

Two completely different languages. Then it was translated into German, another completely different language.

Yep.

Then it was translated into English, which although it is not completely different (it is mostly derived from German, at least the most commonly used words), is still quite different.

Okay.

Then there are probably several other languages it was translated through before reaching English. This should make it fairly obvious that the Bible is not the word of God, due to the countless inevitable translation errors.

This is where you are wrong. Remember when I said that some translations of the Bible were left in the Greek lang? They got translated to English, and guess what common translation it is today? The New American Standard Bible (NASB). Mathced with the KJV translation that supposedly went through "all kinds of translational errors" and there was no difference in meaning or idea. Some words rearranged around, but had the same exact content. And as for the New Testament in the NASB...it only went through one language change.

Maybe it was the infallible word of God originally, but it certainly isn't now.

IYHO

5. Adding to the last two points, let's say that the Pope really is infallible and able to directly communicate with God. That doesn't necessarily mean that those who translated it were. They more than likely added in their own beliefs when translating the Bible.

That's why people "double-check" thier work. IMAGE(Religion, Homosexuality, Etc_files/wink.gif)
And believe me, there was more than one translator, in fact, many different groups.

Well, that's my two cents on the Bible. So, what am I saying here?
There is no absolute, undeniable proof that any religion is true.

Yep, it's all in the belief system, you have to believe it, just like you have to believe in evolution, because "There is no absolute, undeniable proof that any theory is true." Otherwise it could be called a law, and even that can be broken.


None whatsoever. You believe in God? Good for you. Not everyone does, because they were raised differently, or because they got fed up with contradictions, etc.

*Catholics think Protestants, Jews, and Muslims are going to Hell. Protestants think Catholics and other divisions of Protestants, Jews, and Muslims are going to hell. Muslims think Christians and Jews are going to hell. And that's just the three Yahweh/Allah/whatever you call him religions. I didn't even mention Hindus, Buddhists, and other religions. The point? Everyone thinks everyone else is going to Hell. Who cares? It is both arrogant and extremely stupid to say that you, as a mortal, can understand God, Brahma, or whatever you believe in. Someone should say in a public service announcement on TV, the radio, and wherever else they can get it, "These people think those people will burn in Hell for eternity. Those people think these people are evil. This group says that group will become rocks in their next lives." Then, everyone knows what everyone else thinks. None of us can be 100% sure what the truth is. All they can do is believe what they believe. We'll all find out who was right when we die. Until then, just try to be friendly and get along. And maybe listen to "Dreamer" by Ozzy Osbourne.*


Jesus is Just Alright - dc Talk (Free at Last)



--------------------
-TEH BOOGEYMAN STRIKES AGAIN

--------------------

And then there's always a Chance nearby...
Posts: 245 | Registered: Tuesday, February 17 2004 08:00
Babelicious
Member # 3149
Profile Homepage #3
Most of those translations are plain-language translations or revisions of the two major Biblical translations: the Catholic translation (sold in the US as the New American Bible) or the King James translation. The most egregious offender is the Living Bible, which deliberately mistranslated sections referring to homosexuality.

--------------------
You are my precious thing
Thing of speed and beauty,
You are my precious thing
As long as you remain beneath me
-- Big Black
Posts: 999 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
Guardian
Member # 3521
Profile #4
quote:
Originally written by The Almighty Doer of Stuff:

I didn't even mention Hindus, Buddhists, and other religions. The point? Everyone thinks everyone else is going to Hell.
It irks me severely that so many people, uneducated on the finer points of religions like Hinduism and Buddhism, assume they're just saying all the same things that the Abrahamic religions are. You'll never find anything in any Hindu or Buddhist scripture even hinting that non-believers will end up in Hell, or will even suffer any sort of disadvantage for being non-believers in the faith. The refined modern version of Hinduism also does not include the concept of Hell. Please, get your facts down before you post any such tommyrot again.

[ Thursday, February 26, 2004 20:55: Message edited by: A Stughalfian Principle ]

--------------------
"Let a man find himself, in distinction from others, on top of two wheels with a chain- at least in a poor country like Russia- and his vanity begins to swell out like his tires. In America it takes an automobile to produce this effect."- Leon Trotsky
Posts: 1798 | Registered: Sunday, October 5 2003 07:00
Apprentice
Member # 4025
Profile Homepage #5
quote:
Originally written by The Almighty Doer of Stuff:


3. In the Middle Ages, the Pope had more political power than anyone else. It would have been a simple matter for him to tell people that God decided that he wanted to change the Bible, and then just add in whatever he wanted. I have heard the "homosexuals will not enter the kingdom of Heaven" bit was added in at this point. Don't hold me to that last part though. I just heard it from someone else.
There is nothing in the bible that says anything about the pope and his "infallible"-ness. The pope is the creation of the catholics. Many of us acknowledge him as a 'leader' among Christians, but very few of us see him as being above the bible, as the Catholics do.

quote:
4. The Bible is old. Very old. It was also not originally in English. I'm not sure what it was at first, but I'm guessing Hebrew. It was then translated into Latin, which was, for a long time, the language of the church. Two completely different languages. Then it was translated into German, another completely different language. Then it was translated into English, which although it is not completely different (it is mostly derived from German, at least the most commonly used words), is still quite different. Then there are probably several other languages it was translated through before reaching English. This should make it fairly obvious that the Bible is not the word of God, due to the countless inevitable translation errors. Maybe it was the infallible word of God originally, but it certainly isn't now.
The Bible is not translated by taking a translation and translating it. They take a bible in Greek or Latin (for the New Testment) or Hebrew (Old Testament). The translations are done from the oldest copies they have, not from new 'easier to copy' ones.

[ Friday, February 27, 2004 07:09: Message edited by: -Red Mage- ]

--------------------
All hail to me, for my best time in MineSweeper is 150 :)
The Supreme Rule
Posts: 46 | Registered: Monday, February 23 2004 08:00
This Side Towards Enemy
Member # 3098
Profile #6
I feel I should also point out that the English translations of the bible don't come from German. The first English and German bibles were produced at around the same time, both from the Greek or Latin texts. Newer texts come straight from Greek.

As to the missing books, it's undeniable some are missing. There's a reference to the book of Jasher and although there is a book of that name, it's a 12th century forgery. It may be a mistranslation of Joshua, or it may just be lost. There are also several other books. My fundie bible takes the interesting viewpoint that 'it's OK, because they're not important.'

The selection process for bible books was flawed. If it was attributed to an apostle it stood a better chance of getting in, but that didn't mean the apostle wrote it. Matthew didn't write the Gospel and it's unlikely John did. It certainly wasn't the apostle who wrote the Apocalypse of Saint John or, most likely, the letters. It's doubtful that Jude wrote his epistle or that Peter wrote any of his, Timothy is no longer confidently ascribed to Paul, nor is Titus, and if there was any concrete information on James there'd probably be proof he didn't write it. This doesn't invalidate them, but you have to wonder.

--------------------
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned
I'll tell you my story, man
Though I wish I'd never been born
I'm loose at the seams,
I've broken my dreams
And my hand it shakes the pen
Come on, come on now baby,
Let the good times roll again
Posts: 961 | Registered: Thursday, June 12 2003 07:00
Shaper
Member # 73
Profile #7
Stughalf, I didn't mean literally that everyone thinks everyone is going to Hell. Obviously, those that don't believe in Hell aren't going to think that people will go there. What I meant was that the majority of people insist that they are right and that everyone else is wrong, when it comes to religion, which is understandable. If they thought they were wrong, they wouldn't believe it.
Also worthy of note is the fact that everybody on that message board is either a Christian who says homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so, or a Christian who doesn't believe it's wrong. But everyone there is a Christian. Don't ask why. I don't know, nor do I really care.
If anyone was offended by that, sorry. But the post wasn't actually directed at anyone here, except the fundies.
The main point I was trying to make is that everyone else thinks they're right just as much as you think you're right, and it's not likely to change. We'll all find out who was right when we die, so just try to get along and let people believe what they want to believe until then.

At any rate, I've been having a bit of a nervous breakdown lately. I'm probably going to take a break from the community for a while, until my thoughts are in order again. Goodbye.

--------------------
My BoE graphics archive is finally getting started! Yay! I hope you like my graphics.My BoE Graphics
An absurdly fun Flash game- Refridgerator Raid!
---------
The Lyceum- A board for BoE. Yes it is. Really. Stop staring at me! Stop it, I say! Oh, sorry...
Posts: 2957 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00
Agent
Member # 1104
Profile Homepage #8
Alright then, goodbye ADoS.

--------------------
73|-| 1|\|\/1|\|<1|3|_3 |30063y|\/|4|\|

AHEM: Chance Forums!

-Reality Corp.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: Tuesday, May 7 2002 07:00
Warrior
Member # 3117
Profile #9
Okay yes, i agree, i am an agnostic and who cares what people do with their own lives, as long as its not hurting anybody else. Also, y'all mite want to shorten up your posts a little bit so more people will actually take in what you're trying to say.

--------------------
If your buddy is trying to hook up with a girl, you may sabotage him only in a manner that gives you no chances of getting any either.
-The Code

Pahk ya cah in hahvad yahd?? What ah ya? retahded?!

Can't figure out the other sex? Check out ladder theory!
[URL=http://www.laddertheory.com[/URL]
Posts: 114 | Registered: Wednesday, June 18 2003 07:00
Guardian
Member # 3521
Profile #10
quote:
Originally written by chandrew333:

Also, y'all mite want to shorten up your posts a little bit so more people will actually take in what you're trying to say.
Some of us here are indeed capable of reading and absorbing the information contained within a block of text longer than five lines, thank you.

And later, ADoS.

--------------------
"Let a man find himself, in distinction from others, on top of two wheels with a chain- at least in a poor country like Russia- and his vanity begins to swell out like his tires. In America it takes an automobile to produce this effect."- Leon Trotsky
Posts: 1798 | Registered: Sunday, October 5 2003 07:00
Warrior
Member # 3117
Profile #11
My bad, sorry about that ignorant quote.

--------------------
If your buddy is trying to hook up with a girl, you may sabotage him only in a manner that gives you no chances of getting any either.
-The Code

Pahk ya cah in hahvad yahd?? What ah ya? retahded?!

Can't figure out the other sex? Check out ladder theory!
[URL=http://www.laddertheory.com[/URL]
Posts: 114 | Registered: Wednesday, June 18 2003 07:00
Erudite*
Member # 3042
Profile #12
quote:
Originally written by The Almighty Doer of Stuff:

We'll all find out who was right when we die, so just try to get along and let people believe what they want to believe until then.
...Which is what everyone here was doing until you insulted the Christian religion. You were really the only one saying Christians are wrong and you're right, so follow your own advice and let people believe what they want.

[ Friday, February 27, 2004 14:59: Message edited by: xxo ]

--------------------
The Club of All
Chance Forums
I was once member #2475, but then my account was deleted because of a bug.
Post count=406+whatever it says below.
Posts: 402 | Registered: Thursday, May 29 2003 07:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #13
Well, let me put it this way. Suppose you think a friend has a serious problem with alcohol. Your friend denies it, claiming to be just a social drinker. Would you just let your friend kill himself with alcohol on the basis that you had no right to interfere, or would you try to help by whatever means you could, even if he didn't appreciate your help at the time?

How is the situation different when you think they have a serious sinning problem instead? As far as I can see, any Christian who believes non-Christians go to hell and doesn't try to convert them is a hypocrite.
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Infiltrator
Member # 164
Profile Homepage #14
I agree that Christians that don't do crap to help sinners have absolutely no place in condemning them (though they don't really have any place at all)

Anyway, to change the subject, here's a picture of ME!!! Frahhamn

--------------------
Being sexy isn't easy, but someone's got to do it.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Monday, October 15 2001 07:00
Fire! Fire! Fire! Fire!
Member # 919
Profile #15
I completely agree with Thuryl on that, as most of you know. That goes for smoking, suicide, etc. as well, but those only affect this life; if you believe in an eternal afterlife, that's quite a bit more important.

--------------------
And though the musicians would die, the music would live on in the imaginations of all who heard it.
-The Last Pendragon

TEH CONSPIRACY IZ ALL

Les forum de la chance.

Incaseofemergency,breakglass.
Posts: 3351 | Registered: Saturday, April 6 2002 08:00
For Carnage, Apply Within
Member # 95
Profile #16
The difference, Thuryl, is that anyone with common sense will say that alcoholism is a bad thing. Unless you're going to be close-minded, you have to admit that millions of people, many of them probably a good deal smarter than you, will disagree with any belief system you adopt. Trying to shape the world based on personal conviction rather than practical consensus is what has given us gems like the Inquisition, the Holocaust, and Reaganomics IMAGE(Religion, Homosexuality, Etc_files/tongue.gif)

--------------------
We were once Mao
Posts: 567 | Registered: Friday, October 5 2001 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #17
When you can accuse and receive a defensive response, you may be justified. "You drink to much!" followed by "No I don't!" is a good sign that you're on the right track. "You haven't let Jesus into your heart!" followed by "Sure I have!" is the same thing.

If your accusation can be met with a counter-accusation, it's best to leave well enough alone. "You need to go to church!" is not very good when the rejoinder is "No, you need to go to synagogue," or "No, you're a sanctimonious believer in an obviously false doctrine."

Live and let live. Look at the number of religions extant, and realize that the odds are against you having it right.

—Alorael, who is sure that God(s) get(s) a lot of amusement from religious squabbles. Well, assuming He is or They are cynic(s). But just look at the world. Isn't it obvious that He is or They are?
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
BANNED
Member # 4
Profile Homepage #18
He... ...or It, or She

--------------------
We're all amazed but not amused
By all the things that you said you'd do.
You're much concerned but not involved by
Decisions that are made by you
But we are sick and tired of hearing your song,
Telling us how you are going to change right from wrong,
'Cause if you really want to hear our views,
You haven't done nothin'.

Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
Warrior
Member # 3694
Profile #19
Religion? Give it up. No matter what it is, it's useless. We're better off without it. It gets in the way of technological advancement and population control. (This isn't The Time Before the Industrial Revolution, folks, we Don't Need all Those People!)

Homosexuality? Hmm. Tough one. That reminds me of something that Ancient Sparta was supposed to do where a man would teach a boy. If that'll be done, do the same with girls, and have the boys and girls marry when they grow up. (And that last sentence was as much a bit of, well, continuing when I should have stopped.) Or have them not marry.

--------------------
And that was exactly the point of itself.
Takes advantage of the easily offended.
Posts: 137 | Registered: Monday, November 17 2003 08:00
Fire! Fire! Fire! Fire!
Member # 919
Profile #20
"Better off without it"? You make it sound like a tool, or a law, or an old shoe or something. Surprising as it may seem, some people actually believe in God.

As for the last lines in that paragraph, don't you know that abstinance is the only way of preventing pregnancy that is proven 100% effective? I mean, aside from castration, but... I think abstinance is a slightly better alternative. And as for technology and science, it's usually the scientists who make science and religion enemies. This isn't the Middle Ages any more; now it's scientists who are anti-religion, not priests who are anti-science. I believe that the two should be one; God doesn't have to stick to his own universal laws, but he can if he wants to. God-guided evolution, creationism via Big Bang, you know...

EDIT: As for the "He, She, It..." thing, I think "it" is most accurate. However, "he" sounds more respectful, and while "he" doesn't really imply masculinity when referring to God, "she" does imply femininity just because it's different and attracts more attention.

[ Saturday, February 28, 2004 08:19: Message edited by: Sir David ]

--------------------
And though the musicians would die, the music would live on in the imaginations of all who heard it.
-The Last Pendragon

TEH CONSPIRACY IZ ALL

Les forum de la chance.

Incaseofemergency,breakglass.
Posts: 3351 | Registered: Saturday, April 6 2002 08:00
Guardian
Member # 3521
Profile #21
The cause of progress, eh, Jame? That's where you're wrong. Progress as most think of it is an oxymoron in this day and age. The answers for our human existence lie not on the top of the next tallest building or at the core of the next largest nuclear bomb, but within ourselves (to use a terribly overused cliche). Moral development, discipline, humility; these are the benchmarks of true progress. Once we have acheived our aims in this regard, the trials and travails of the material world will fade before our eyes.

--------------------
"Let a man find himself, in distinction from others, on top of two wheels with a chain- at least in a poor country like Russia- and his vanity begins to swell out like his tires. In America it takes an automobile to produce this effect."- Leon Trotsky
Posts: 1798 | Registered: Sunday, October 5 2003 07:00
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
Profile Homepage #22
quote:
Originally written by Sir David:


As for the last lines in that paragraph, don't you know that abstinance is the only way of preventing pregnancy that is proven 100% effective?

Surely you believe in Mary, SD.

I mean, aside from castration, but... I think abstinance is a slightly better alternative.

Vasectomy is slightly painful, but has been proven to be entirely effective if done right. It's not castration by any means, just removal of a spermatic cord.

And as for technology and science, it's usually the scientists who make science and religion enemies. This isn't the Middle Ages any more; now it's scientists who are anti-religion, not priests who are anti-science.

The phrases 'stem-cell research' and 'the theory of evolution' spring to mind.
I believe that the two should be one; God doesn't have to stick to his own universal laws, but he can if he wants to. God-guided evolution, creationism via Big Bang, you know...

What kind of God would break his own laws?

EDIT: As for the "He, She, It..." thing, I think "it" is most accurate. However, "he" sounds more respectful, and while "he" doesn't really imply masculinity when referring to God, "she" does imply femininity just because it's different and attracts more attention.

In my opinion, if you really believe God to be a sexless entity, calling God 'He' makes about as much sense as calling a pocketwatch 'He'. But I'm just being a pedant here.

I also recall you being the one who foamed at the mouth when I suggested that Adam and Eve were, by all scientific evidence, black if they existed at all. (Never mind the entire human race coming from two people; a population of several thousand would be needed to create a world-spanning species if it were a transplanted one.)

[ Saturday, February 28, 2004 09:09: Message edited by: Djur ]

--------------------
In a word, gay.
--Bob the Impaler

Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
Babelicious
Member # 3149
Profile Homepage #23
Unwanted pregnancies are why God invented RU-486.

[ Saturday, February 28, 2004 10:39: Message edited by: El Presidente ]

--------------------
You are my precious thing
Thing of speed and beauty,
You are my precious thing
As long as you remain beneath me
-- Big Black
Posts: 999 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
Warrior
Member # 3694
Profile #24
quote:
Originally written by El Presidente:

Unwanted pregnancies are why God invented RU-486.
Ah yes, one of my other strikes against religion. By the way, I said get rid of religion, not God - there's no way for any human to prove or disprove "it"s existence without permanently dying first. Come on, people! God didn't create television! A human did! And here's who! (Point, point, only 'cause I don't remember who it was. Do the same thing for everything else that came after human intelligence, i.e. metal armor.)

--------------------
And that was exactly the point of itself.
Takes advantage of the easily offended.
Posts: 137 | Registered: Monday, November 17 2003 08:00

Pages