Ban organized religion, says Elton John

[Cheese]

What say our RW fellowshippers on stem cell research?

Good in the eyes of God...or all those who study it will go to Hell?
Is there any Bible passages or references to the pros and cons of stem cell research?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

If money problems are an issue in keeping marriages stable and I believe they are, tax benefits and other monetary benefits must help.

Unless we overhaul the whole thing and give married people some exalted status and a free-ride, people will be getting divorced despite whatever penny-ante benefits the government could offer them.

Financial benefits for getting married, if they exist at all, don't encourage people to get married and they don't keep them married after the fact.

People will get married and have kids because they want to. The legal status of same-sex couples doesn't change anything.

Really, in reality do you think there is someone out there who would like to get married and have kids but won't do it now because same-sex marriage is legal? Or because same-sex couples receive the same benefits?

[photon]

Originally Posted by Dion

You may want to look at this article regarding homosexuality.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm

Very interesting link, thanks for posting that!

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Dion

You may want to look at this article regarding homosexuality.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm

Yes it's sad the length professing Christians will go in order to follow the flow of this world. Here is another passage from the New Testament:

Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

[FireFly]

Wow. Calgaryborn, I'm a Christian, and I have to say you're not helping anything at all here. You appear ignorant and self-righteous. You also don't have a clue on how to debate. You reply to my first post with a response that doesn't make sense AND has nothing to do with what I'm talking about anyways. You're getting torn to shreds here, which to those debating you who are anti-religion, just proves every point they've ever tried to make.

I'd tell you to shut up, but I have a feeling you'd likely think I wasn't a very good Christian because I wasn't defending you and the sanctity of marriage.

[FireFly]

FYI: I don't have to agree with homosexuality or gay marriage to agree that I have no right to cast the first stone. What someone else does is between them and Jesus. I am not a part of that.

[Azure]

Cheese...what does 'right wing' have to do with religious belief?

Are you stereotyping again?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Wow. Calgaryborn, I'm a Christian, and I have to say you're not helping anything at all here. You appear ignorant and self-righteous. You also don't have a clue on how to debate. You reply to my first post with a response that doesn't make sense AND has nothing to do with what I'm talking about anyways. You're getting torn to shreds here, which to those debating you who are anti-religion, just proves every point they've ever tried to make.

I'd tell you to shut up, but I have a feeling you'd likely think I wasn't a very good Christian because I wasn't defending you and the sanctity of marriage.

And you just added what to this debate?

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

And you just added what to this debate?

Common sense.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Unless we overhaul the whole thing and give married people some exalted status and a free-ride, people will be getting divorced despite whatever penny-ante benefits the government could offer them.

Financial benefits for getting married, if they exist at all, don't encourage people to get married and they don't keep them married after the fact.

Ok you don't believe the benefits help. Now please answer my question:
Why should we provide any special benefits to people who commit to live together and have sex? How can you justify this added burden put on singles?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Why should we provide any special benefits to people who commit to live together and have sex? How can you justify this added burden put on singles?

I don't know. Maybe we shouldn't. I don't think they do anything anyway.

But if one group (for example, heterosexual couples) get them, another group (homosexual couples) should get the same deal. It's only fair, after all.

As for the added burden for singles, I'm one of them and I don't really care. It's such a tiny consideration, in the grand scheme of things, that I don't worry about it.

[Nicole]

Originally Posted by FireFly

FYI: I don't have to agree with homosexuality or gay marriage to agree that I have no right to cast the first stone. What someone else does is between them and Jesus. I am not a part of that.

I agree with you. I'm religious as well and I don't think anyone, religious or non-religious has a right to judge another person for their actions or beliefs. Christians who condemn others to Hell have no right to say that ... I believe there is only one person who can judge anything and that person is Jesus Christ himself (and this is only going to matter to Christians anyway). Now if one does not believe in Him then that is their right and it's highly doubtful that a believer is going to be able to change that persons mind, as it comes down to faith and not everyone puts their faith in God. I don't think anyone should force their beliefs, regardless of what they believe, whether they believe in God or not; by doing so is being very closeminded.

I think the best way to share what you believe is through your actions and by your example, not through preaching .. nobody wants to be preached to. Besides, Nobody is ever going to agree on religion .. it's just better to get along and accept everybody and to be openminded and loving to all people, as I believe we will be judged by our actions and by how we treat others .. regardless of who they are, just as I believe they will be judged for theirs.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Yes it's sad the length professing Christians will go in order to follow the flow of this world. Here is another passage from the New Testament:

Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

"The passage in the ancient Hebrew is clearly talking about male-male sex acts. By using the word "homosexuality," the English translation appears to condemn lesbian activity as well. The latter behavior is definitely not mentioned in the original Hebrew text of this passage. In fact, lesbian behavior is not mentioned anywhere in the Hebrew Scriptures.

The term "homosexuality" has two distinct meanings in English. Sometimes it refers to sexual behavior (what some people do). Sometimes it relates to sexual orientation (what some people are). One reader might conclude from an English translation that homosexual orientation is criticized in the Bible; others might assume that homosexual behavior is criticized.

The word "homosexual" was first used in the very late in 19th century CE. There was no Hebrew word that meant "homosexual." Thus, whenever the word is seen in an English translation of the Bible, one should be wary that the translators might be inserting their own prejudices into the text."

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I don't know. Maybe we shouldn't. I don't think they do anything anyway.

But if one group (for example, heterosexual couples) get them, another group (homosexual couples) should get the same deal. It's only fair, after all.

As for the added burden for singles, I'm one of them and I don't really care. It's such a tiny consideration, in the grand scheme of things, that I don't worry about it.

Perhaps your underestimating the impact. Your paying medical insurance at an higher rate to help subsidies a marriage partner and any children they have. I would imagine you are paying about a third more than you would if those considerations didn't exist. Any retirement plan your company might have would also have those inflated premiums. Taxes probably cost you a couple extra thousand than it would if you didn't have the benefit. More if you figure the spousal benefits paid by our government to it's employees and vets.

Your losing all this money and don't even see a reason that this special group gets these benefits. What makes your position even more ironic is that you are here defending another groups right to belly up to the same trough. Right?

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Also: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc.htm

The passage deals with immoral behavior among heterosexuals who have converted from Christianity to Paganism and engaged in behavior which is against their nature. There is no real connection between:
-Former Christians in the first century CE who have returned to Paganism and engaged in sexual orgies, and
-Persons with a homosexual orientation who have entered into a loving, committed relationship or same-sex marriage.

[kipperfan]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Perhaps your underestimating the impact. Your paying medical insurance at an higher rate to help subsidies a marriage partner and any children they have. I would imagine you are paying about a third more than you would if those considerations didn't exist. Any retirement plan your company might have would also have those inflated premiums. Taxes probably cost you a couple extra thousand than it would if you didn't have the benefit. More if you figure the spousal benefits paid by our government to it's employees and vets.

Your losing all this money and don't even see a reason that this special group gets these benefits. What makes your position even more ironic is that you are here defending another groups right to belly up to the same trough. Right?

I dont get why your taking up this argument. Is your religion opposed to gay marriage because they get benefits you dont think they deserve? From what I understand your religion says it is wrong and immoral.....it seems like you are grasping at straws as to why this shouldnt be allowed.

[Dion]

One more thing, Calgaryborn......

The term and word "homosexuality" are a 19th century
invention. Do the research.

What you are trying to do is take a 19th century term and try to claim
it was in the original text.

How can it be in the original text when it wasn't invented?

I gave examples of two versions that had the word "homosexuality" in
them. Both were 19th century translations that included a 19th centry
word. The authors of the two versions "changed" some words to
include "homosexuality".

To see if the term used is correctly one must go back to the original Hebrew text. The quote i provided in my other post shows this. There is
no mention of lesbian activity. So how can it be "homosexuality"?

The KJV doesn't have the word "homosexuality" in it because the word
and term had not been invented.

[Crazy Flamer]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Yes science has pr oven itself wrong over and over again and yet people put their faith in them. Every new theory that comes up with a little shred of circumstantial evidence is presented as fact. If it conflicts with what the Bible says then there is the proof that the bible is a fairy tale. And then it is found out to be false. Look at the history of the so called missing links. How many of them had to be recanted?

I think you need to grasp a better understanding of how the scientific community works. Are there junk scientists out there? Sure. But most scientists go through a tremendous amount of education and put in insanely amounts of work to get to where they are. Most aren't about to blow it on hyped up theories they can't support.

I think you WANT science to be junk. Sadly for you, most of it isn't. Stop denying otherwise.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Dion

"The passage in the ancient Hebrew is clearly talking about male-male sex acts. By using the word "homosexuality," the English translation appears to condemn lesbian activity as well. The latter behavior is definitely not mentioned in the original Hebrew text of this passage. In fact, lesbian behavior is not mentioned anywhere in the Hebrew Scriptures.

The term "homosexuality" has two distinct meanings in English. Sometimes it refers to sexual behavior (what some people do). Sometimes it relates to sexual orientation (what some people are). One reader might conclude from an English translation that homosexual orientation is criticized in the Bible; others might assume that homosexual behavior is criticized.

The word "homosexual" was first used in the very late in 19th century CE. There was no Hebrew word that meant "homosexual." Thus, whenever the word is seen in an English translation of the Bible, one should be wary that the translators might be inserting their own prejudices into the text."

You do realize that the passage I quoted was from the New Testament and was written in Greek. If there is a controversy with regards to your Old Testament passage the New Testament definitely clarifies God's intent. Also the Hebrew language hasn't changed. It is suspect that the question comes at a time when there are external pressures for the church and synagogue to conform to the societal view.

That being said; obviously the Bible only holds authority to one segment of society. Even for many Christians traditions and/or their church leadership holds more authority

[Crazy Flamer]

Originally Posted by Kobasew fan

First of all the Bible states in Revalation 22: 18-19:

"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."

Now being a Christian with instructions such as this I'm not willing to change what the Bible says.

Second of all as you said science is willing to correct itself and has continued to correct itself. This just goes to show that science changes based upon the information that is found. If the Bible were to change with every change in science it wouldn't really be a Bible but more a book of scientific findings.

Finally I don't know what science has been able to prove is right without a doubt that is in contrast to the Bible.

So people are not aloud to refute what is said in the Bible because the Bible says so??? People already have! Stories and messages in the Bible have changed with time, particularly in the early parts of Christianity.

And if the Bible were to become a book of scientific findings, well that's fine with me. At least there would be some truth to it then!