Ban organized religion, says Elton John - Page 13 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Dion · 11-13-2006, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azure

Something like that.

But to say that the Bible hasn't lost 'something' through the past say...2000 years...would be ignorant.

I thought nothing was to be added or changed about the Bible.

19th century authors violated that by insering the word homosexual to clarify things.

Crazy Flamer · 11-13-2006, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azure

Because you're only asking questions like that so you can attack Calgaryborn..or his belief.

If his belief makes no sense and he has not backign for it then yes, I will try to refute it. Attack is a strong word. There is a good debate going on here and I'm not the only one involved. I'm not trying to attack anyone's beliefs, merely just participate in an intellectual conversation.

Kobasew fan · 11-13-2006, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheese

What if it is an aborted fetus?

Well I'm sure you won't be surprised to know that I think that abortion is murder. But that is another topic for another thread and I'm not going to go down that road with you right now Cheese.

Cheese · 11-13-2006, 08:40 PM

Here are a few more of CalgaryBornAgains friends....

This is a ministry called "The Right Remedy".

Curtains part stage left....

a morsel...

“But doesn’t scientific evidence reveal that homosexuals are ‘born that way’ and therefore are not responsible for their behavior?”

Answer: Science magazine reports that 13.5% of brothers of homosexuals are also homosexuals (7-16-93, p.322), and since only 3% of the population is, that supposedly indicates the existence of a “gay gene”. However, the influence of pornography, sexual abuse, and the influence of other homosexuals upon siblings could just as well explain these facts. There are several studies touted by homosexual activists in their attempts to depict homosexuality as an involuntary attribute. However, most of their conclusions have been abandoned by the very authors of those studies.
Besides, there is more evidence that HOMOPHOBIA is genetic than there is that homosexuality is - 98.7% of brothers and sisters of homophobes are also homophobic according to a Christian Anti-Defamation League survey!
People are NOT born homosexuals! How dare you blame your Creator for your miserably perverted, shameful sexual habits!

You chose to be a sex pervert contrary to the laws of your design and the laws of your Designer. You were born a VIRGIN, and God’s law demands that you stay that way until marriage to the opposite sex.

Calgaryborn · 11-13-2006, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheese

Heres a good article on "Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to Society" from the Positive Atheism Network.

Wouldn't "Positive Atheist" be an oxymoron?

O and Cheese don't confuse historical Catholic dogma with biblical or baptistic practice and belief. You don't like it when i point to communism and the millions they've killed based upon an atheistic world view. You seem to think you would be different then them. Well I am no Catholic or Protestant for that matter.

Dion · 11-13-2006, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I think your being presumptuous. I use the King James version exclusively. Homosexuality wasn't even an issue when it was translated. It was actually more of an issue in the New Testament times. You have pointed out that that word(homosexualality) didn't even exist in the 16th century. You have not shown any evidence that this translation was altered because of a political agenda.

That article I posted gave evidence. Go re-read it and check the LB and NLT translations. Those authors inserted their politcal bias by using the word.

You also know that homosexuality encompases lesbians also. So how can you use that term when the Hebrew text makes no mention of lesbian activity. For that matter why didn't God say a woman should not lie with a woman?

You can't use that word.

Cheese · 11-13-2006, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kobasew fan

Well I'm sure you won't be surprised to know that I think that abortion is murder. But that is another topic for another thread and I'm not going to go down that road with you right now Cheese.

But lets suppose for a second here shall we? Your sister was violently raped by an evil person. She decided to abort this fetus, and lo and behold scientists have figured a way to use those aborted genes to help your father who has Parkinsons disease.
What say you now? Does your God see the evil in your sister aborting a fetus from rape....or does he see the positive in the genius of his scientists?

Azure · 11-13-2006, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Flamer

If his belief makes no sense and he has not backign for it then yes, I will try to refute it. Attack is a strong word. There is a good debate going on here and I'm not the only one involved. I'm not trying to attack anyone's beliefs, merely just participate in an intellectual conversation.

Alright...sorry about that then.

Azure · 11-13-2006, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dion

I thought nothing was to be added or changed about the Bible.

19th century authors violated that by insering the word homosexual to clarify things.

I don't mean change...I mean the simple idea of human error.

Over time...things go missing...things might be written down wrong...so on and so forth.

Crazy Flamer · 11-13-2006, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azure

Alright...sorry about that then.

No offense taken. To tell you the truth, being involed in debates like this is something I have missed on this site.

Cheese · 11-13-2006, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Wouldn't "Positive Atheist" be an oxymoron?

O and Cheese don't confuse historical Catholic dogma with biblical or baptistic practice and belief. You don't like it when i point to communism and the millions they've killed based upon an atheistic world view. You seem to think you would be different then them. Well I am no Catholic or Protestant for that matter.

LOL...your right CBA...your no Catholic or Protestant. You sir are a true Tali-Baptist.

eg.

A conservative Christian who tries to impose their fundamentalist and often oppressive views on others.
"I hate fags," says Pat Robertson, a Bush supporter and notorious Talibaptist.

Azure · 11-13-2006, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Flamer

No offense taken. To tell you the truth, being involed in debates like this is something I have miised on this site.

And I'm sitting here..hoping to God that it doesn't turn ugly.

How ironic.

Calgaryborn · 11-13-2006, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dion

That article I posted gave evidence. Go re-read it and check the LB and NLT translations. Those authors inserted their politcal bias by using the word.

You also know that homosexuality encompases lesbians also. So how can you use that term when the Hebrew text makes no mention of lesbian activity. For that matter why didn't God say a woman should not lie with a woman?

You can't use that word.

It is an english word. Who are you to say I can't use it. Are you arguing that because a couple of translations I don't adhere to uses an english word that some scholar thinks is too broad for the passage that somehow my faith is in jeopardy? Read Romans Chapter one. What it describes is homosexuality. "Men giving up the natural use of a woman and being inflamed with lust for one another and the women likewise..." does God need to draw you a picture? How can that not be clear to you?

Dion · 11-13-2006, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azure

I don't mean change...I mean the simple idea of human error.

Over time...things go missing...things might be written down wrong...so on and so forth.

If things went missing or were written down wrong would that not make the Bible unreliable? You know when comparing texts.

jonesy · 11-13-2006, 08:57 PM

OK, it seems I am late to this party.
To go back to the original issue, I don't have a problem if a scientific cause for homosexuality is found. I can still consider homosexual activity a sin.
Every one has predispositions to their own favorite 'sin', that doesn't make them right..
Having a predisposition isn't a sin, acting on it, sure could be.
ie: having sex with someone other then your spouse, having homosexual sex. Both are sins (IMO), one isn't worse than the other.
I will never berate or bash someone who does this, but I will NEVER tell them that I think it is OK.

Calgaryborn · 11-13-2006, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheese

LOL...your right CBA...your no Catholic or Protestant. You sir are a true Tali-Baptist.

eg.

A conservative Christian who tries to impose their fundamentalist and often oppressive views on others.
"I hate fags," says Pat Robertson, a Bush supporter and notorious Talibaptist.

I think Robertson is Assembles of God but, maybe he's Baptist. Actually I don't have a lot of respect for Baptist ministers who involve themselves in politics. That's not their calling.

Crazy Flamer · 11-13-2006, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonesy

OK, it seems I am late to this party.
To go back to the original issue, I don't have a problem if a scientific cause for homosexuality is found. I can still consider homosexual activity a sin.
Every one has predispositions to their own favorite 'sin', that doesn't make them right..
Having a predisposition isn't a sin, acting on it, sure could be.
ie: having sex with someone other then your spouse, having homosexual sex. Both are sins (IMO), one isn't worse than the other.
I will never berate or bash someone who does this, but I will NEVER tell them that I think it is OK.

So if scientists nail down the gene that determines sexual orientation, you will still consider homosexuality a sin?

Azure · 11-13-2006, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dion

If things went missing or were written down wrong would that not make the Bible unreliable? You know when comparing texts.

I don't think it makes it unreliable...because the things which 'might' be missing would probably be minor.

You never know though...it seems pretty consistant to me.

jonesy · 11-13-2006, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Flamer

So if scientists nail down the gene that determines sexual orientation, you will still consider homosexuality a sin?

Being a homosexual - NO
Acting it out - YES

It may seem unfair,
but I think there is talk of people with a gene that makes them love the drink. (I might have that one!)
So if I have that 'gene' if you will - not a sin
Going and drinking to oblivion - sin

Who know why people act like they do, we all have our weaknesses we must fight through in life, some overcome, some succomb.

Nicole · 11-13-2006, 09:04 PM

[quote=Calgaryborn;638647]It is an english word. Who are you to say I can't use it. Are you arguing that because a couple of translations I don't adhere to uses an english word that some scholar thinks is too broad for the passage that somehow my faith is in jeopardy? Read Romans Chapter one. What it describes is homosexuality. "Men giving up the natural use of a woman and being inflamed with lust for one another and the women likewise..." does God need to draw you a picture? How can that not be clear to you?[/quote]

I personally think it's pretty clear but not everyone believes in the bible and so using scripture isn't exactly going to change their mind on where they stand on the issue or help them understand where you are coming from.