- This topic has 55 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 21 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
That’s unfair. I never said you couldn’t post you view or opinion. What I said was, it’s offensive that you are saying that your opinon is the way and if we can’t see it then it’s our own fault as we are missing out.
At the same time, i never said you were wrong.
Qwerty wrote:That’s unfair. I never said you couldn’t post you view or opinion. What I said was, it’s offensive that you are saying that your opinon is the way and if we can’t see it then it’s our own fault as we are missing out.Once again, I never did speak about other things but those claims about the bible and homosexuality. Not my views but what the bible teaches. I claimed to those who were using the bible incorrectly to prove their points that they were wrong, I didn’t simply made a claim, I backed up the claim with the bible.I see no reason for you and others to have been complaining about a discussion that was going on very well. Not perfectly, but very well, because it was not off-topic, there was no bashing each other, there was no attacks on anyone’s personality. We discussed each other’s claims and not the person. Those are the keys to a healthly discussion.
It was fun while it lasted, you guys have fun!
OK. Forget that because you obviously don’t get what I am trying to say.
I was told this by some philosiphy teacher guy (correct me if im wrong), but Does the bible not state something about not being able to wear two types of woven thread or something similar? And not being able to plow you field twice over or something?? I could be way off here…
But if that’s true, why do doublt standars apply? Why is it ok to wear two types of fabric but not have homosexuality.
*rubs her head* My goodness. What in the nine hells happened…
*sigh* Alright, so, Reliant has very strong views…unbendable, uncompromising, strong views. Alright, well, it is his choice to quote a random book of faith as “proof” of one way or another here…and as much as people agree or disagree with him/his case/his way of going about it, really there isn’t much to be said.
Though, I have to say that it is tiring to debate and discuss on something that is pure theory, such as religion. I imagine it was too much to ask for a discussion based on fact rather than…I don’t want to say fiction, but more or less on a book that has been re written time and time again by -man-. God/Allah/Jahova/Goddess/Gods, however you choose to worship, is not on trial here, nor is the idea of what happens after you die, ei: hell, purgatory, Summerplace…whatnot.
Alright, can we all simply sit back and say that if you wanted to take a purely read and believe stake in this and the bible, that homosexuality is by those strict, unyeilding standards, “wrong”? The idea of whether or not it is a choice is up in the air as by those standards, yet really what’s the point of continuing on, mm? We’re getting a broken record effect going on here, folks.
On a more personal standpoint…I have a bit of trouble holding that much stock in a text that has been edited time and again by a number of people…was never written by the hand of god to begin with…and states that selling your daughter is alright…that you shouldn’t be around your wife when she’s on her menses because she’s unclean…and that eating meat on friday is not allowed but that fish isn’t a meat…but that is just my take on it all. In the end, what does it matter…if you’re a good person, a person who does what they believe in a right and just way with no malicious means to outright hurt another person or use religion as a crutch or as a weapon, really honestly believes in what you say as opposed to habbit or just because someone sometime said so, then really, in my mind, regardless of your gender, religion or sexual preference, it’s all gravy.
*Sidenote*: Chicken, I don’t see a point to have a whole new discussion forum…but if you do, make a suggestion in the suggestion box, though I can say with almost 100% sureness that there will never be a forum where “Anything goes”. Remember…this is BigBlueBall, Everything about Instant Messaging. The Community Center is here for purely entertainment and otherwise off topic things, but let’s not push our luck, mm? We are not a debate forum. At least that’s how I see it.
And, while the thread seems filled right now with this one question…really it could shift at any moment. I don’t see a point to shift it, and have people flipping around since we’ve already began here…just remember that there are other topics up for debate, folks.
Really, I’m just tickled that nobody decided to tear down any of my little post earlier. *is in shock…or maybe that’s just sleep deprivation*Qwerty wrote:OK. Forget that because you obviously don’t get what I am trying to say.I was told this by some philosiphy teacher guy (correct me if im wrong), but Does the bible not state something about not being able to wear two types of woven thread or something similar? And not being able to plow you field twice over or something?? I could be way off here…
But if that’s true, why do doublt standars apply? Why is it ok to wear two types of fabric but not have homosexuality.there are several parts of the Old Testament that lay out certain rules and regulations for the Hebrew people. However, the majority of little rules like not being able to wear certain clothing at certain times or whatever else you may find were put into effect by the rabbis and leaders of the people, partly for their own protection, but also to ensure that they would remain a separated and holy people.
On the other hand, God himself had laid out several ground rules for his people (most notably the Ten Commandments) to follow. Think of it like the Constitution of the United States of America. The Constitution contains a series of laws and rules that all Americans are to abide by. Then over time he gives extra rules to the people, similar to Amendments. The little rules you’re talking about (like not being able to walk more than a mile on the Sabbath, etc) were not given by or even necessarily endorsed by God. Those were simple rules like having to stop at Stop signs. I dont think the Constitution mentions stopping for traffic signs, but we follow that rule more or less because it’s for our own good.
you can’t really compare rules like “don’t wear certain clothes” to rules like “Thou shalt not kill.” it’s like comparing Apples and Matchbox cars. As Reliant brought up, some of those God-given rules deal with “fornication” and other such sexual sins.
I agree with what some of you have said, the Bible has been filtered down over the ages through various translations and versions, and of course each time it has passed through men, who are fallible. However, that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t remain the Word of God. Especially since recent effort has been devoted to re-translating the original scrolls to be as accurate as possible.
Woo seems like a lot of things happened while i was away…
First of all, i’d personally prefer Reliable to stay in the discussion, as even though I disagree with his/her view point, and on the validity of the book by which he/she bases her arguements I greatly enjoyed the discussion, and was very intersted in what was said, personally i think the discussion is much better when someone says the bible says this, and is actually highly knowledgable on the bible, than if someone says the bible says this and isn’t. indeed i respect someones view more because of this.
Anyway i certainly hope his thread neither dies, or becomes a religion bashing thread…
Anyway I hesitate to bring teh whole discussion back to homosexuality and religion, but i’d just like to address one point about how teh bible is split up into some rules which are obeyed, and some which aren’t…
you can’t really compare rules like “don’t wear certain clothes” to rules like “Thou shalt not kill.” it’s like comparing Apples and Matchbox cars. As Reliant brought up, some of those God-given rules deal with “fornication” and other such sexual sins.
I just wonder how can you accurately draw the line between the two, in my view you have to either obey them all, or obey none of them…
Anyway in the hope to change teh discussion to something slightly less controversial , i’d like to ask your opinions about another subject:
Euthanaisa.
Can it ever be ethically right to kill someone? And alternatively is it ethically write to deny someone the right to kill themselves?
Personally I think in somecases people should have the right to choose whether they wish to stay alive any longer, and if they wish to painlessly kill themselves.
Already in many cases doctors decide that they cannot keep someone alive any longer, and withdraw food and water from said person, who would then starve to death, I find the ethics of that disturbing starving someone to death (well technically dehydrating them), and would prefer a better thought out euthanasia law which allowed doctors to instead of starving someone to death to give them a drug which painlessly killed them. After all if it is decided that a pet is too ill to live we put them down, we don’t starve them to death, surely if someone expreses the will to die we should be able to show them teh same consideration we show to an animal.
However i woudl be uncomfortable with this decision being in the hands of doctors or family of said person as this would leave the situation open to abuse, euthanasia should in my opinion only occur if the patient expresses such a wish either verbally to doctor and family, or in a pre-written will…
What ar eyour views on the matter?
first i’ll answer the bit about “I just wonder how can you accurately draw the line between the two, in my view you have to either obey them all, or obey none of them…” I think it’s pretty easy to distinguish between the two types. Some rules pertain almost exclusively to personal appearance and conduct in certain situations. “Don’t wear such and such clothing on such and such a day.” “Don’t eat such and such meats.” “Don’t walk more than this distance on this day.” Those are procedural rules designed to guide day to day life, most of which were laid out by the leaders of the Hebrew tribes after coming out of Egypt. Other rules, like “Thou shalt not kill” and “Thou shalt not lie” are rules which govern moral and spiritual behavior. Laws forbidding “fornication” and other such sexual sins fall in this category of moral/spiritual behavior.
If you go with the idea that if you disobey one you can disobey all of them, then you’d also agree that if you think it’s ok to occasionally turn at a corner where there’s a sign saying ‘No turns when pedestrians are present’ then murdering your neighbor/spouse/whoever is also perfectly ok. i mean you didnt follow the traffic laws, why should you follow the laws against murder?As for the euthanasia part:
I’ve actually given some thought to this before… especially in the light of the whole Schiavo ordeal. I told my family if I’m ever in a state like that, a permanent vegetative state with almost no chance of recovery, pull the plug. I have a few reasons for this.
First, I don’t want to live like that. Braindead, bed-ridden, and completely helpless and dependent is not being alive. Second, it’s expensive. I know that’s a pretty sad reason, but I’m a rational person. There’s no reason to force my family to spend exorbitant amounts of money on keeping me “alive” indefinitely in hopes that *someday* i’ll miraculously return to normal. The chances are so slim that I’d rather they just pull the plug.I’m not saying I want them to pull the plug at the moment I should happen to slip into a coma or something, but if it becomes apparent that I’m not coming out of it anytime in the forseeable future (meaning *maybe* a year or more) just let me go. I’d rather they grieve for a little while over my death than have them watch me lie there half-dead or almost dead for however long, like Terri Schiavo laying there for what? Fifteen years? I don’t think so… not for me.
as for other people… I think there need to be specific situations laid out which make euthanasia acceptable. We can’t make it exactly like putting down animals, there need to be certain circumstances. If someone breaks their leg and doesnt want to deal with the pain, that’s not acceptable circumstances. If someone is in the situation i described above, in a permanent vegetative state with no brain activity, then that’s a situation where euthanasia would be acceptable, IF the person specified in a living will that those were their wishes.
*pops in for a spell* YOu know, I was just talking about this with someone…who…I’m unsure *click click* Oh yes, talking about if suicide was illegal or not. Either way…see, the way I see it is this:
People state that suicide is morally wrong (for whatever reason they have, religious, etc.) and yet, I don’t think that a person “living” with some horrible disease in which they cannot do anything for themselves, or cannot remember anything, cannot remember who they are, who their family is…are not really “living”. Not to say that they should be killed, but if they choose it, they should have a right to assisted suicide if they want it.
But…as far as being in a consistant vegitative state…see, this is where a living will comes in handy. Unlike a will and testament for when you die, the will does not have to be notorized in order to be legal. “A living will must be properly signed (executed) in order to be legal and valid. The living will signing process is not difficult and does not require an attorney. Basically, the living will must be signed in the presence of two witnesses. A living will does not need to be notarized except in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee in order to be legally and validly executed. ” And really, I think that it’s a good idea for anyone and everyone. Especially in cases where they’re estranged from their family, because, as we all know, family, whether estranged or not, have a lot of say in your end if it comes down to it.
Also, in a living will you can make a statement that puts someone else in charge of your well being, for all those gray areas. A Power of Attorney. Financial Power of Attorney means they’re in charge of fiscal matters and a Health Care Power of Attorney (Health Care Proxy) for decisions regarding your health care. These people do not have to actually be Attorneys, just someone you trust.Really, for more information on a living will, a power of attorney or anything else…remember, google is your friend. Here are a couple sites for helping a person create their own living will or power of attorney in regulation with the state you’re living in. For the US, that is.
http://www.legacywriter.com/Home.html
You can also register right at the U.S. Living Will Registery.
http://www.uslivingwillregistry.com/default.htm
There’s a lot of information at both of the sites about living wills and the like.Well obviosly everyone agrees living wills are a good idea…
But what about this,
I agree i seem to have some sort of double standard here. Whilst I feel it’s fine for same sex couples to be in love or whatever, i don’t think it’s ok for them to adopt.
This is because kids need guidance from both males and females. That’s just what I feel and im pretty sure scientific evidence would back me up. I still don’t know if homosexuals shoudl be alowed to marry though. I’m not sure about that one..
What do you gusy think?
If they wanna get married, go ahead, let them be married. I don’t care, everyone should be happy. I just don’t want to know any sexual details…
Marriage? Go ahead. A couple is a couple is a couple. Whatever happened to the days when two folks could go into the woods, come out with a cord wrapped around their wrists and be married? Oh…right…religion and government got ahold of it. *sigh* poppycock.
And they should be able to adopt. Under the idea that they need male and female role models, that’s like saying that single parent homes should have their children taken away because they’re missing “an influence”, even though some of the best influences you find are ones at school and other places outside of home. And really, what’s stopping a woman from adopting a child then going and living with her lesbian partner, mm? nothing. As a matter of fact, I know of three children who do live in homes like that and they’re some of the most well adjusted kids in the world because they see that there is nothing wrong with that kind of love. They’re well adjusted, unbiased little people who understand the situation better then most adults do.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.