but i dont think they’re possible. just an example of typical sci-tech.

Ok, i was just trying to clarify what you were saying.

think of what kind of radio broadcasts they’re seeing, then. the first radio transmission powerful enough to make it into space was Hitler announcing the start of the Berlin Olympics… they’re seeing that and deciding to pay us a visit?

Indeed it’s a scary thought…

i think you’re slightly confused, actually. the big bang is a theory, not a fact.

Quite right, i was just correcting m3rcy’s view of the theory, which is that the big bang created life, which clearly isn’t the big bang theory at all.

either theory has just as much scientific proof backing it (and dont ask me to go into details on that, it’s just too much information for here). dont’ knock mine, i wont knock yours. deal?

Yes it’s definitly off-topic here, though i wouldnt mind going into a discussion about it elsewhere, theories after all are to be debated.

depending on how you interpret the Bible, it’s not necessarily intended to be a literal anatomical likeness so much as a spiritual likeness

Actually on reflection that’s probably much more likely…

I’d say at the current rate we’ll prob get there on the 12th….

But i think the big question has to be….. who will be the 100,000th poster?

Well my grandmother and father claim to have seen “something” in the sky way back, but they believe that it was just some unexplained phenomenom… they saw a ball of fire which hovered for a few seconds then zoomed off… personally i think most such events are likely to be optical illusions of some kind….

Logically I believe that it is inconcievable that this insignificant planet is the only place intelligent life has ever evolved, but whether these other intelligent life forms would have been able to travel through interstellar space and visit us strikes me as unlikely….

If you take the light speed limit on travel as absolute (Tigerblade i’m curious you said in the timetravel topic that you don’t think time travel is possible, but you said that you use faster than light speed technology as na example of highly advanced technology, but if you can travel faster than light you can travel through time) then for aliens to have detected us and reach this planet by the present day they would have to be within about 50 light years as an outside limit (as we only started seriously broadcasting radiowaves which could be concievably be detected on another planet 100 years ago), now the chances that there is an intelligent civillisation, within 50 light years, capable of speed of light travel, who have by sheerest chance detected our radio waves almost as soon as they could possibly be detected (which considering the vastness of space and the number of planets is a hit and miss affair in itself) and hence the possibility of intelligent life and then have sent a spacecraft to investigate i find improbable… and for spacecraft to have visited us at even earlier stages even more improbable, so i think it highly unlikley that we are frequently visited by intelligent life.

i mean,, if we were made by a big bang, (by scientific theory) whats the chance that another bang happend and formed life on other planets?

I think your slightly confused there… the big bang created the universe… it didn’t create life…

And since Tigerblade has brought it up i’m going to have to query him on it…

I do believe that it’s possible that intelligent life was created on other planets besides Terra. (Yes, created. not evolved.) however, i dont pretend to imagine that aliens look human, or even humanoid

Since you believe that life was “created” (which though I am sceptical of this view it could concievably be correct, if the creation takes place in the constant improvement of speicies and not in an instant creation) i presume you are taking the bible as your authority for this? and if so surely any intelligent life would be humanoid, seeing as humans were created in the image of god, so god would create other intelligent life in his image would he not? unless humans are supremely special which I doubt….

Ok i’ve changed my quote from tigerblade to include the whole sentence on chickenkikers insistence… not entirely sure it’s necessary but hey…

Have you read Rob Grant’s books Colony and Incompetence Martin?

They are very good satiric looks at society, and some of the most emoerable books I have read this year… which considering I have read over a hundred is pretty good!

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?

@ Reliable

I see we are going to have to agree to disagree… your arguements don’t convince me, and I can see my arguements aren’t convincing you, and seeing as the bible can be interpreted in oh so many different ways it’s difficult to see how we could possibly resolve our completely different interpretations.

You seem to be coming from the literalist school of thought, that the bible was written by God, and is in all aspects correct, whilst I believe that whilst portions of the bible were inspired by God and the actions of god’s son, in the process of being commited to paper, translated and broadcast through the ages they have been inevitably altered in subtle and not so subtle ways until it has reached the stage where the bible contains a heavily filtered verison of god’s message which has to be interpreted in terms of Christian morals and basic logical principles, which in my view cannot justify a condemnation of homosexuals for the fact that due to reasons beyond there control they are attracted to members of the same sex, just as I could not condemn someone for suffering from a disease, as the root causes are in my belief beyond there control.

I could go on and disect your arguement again… but since the fundamental disagreement between us would stay the same there would be no real point to that.

And incidentally on the subject of homosexuality… most of the biblical sins can be justified as sins in that there presence is dangerous to society as a whole for medical or social reasons … is there such a justification for homosexuality being dangerous to society that I am unaware of?

Be careful there buddy, it is true that biblically speaking that God is the creator of everything. However, homosexuality is not a “thing” but an ACTION that someone chooses to participate in. God created good and He created evil. And He did not even introduce us to evil but ONLY good. What you must understand is that God did not create sins. Sins is your choose of manifesting evil.

God is the creator of everything correct? And seeing as there is increasing evidence that homosexuality has a biological basis, which God created, so by my eyes god created homosexual desire…

Before I go any further, let me clarify that homosexuality is nothing more than a choice. A person chooses to be an homosexual. Yes, a person can be attracted to someone of the same sex and that is what you call “TEMPTATION,” being attracted to the same sex is not “homosexuality” nor does it makes anyone an homosexual. To be an homosexual, one has to choose to engage in a relationship with a person.

So God is being deliberatly mean and excluding a siginificant percentage of the human race from ever having meaningful sexual relationships, which as i recall was his “gift” to us? Seems slightly off for an ever-loving God.

Let’s see what the bible has to say regarding homosexuality being a choice or not.

Romans 1:27-32 – 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: 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. 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; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Well you are quoting Paul there, who in my opinion was a bigoted idiot who hijacked Christ’s teachings and who I strongly disagreee with.

And incidentally on the subject of paul…. if you follow his teachings you would not be here for:

Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

Romans 16:18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

So there he’s told you to avoid those who might cause you to quetsion your faith, and my beliefs are certainly anti-doctrinal, so clearly if you follow Paul you shouldn’t be here.

But my anti-paul bias is by the by.

If you look at Jesus’s teachings, who is the founder of the faith, well he never says a word against homosexuality, and he had plenty of oppurtunities too seeing as homosexuality was rife among the romans. Paul however was very damning of homosexuality… yet Paul was mortal, he was not the word of God, he had his own beliefs and predjudices, and evidently one of these was deep predjudice agaisnt homosexuality, and due to his prominent role in the early Christian church this leeked into Christian teaching. So you have to ask yourself do you take the words of Paul over that of Christ?

I can go on pasting more scriptures from the New Testament proving you that homosexuality is not an “old testament” thing but I believe those should be enough.

Give me a quote from Jesus which condemns homosexuality, all the quotes you have given come from mortals, who are by nature extremely fallible, and will inevitably have there own predjudices which interfere with there message.

For example Timothy claims that homosexulaity is wrong “and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted” yet the gospel is the word of Christ, and Christ does not condemn homosexuality, so where does this condemnation of homosexulaity come from? Paul and the OT, not from Christ the living word of God.

Lastly, we have sins – Sins remain sins no matter what. Except for meat because God especifically revealed to peter that eating meat was no longer a sin. But it will be a sin to YOU only if it is against your conscience.

So meat is an exception because of the opinion of one man, who was not the Christ, now to me that is a slippery slope which suggests a whole lot of things can be discounted…

Deuteronomy, chapter 25 v 11: “If two men are fighting and the wife of one goes to help her husband by grabbing the testicles of his assailant, you must cut off her hand. Show her no pity.”

Now in my view that isn’t a symbol, or a tradition and custom, thats a sin, and the punishment which should be acted on for doing said sin, and well i don’t see that happening very often…

Ok it’s a silly example, but still valid, theres a lot of things from the bible whch are ignored and placed under one of the categories you have said, now I can accept it if you acknowledge all or none of the OT, but inbetweens just lay the whole thing open to ridicule, ignoring some things and not others, it’s not a buffet…

You miss the whole meaning of love, can I claim that I love you while I see you pointing a knife into your heart and I say “I love you, just go ahead and kill yourself.” Love is not just a word, we need to manifest that love. Homosexuality being a sin, we need to manifest our love toward every homosexual by telling them that they need to repent. If I claim that I love the homosexuals and yet accept them in their sin then I clearly do not love them. Jesus loved us, He didn’t just claim that He loved us but He came and DIED four our sins and TOOK US AWAY from sins and showed us the way to righteousness.

Ok lets look at the whole love thing again let’s view homosexuals as say lepers (not saying homosexuality is a disease, just something that some people have, and some people don’t), they have an illness/desire which is not accepted by many people, lepers were outcasts, isolated for society for something which was not their fault, they were deemed to be sinners because of this, Jesus however accpeted them as they were, as human, not sinners but just ordinary people, yes he cured them, but before this he accepted them as non-sinners who just happened to be different.

So now tell me with all honesty that Jesus, when confronted with a homosexual, who has a biological condition which results in them being different would not tell them that they were not sinners and accept them as they were.

You admit that it is meant for man and woman

As it is meant for man and man, and woman and woman

No man has indepth knowledge of the “homosexual psyche.”

Would not a homosexual ahve an indepth knowledge of his psyche?

However, God is the author of knowledge and He knows all. Man is limited in knowledge to know “man.” Therefore, knowledge can be obtained ONLY through God.

Wooo… that’s a sweeping statement, so your saying that science should all be discounted… because it’s not from god, and in fact naything which does nto come directly from god is wrong? But by that definition the majority of the bible and all the quptes you have layed out are also incorrect as they do not come form God, but from people interpreting God’s message which are too different things.

In fact the only things whcih come direct from God… would be the ten commandments, as god wrote them himself, and teh word of Jesus, as he is God… everything else doe snot ocme direct from God, but through man and hence is inherently flawed.

So any condemnation of homosexuals in the bible does not come from God directly, but thorugh man, and so by your arguement is flawed and probably wrong.

Oh and incidentally this amused me querty…

A long time ago before microscopes

so what about 100 years ago? :p