Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
For Draenor And Whomever Wants To Tear My Faith Apart :)
upallnight
Member Posts: 1,154
I am going to post a paper he wrote that I found when I looked up his name. I'm sure everyone is going to tear it apart, but I just have one thing to say about that. I took a history class in college once and a professor told me something that really stuck with me. She said that history is synonymous with controversy. In other words, don't think your impression of something is correct just because it's your impression. I offer that up to you and I hope the same respect can come back to me.
I am not saying anyone is right or wrong, I am simply saying that this is what is right for me. And this is what has brought me close to Jesus Christ. If you want to hate me or call me a sin and it seems to bring you close to Jesus, go right ahead. We may avoid each other here, but he'll bring us together in heaven. Just love Jesus, and if hating me is what it takes for that to happen, I'll bear that burden for you.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Boswell:
The Church and the Homosexual: An Historical Perspective, 1979
"Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce." This attitude of Plato's was characteristic of the ancient world, and I want to begin my discussion of the attitudes of the Church and of Western Christianity toward homosexuality by commenting on comparable attitudes among the ancients.
To a very large extent, Western attitudes toward law, religion, literature and government are dependent upon Roman attitudes. This makes it particularly striking that our attitudes toward homosexuality in particular and sexual tolerance in general are so remarkably different from those of the Romans. It is very difficult to convey to modern audiences the indifference of the Romans to questions of gender and gender orientation. The difficulty is due both to the fact that the evidence has been largely consciously obliterated by historians prior to very recent decades, and to the diffusion of the relevant material.
Romans did not consider sexuality or sexual preference a matter of much interest, nor did they treat either in an analytical way. An historian has to gather together thousands of little bits and pieces to demonstrate the general acceptance of homosexuality among the Romans.
One of the few imperial writers who does appear to make some sort of comment on the subject in a general way wrote, "Zeus came as an eagle to godlike Ganymede and as a swan to the fairhaired mother of Helen. One person prefers one gender, another the other, I like both." Plutarch wrote at about the same time, "No sensible person can imagine that the sexes differ in matters of love as they do in matters of clothing. The intelligent lover of beauty will be attracted to beauty in whichever gender he finds it." Roman law and social strictures made absolutely no restrictions on the basis of gender. It has sometimes been claimed that there were laws against homosexual relations in Rome, but it is easy to prove that this was not the case. On the other hand, it is a mistake to imagine that anarchic hedonism ruled at Rome. In fact, Romans did have a complex set of moral strictures designed to protect children from abuse or any citizen from force or duress in sexual relations. Romans were, like other people, sensitive to issues of love and caring, but individual sexual (i.e. gender) choice was completely unlimited. Male prostitution (directed toward other males), for instance, was so common that the taxes on it constituted a major source of revenue for the imperial treasury. It was so profitable that even in later periods when a certain intolerance crept in, the emperors could not bring themselves to end the practice and its attendant revenue.
Gay marriages were also legal and frequent in Rome for both males and females. Even emperors often married other males. There was total acceptance on the part of the populace, as far as it can be determined, of this sort of homosexual attitude and behavior. This total acceptance was not limited to the ruling elite; there is also much popular Roman literature containing gay love stories. The real point I want to make is that there is absolutely no conscious effort on anyone's part in the Roman world, the world in which Christianity was born, to claim that homosexuality was abnormal or undesirable. There is in fact no word for "homosexual" in Latin. "Homosexual" sounds like Latin, but was coined by a German psychologist in the late 1 9th century. No one in the early Roman world seemed to feel that the fact that someone preferred his or her own gender was any more significant than the fact that someone preferred blue eyes or short people. Neither gay nor straight people seemed to associate certain characteristics with sexual preference. Gay men were not thought to be less masculine than straight men and lesbian women were not thought of as less feminine than straight women. Gay people were not thought to be any better or worse than straight people-an attitude which differed both from that of the society that preceded it, since many Greeks thought gay people were inherently better than straight people, and from that of the society which followed it, in which gay people were often thought to be inferior to others.
If this is an accurate picture of the ancient world the social structure from which Western culture is derived-then where did the negative ideas now common regarding homosexuality come from? The most obvious answer to this question, and the one which has most generally been given in the past, is that Christianity is responsible for the change. There is an historical coincidence that seems to lend some credence to this idea- namely that when Christianity appears on the scene that this tolerance spoken of earlier disappears and that general acceptance of homosexuality becomes much less common.
It should be obvious, however, that Christianity alone is not likely to be responsible for this change. (One notes, for instance, that the places in the world today where gay people suffer the most violent oppression happen to be the very places where Christianity is also least welcome.) First of all, I would like to dispose briefly of the notion that the Bible had something to do with Christian attitudes toward gay people. From an historical vantage point, it is easy to do so, but I realize that for people who live by the Bible more must be said about it than what an historian can observe. An historian can simply note that there is no place in the writings of the Early or High Middle Ages where the Bible seems to be the origin of these prejudices against gay people. Where any reason is given for the new hostility. sources other than the Bible are cited. As a matter of fact, from an historical perspective, the Bible would be the last source one would look at after examining growing hostility toward gay people, but so many people have a feeling that the Bible is somehow involved that its teachings on the subject matter must be addressed in detail.
Most serious biblical scholars now recognize that the story of Sodom was probably not intended as any sort of comment on homosexuality. It certainly was not interpreted as a prohibition of homosexuality by most early Christian writers. In the modern world, the idea that the story refers to the sin of inhospitality rather than to sexual failing was first popularized in 1955 in Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition' by D.S. Bailey, and since then has increasingly gained the acceptance of scholars. Modern scholars are a little late: almost all medieval scholars felt the story of Sodom was a story about hospitality. This is indeed, not only the most obvious interpretation of it but also the one given to it in most other biblical passages. It is striking, for example, that although Sodom and Gomorrah are mentioned in about two dozen different places in the Bible (other than Genesis 19 where the story is first told), in none of these places is homosexuality associated with the Sodomites.
The only other places that might be adduced from the Old Testament against homosexuality are Deuteronomy 23:17 and Kings 14:24, and-doubtless the best know n places Leviticus 18:20 and 20: 13, where a man's sleeping the asleep of women" with men is labelled ritual impurity for Jews. None of these was cited by early Christians against homosexual behavior. Early Christians had no desire to impose the levitical law on themselves or anyone else. Most nonJewish Christians were in fact appalled by most of the strictures of the Jewish law and were not about to put themselves under what they considered the bondage of the old law. St. Paul says again and again that we must not fall back on the bondage of the old law, and in fact goes so far as to claim that if we are circumcised (the cornerstone of the old law), Christ will profit us nothing. The early Christians were not to bind themselves to the strictures of the old law. The Council of Jerusalem, held around 50 A.D. and recorded in Acts 15, in fact took up this issue specifically and decided that Christians would not be bound by any of the strictures of the old law except for which they list - none of which is related to homosexuality.
In the New Testament we find no citations of Old Testament strictures. We do, however, find three places-I Corinthians 6:9, I Timothy 1:10 and Romans 1:2627which might be relevant. Again, I'll be brief in dealing with these. The Greek word malakos in I Cor. 6:9 and I Tim. 1 :10, which Scholars in the 20th century have deemed to refer to some sort of homosexual behavior, was universally used by Christian writers to refer to masturbation until about the 15th or 16th century. Beginning in the 15th century many people were bothered by the idea that masturbators were excluded from the kingdom of heaven. They did not, however, seem to be too upset by the idea of excluding homosexuals from the kingdom of heaven, so malakos was retranslated to refer to homosexuality instead of masturbation. The texts and words remained the same, but translators just changed their ideas about who should be excluded from the kingdom of heaven.
The remaining passage - Romans 1:26-7 - does not suffer by and large from mistranslation, although you can easily be misled by the phrase "against nature." This phrase was also interpreted differently by the early church. St. John Chrysostom says that St. Paul deprives the people he is discussing of any excuse. observing of their women that "they changed the natural use. No one can claim, Paul points out, that she came to this because she was precluded from lawful intercourse or that because she was unable to satisfy her desire....Only those possessing something can change it. Again he points the same thing out about men but in a different way? saying they 'left the natural use of women.' Likewise, he casts aside with these words every excuse, charging that they not only had legitimate enjoyment and abandoned it, going after another but that spurning the natural, they pursued the unnatural." What Chrysostom is getting at, and he expounds on it at great length, is the idea that St. Paul was not writing about gay people but about heterosexual people, probably married who abandoned the pleasure they were entitled to by virtue of their own natures for one to which they were not entitled. This is reflected in the canons imposing penances for homosexual activity, which through the 16th century were chiefly directed toward married persons. Little is said of single people.
Perhaps the most significant element of the passage is that it introduced into Christian thought the notion that homosexual relations were "against nature." What Paul, however, seems to have meant was unusual not against natural law, as it is so often interpreted The concept of natural law was not fully developed until almost 1,200 years later. All that Paul probably meant to say was that it was unusual that people should have this sort of sexual desire. This is made clear by the fact that in the same epistle in the 11th chapter, God Himself is in fact described as acting "against nature" in saving the Gentiles. It is therefore inconceivable that this phrase connotes moral turpitude.
One may well ask whether the thundering silence on the subject in the New Testament does not indicate something about the attitude of early Christians toward homosexuality? As an historian, I would say no. Most of the literature of this period, especially legal and moral guidance, is silent on the purely affective aspects of human life. In the New Testament Jesus, St. Paul, and the other writers are generally responding to questions regarding social and moral problems posed to them by a predominantly heterosexual society. People asked them questions about divorce, widows, property, etch and they answered these questions. Most of Jesus' moral commentary, especially about sexuality is in response to specific questions put to him. Jesus does not appear to be giving detailed guidelines on all aspects of human life, especially not affective life, but rather to be offering general principles. There is almost no comment anywhere in the Bible about loving your children; there are few comments about friendship; and there is not a single comment about what we know as "romantic love," although this is the basis of modern Christian marriage in our own church as well as the entire Christian community.
There are some reasons for the hostility toward homosexuality which now seem characteristic of the Christian community, and I want to mention them. First of all, I want to dispose of what might seem the most likely primary reason for hostility toward homosexuality-namely, general opposition to non-procreative sexuality. There was indeed on the part of many early Christians a feeling of hostility toward any form of sexuality which was not potentially procreative. This cannot, however, be shown to stem from Christian principles. Among other things, there is not a word within the Old Testament or the New about non-procreative sexuality among married persons, and, indeed, most Jewish commentators have agreed that anything was licit between husband and wife. It is a well-established principle in several social science disciplines that there is, however, a classrelated prejudice against non-procreative sexual acts, and one would expect to find this among lower class Christians as among any lower class group of the society. Among theologians, explicit rejection of all non-procreative sexuality, does not relate directly to attitudes toward gay people. The theologians of the early church were attempting to impress on all Christians that they had to see every act of heterosexual intercourse as the potential creation of a child. No effective means of birth control was known in this world (except for abstinence)-not even the rhythm method. The only way to avoid having children was to kill or abandon them. Theologians therefore wished to persuade Christian parents that they had to be responsible for the creation of a child every time they had sexual pleasure. The only other alternatives in their world-the world in which the early theology of the church was formulated-were morally unacceptable. Now the original aim of this approach, it appears, was only to protect children. It was not to attack homosexuality. Indeed, it was a very long time before this notion spilled over into homosexuality, but it eventually did.
As late as the eleventh and twelfth centuries, there appears to be no conflict between a Christian life and homosexuality. Gay life is everywhere in the art, poetry, music, history, etc. of the 11th and 12th centuries. The most popular literature of the day even heterosexual literature, is about samesex lovers of one sort or another. Clerics were at the forefront of this revival of the gay culture. St. Aelred, for instance, writes of his youth as a time when he thought of nothing but loving and being loved by men. He became a Cistercian abbot, and incorporated his love for men into his Christian life by encouraging monks to love each other, not just generally, but individually and passionately He cited the example of Jesus and St. John as guidance for this. 'Jesus himself," he said, "in everything like us. patient and compassionate with others in every matter, Transfigured this sort of love through the expression of his own love. for he allowed only one - not al l- to recline on his breast as a sign of his special love; and the closer they were, the more copiously did the secrets of their heavenly marriage impart the sweet smell of their spiritual chrism to their love."
After the twelfth century Christian tolerance and acceptance of gay love seems to disappear with remarkable rapidity. The writings of St. Aelred disappeared because they were kept locked up in Cistercian monasteries until about eight years ago, when for the first time Cistercians could again read them. Beginning about 1150, for reasons I cannot adequately explain, there was a great upsurge in popular intolerance of gay people. There were also at this time violent outbursts against Jews, Muslims, and witches. Women were suddenly excluded from power structures to which they had previously had access-no longer able, for example, to attend universities in which they had previously been enrolled. double monasteries for men and women were closed. There was suspicion of everyone. In 1 180 the Jews were expelled from France.
The change was rapid. In England in the 12th century there were no laws against Jews and they occupied prominent positions, but by the end of the 13th century, sleeping with a Jew was equated with sleeping with an animal or with murder, and in France Jews, according to St. Louis, were to be killed on the spot if they questioned the Christian faith. During this time there are many popular diatribes against gay people as well, suggesting that they molest children, violate natural law, are bestial? and bring harm to nations which tolerate them. Within a single century. between the period of 1250 and 1350, almost every European state passed civil laws demanding death for a single homosexual act. This popular reaction affected Christian theology a great deal. Throughout the 12th century homosexual relations, had, at worst, been comparable to heterosexual fornication for married people, and, at best, not sinful at all. During the 13th century, because of this popular reaction, writers like Thomas Aquinas tried to portray homosexuality as one of the very worst sins, second only to murder.
It is very difficult to describe how this came about. St. Thomas tried to show that homosexuality was opposed to nature in some way, the most familiar objection being that nature created sexuality for procreation and using it for any other purpose would violate nature. Aquinas was much too smart for this argument. In the Summa Contra Gentiles he asks, "Is it sinful to walk on your hands when nature intended them for something else?" No, indeed it is not sinful, so he shifted ground. This is obviously not the reason that homosexuality is sinful; he looks for another. First he tried arguing that homosexuality must be sinful because it impedes the reproduction of the human race. But this argument also failed, for, Aquinas noted in the Summa Theologica, "a duty may be of two sorts: it may be enjoined on the individual as a duty which cannot be ignored without sin, or it may be enjoined upon a group. In the latter cases no one individual is obligated to fulfill the duty. The commandment regarding procreation applies to the human race as a whole! which is obligated to increase physically. It is therefore sufficient for the race if some people undertake to reproduce physically." Moreover, Aquinas admitted in the Summa Theologica that homosexuality was absolutely natural to certain individuals and therefore inculpable. In what sense, then, could he argue that it was unnatural? In a third place he concedes that the term "natural" in fact has no moral significance, but it is simply a term applied to things which are strongly disapproved of. "Homosexuality," he says, "is called 'the unnatural vice' by the common people, and hence it may be said to be unnatural." This was not an invention of Aquinas'. It was a response to popular prejudices of the time. It did not derive its authority from the Bible or from any previous tradition of Christian morality, but it eventually became part of Catholic theological thought. These attitudes have remained basically unchanged because there has been no popular support for change in the matter. The public has continued to feel hostility to gay people and the church has been under no pressure to reexamine the origins of its teachings on homosexuality.
It is possible to change ecclesiastical attitudes toward gay people and their sexuality because the objections to homosexuality are not biblical, they are not consistent, they are not part of Jesus' teaching; and they are not even fundamentally Christian. It is possible because Christianity was indifferent, if not accepting, of gay people and their feelings for a longer period of time than it had been hostile to them. It is possible because the founders of the religion specifically considered love to transcend accidents of biology and to be the end, not the means. It may not be possible to eradicate intolerance from secular society, for intolerance is, to some extent ineradicable; but I believe the church's attitude can and must be changed. It has been different in the past and it can be again. Plato observed of secular society nearly 2,400 years ago that "wherever it has been established that it is shameful to be involved in homosexual relationships, this is due to evil on the part of the legislatures, to despotism on the part of the rulers and to cowardism on the part of the governed."
I don't think we can afford to be cowardly. We have an abundance of ecclesiastical precedent to encourage the church to adopt a more positive attitude. We must use it. As a gay archbishop wrote in the 12th century, "it is not we who teach God how to love, but He who taught us. He made our natures full of love." A contemporary of his wrote, "Love is not a crime. If it were wrong to love, God would not have bound even the divine to love." These statements came from the Christian community, from Christian faith. That community can and must be reminded of its former beliefs, its former acceptance. And we must do the reminding.--------------------------------------
Comments
Regardless, any person of faith who preaches intolerance, bigotry, racism or any other kind of gospel that in ANY way looks down upon others is a faith of evil.
This is one of the reasons I despice most religions so much.
The world would be a better place without them, and lot more enligthened.
Any fool can read the bible or any other religious text and find within it exactly what he or she is looking for, sadly a lot of people do.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jerek_
I wonder if you honestly even believe what you type, or if you live in a made up world of facts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just think some people (like you said) are finding things that back up their societal conditioning. Like that article I posted says, homosexuality for Christians used to not be an issue. It's only recently that it has become one. That seems to me to be letting society dictate your faith instead of questioning societal persuasions.
I have feeling society is changing though. Maybe one of the great irony's of the enlightenment period will be that it brings us back to faith by holding both rationalism and faith in tandem. I don't see how both have to be mutually exclusive at all.
--------------------------------------
The problem with individual refutation of Biblical text is that it denies the context in which the books were origionally written. Each book of the Bible supports the other books and provides further incite, especially books in the new testament, which are largely written about the same events from different perspectives. Since I am no expert on Hebrew I can't comment on the origional words in the old testament being changed from masturbators to homosexuals...I can say, however, that the Bible does mention the "wasting of seed" in other places in the Bible (though the specifics escape me) and I therefore find it difficult to believe that someone would change the meaning from masturbation to homosexuality, when there are other passages that they could very well have changed.
For Levitical law, it is true that Christians are not subject to this, it does, however, give incite on a few key issues. One of which is the context of heterosexual love and homosexual love. One can extrapolate from the fact that God created woman for man, and vice versa, that it was his plan to create a society in which men and women procreated and loved one another. The author's argument is that because it is not sin to walk on your hands, though that's not what they are meant for, therefore homosexuality wouldn't be considered sin, is flawed. Though it may seem a good and convenient analogy, when dealing with the plans of a being like God, it is a completely different case. God, and the Bible, do everything for a very explicit reason. To me, God created men and women for eachother, and then saying in the old testament that anything but that type of relationship is sinful (even in levitical law, which as I said provides guidlines for things that are still relevent today) is enough for me to surmise that this rule still applies. As with other things in Leviticus, there were real reasons why people should not engage in certain activities...Being that STD's are more readily passed through anal sex due to a thinner layer of protection, it can be said that the reason God said that homosexuality is bad is the same as why God said that shellfish are bad.
If this were the sole reason, and if this were standing on its own as why Christians believe homosexuality to be sinful, then I would say that it's a very strong case indeed that homosexuality is no longer something that should be frowned upon by Christians. However, I believe that the passages from Romans still apply today, and I believe that the most obvious interpretation for them is still that homosexual behavior is wrong. The author of the articles gives very weak reasons for believing that Paul is talking about anything other than homosexuality (and really made me believe that it was a simple matter of his own opinion rather than any great knowledge that he had about the subject), and makes no mention of the prositution that was spoken about in a debate a few weeks ago in Corinthians.
Once again though Upallnight, I do not place homosexuality on any kind of sin pedestol as being worse than anything else...sexual sin is sexual sin, and both homosexuals and heterosexuals are guilty of it. If you are a Christian, and you truly have Jesus in your heart and live your life as you believe Jesus wanted you to live it, then you are saved, it is not my place to tell any person that they are damned to hell.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
If you knew anything about the Bible and what it says about sex, then you would know that it does not say anywhere that married couples cannot have sex purely for pleasure. The wasting of seed refers to masturbation, not a husband's duty to satisfy his wife(and vice versa). So I believe it is you that needs to get a clue.
Once again, you can't take one verse from the Bible and decide that you need to live your life a certain way, you must take the entire thing into context.
And like I said, you're right, I'm not the judge...I believe I already pointed that out in my origional post.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
It's not vague at all when it comes to issues of sex...all you are doing is proving two things:
1: You don't know anything about the Bible
2: You can't have a reasonable discussion without flaming and hurling insults
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
It's not vague at all when it comes to issues of sex...all you are doing is proving two things:
1: You don't know anything about the Bible
2: You can't have a reasonable discussion without flaming and hurling insults
Well you started the flamming for one! I know a little about the bible because my Grandma is very religious and she always spews that crap at me. She has read the book over and over. Sex is coded into your mind and you normally have a need to release your seed. You make all you opinions based off a book that you don't even know who created. And every one of your views is also based of that verse a perception that someone that isn't so simple minded could see. People like you are the reason the Salem witch trials were believable by the public as a OK action. I don't want to have a reasonable discussion with you. You don't understand reason and never will. I don't even know why you even cared for them to show you this article because it will not change your views. I just refuse to believe on judgement day that my sexual actions are going to be questioned. Have you ever thought that maybe back in those times there wasn't that many Humans and gaypeople or masturbation would hinder procreation? Most guidlines in the past were made to secure a future rather then what (if there is) GOD would want. Im full blown atheist because of people like you. You tarnish religion and make it where you are the judge jury and executioner on matters that the bible says is Sin. OPEN YOUR EYES!!!
I found it very enlightening.
I'm on your side Upallnight. I think Jesus accepts you as you are as well. Don't let people trying to convince you otherwise bother you. They're mostly just trying to make due for something that is bothering them in their own heads.
Someday it's going to be different for gays. I can tell. There are a lot more of us on your side than there used to be and support for you is growing all the time.
=============================
It all seems so stupid
It makes me want to give up
But why should I give up
When it all seems so stupid
Oh, Masturbation is way better than Sex.
- Burying Threads Since 1979 -
Love and faith are two aspects of a person that cannot be dictated to us or changed by force. They are the cornerstones of free will.
The most important part of reading is reading between the lines.
Homosexuality is a sin just like fornication. Fornication is a sin just like lying. Who are we to judge? We can, but it's not helping our eternal souls now is it? Just because I and a few others disagree with homosexuality doesn't mean that when we say a gay or lesbian we show our distaste on our sleeve. I am all for anyones right to choose, choosing to be gay, choosing to lie, choosing to steal, and commit adultery, that is their choice.
I personally disagree with organized religion, thats why I don't go to church (thats not helped by the fact that there are no real good Luthrein churches on this shitty little island). What I do agree with is faith, not blind faith, but belief in a higher power, GOD. The Bible and Koran, any 'holy' text, they all can easily be interpreted by some guy on the side of the street. The church and religion gives it's version and interpretation, allowing people to accept a processed version of the Bible.
It's not that we're bashing any church or religion (by what I can tell we're all Christians of some sort...) I may not agree with homosexual's on a spiritual level, but I fully support their rights to do whatever the hell they want. Just like the next guy...
Agree with me, disagree with me, my point is made I hope...
Whilst I generally agree with you on the principles of hating the sin but loving the sinner, there's always a danger of focusing too much on particular actions rather then the bigger picture. Jesus was mostly about the bigger picture. The important thing here is that Upallnight wants to be closer to God and is gaining a great deal spiritually and emotionally from the church he's attending. If, in his journey, there are things in his life which are an issue, I'm sure they'll be made known to him.
I think it would be a far worse thing for the church to create an atmosphere in which homosexuals are made to feel unwelcome and rejected, than it would be to be potentially accepting of something God may or may not view as sinful.
I see sin as something personal between you and God. We all have our issues. I certainly wouldn't want to go to a church where people constantly pointed out scripture to me to point out what they considered to be sins in my life.
You need to balance it.
Take Russia for example. In 1918 to 1992ish, they were proud to be an Athiestic society. I wont go into the political, Marxist details but my Great Granfather-in-law escaped from Russia to the U.S. around 1919 because, at the time, the Russian Government was sending all of the Religious teachers to concetration camps to die in Siberia. Tens of thousands of priests died in Siberia all in the name of Marxism.
Fast Forward to the late nineties. When the underground churches were allowed to freely worship, millions came in droves; they were needing God so much you could see it in their faces.
Religion can be the worse thing to could ever happen to us but at the same time, when properly treated as such, it can be a blessing for billions of people.
Believing in something and worshipping in something that we cannot see is not a sign of weakness ( I know you're not saying it is) but a sign of strength. It's easy to not believe in something you cannot see. However, taking a religious commandment to satisfy the urges of one's agenda is not religion. It's a defilement of religion.
Now, about homosexuality.....well...that would take too damn long to write out. lol
People who have to create conspiracy and hate threads to further a cause lacks in intellectual comprehension of diversity.
People who have to create conspiracy and hate threads to further a cause lacks in intellectual comprehension of diversity.
I would say it depends... All I know is my right hand is always there for me.
We barely remember who or what came before this precious moment;
We are choosing to be here right now -Tool, Parabola
roflmaoI would say it depends... All I know is my right hand is always there for me.
People who have to create conspiracy and hate threads to further a cause lacks in intellectual comprehension of diversity.
LOL what ever man.. I stopped reading right there...
Homo-sex produces Great Ideas!! !!! since Hetero-sex can't.. sure
What's your Wu Name?
Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight
Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader
"Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.."
<i>ME<i>
It's called an 'aspirate H' . It is perfectly acceptable to use 'an' in front of the word 'historical' due to its latin/french origin, in addition to its historic pronunciation. It is now more common to use 'A' , but only recently (last century or so) have modern speakers begun to pronounce 'historical' with a hard H. Think about a cockney accent if you want. The reason 'a historical' is accepted now, is because we began pronouncing the word differently. So, you can use 'an historical' if you still pronounce the word with a soft H and you can use 'a history' if you pronounce it with a hard H. Think of the words humble, and herb. Both those words are more commonly pronounced with either the hard or the soft H, but the word historical is now almost universally pronounced with a hard H. So although uncommon, it is not incorrect, and in the UK I'd suspect you'd see a lot more 'an historical' vs. 'a historical'.
Do not make a post expressing your command of the language, if you don't have it.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/a-an.html
If you knew anything about the Bible and what it says about sex, then you would know that it does not say anywhere that married couples cannot have sex purely for pleasure. The wasting of seed refers to masturbation, not a husband's duty to satisfy his wife(and vice versa). So I believe it is you that needs to get a clue.
Once again, you can't take one verse from the Bible and decide that you need to live your life a certain way, you must take the entire thing into context.
And like I said, you're right, I'm not the judge...I believe I already pointed that out in my origional post.
You are such a jerk. You come on here and spread your nonsense and then you insult people while standing on your stack of Bibles.
I find the whole notion of religion, well, moot.
When you die, you're dead - nothing else. That's it, you're dead and you aren't coming back.
Look at it this way, do you remember the year 1900? No? That's because you weren't alive back then. That's what it'll be like when you're dead.
Another way to look at it is this, do you remember life during the times you're sleeping and don't dream? No? That's exactly what it will be like when you're dead - nothing at all. Your brain functions no more and your body decays.
That fact was so hard to fathom that that's one of the big reasons the gods were created in the first place.
There is no purpose to life except for what you decide is your purpose. If you believe your purpose is to raise children, so be it. If you decide your purpose is to live your life with a same-sex partner, so be it.
And another thing, our societal morals were made not by the ones who were right, but the ones with the most might.
Life of an MMORPG "addict"
For 7 years, proving that if you quote "fuck" you won't get banned.
It's pretty trite, and as with most things out of Hollywood, overly melodramatic, but it's also entirely true.
A person could be the most pious, and godly individual to walk the earth, and never once in their life set foot in a church.
Of course the church, as an entity, doesn't want you to believe that. If everyone suddenly upped and took their faith, and made it truly a personal thing, the church would fall apart, and all those at the top of the pyramid scheme would suddenly find themselves broke, and powerless.
Faith, as Enigma pointed out, can bring people hope when everything seems like it's turning to shit. The belief that something, or someone, is guarding the light at the end of the tunnel is very powerful. Sadly, it's this same powerfulness that has allowed demagogues throughout history to rise to power on the backs of innocents.
Religion, particularly organized religion, is a hindrance to everything the human spirit could achieve. It is an age old shackle that prevents mankind from ever fully realizing his destiny. Until mankind as a whole comes around to this realization, we're forever bound to this banal, mundane existence. We have created our own hell, here on Earth, what need to we have for fire and brimstone from the bible?
It's pretty trite, and as with most things out of Hollywood, overly melodramatic, but it's also entirely true.
A person could be the most pious, and godly individual to walk the earth, and never once in their life set foot in a church.
Of course the church, as an entity, doesn't want you to believe that. If everyone suddenly upped and took their faith, and made it truly a personal thing, the church would fall apart, and all those at the top of the pyramid scheme would suddenly find themselves broke, and powerless.
Faith, as Enigma pointed out, can bring people hope when everything seems like it's turning to shit. The belief that something, or someone, is guarding the light at the end of the tunnel is very powerful. Sadly, it's this same powerfulness that has allowed demagogues throughout history to rise to power on the backs of innocents.
Religion, particularly organized religion, is a hindrance to everything the human spirit could achieve. It is an age old shackle that prevents mankind from ever fully realizing his destiny. Until mankind as a whole comes around to this realization, we're forever bound to this banal, mundane existence. We have created our own hell, here on Earth, what need to we have for fire and brimstone from the bible?
QFFT.
I liked that Orwell quote too, so true.
O_o o_O