Religious Debate - Homosexuality -

***Nate*** · #**241** 12-19-2004, 02:18 PM

Ambi, I love you.

If you were a guy and single and living in Oz I would totally... be too shy to ask you out. But I'd definately be thinking about it.

AquaticAmbi · #**242** 12-19-2004, 03:03 PM

Aww, Nate, you make me blush. Even though I'm female, not single, and living in the US, I'm definitely... I have no idea what I'm saying now. But seriously, it is good to know that I haven't came off as a total idiot in this thread due to my lack of eloquence and to a vocabulary lacking variety. Meh..

I guess this thread is done now that the main person with an opposition has stopped contributing. What an amusing experience this has been, and to the homosexual people reading this, I hope someday you'll be given the rights that you deserve. It happened for women, blacks, etc., so surely someday, it will happen for you too.

Jacob · #**243** 12-19-2004, 03:22 PM

'If you were a guy'

You're a Gay? ...Ew.

Necrum Miner · #**244** 12-19-2004, 03:40 PM

I've only just joined, and I haven't read all of the thread yet. So I'm not sure if anyone has said this yet (Here comes the possible "Make a total prat out of yourself before making three posts" barrier is easily broken), but here I go.

Any psychologist will tell you that no one, when born, is a bisexual (Attracted equally to both sexes). It's only because we know that reproduction (Which with any animal is the ultimate goal in life) can only work in a relationship with the opposite sex, that most of us grow up as heterosexuals. If a child becomes attacted to one sex more than they do another, that's what says straight or gay. If not, they remain a bisexual. In fact, if we didn't know about reproduction, most of us would still be bisexuals. Anyway, why would God be against relationships of the same sex if he created man with equal chances of doing so anyway? Personally, I'm not a believer in religion. I'd say it was most likely used to try to explain what we couldn't back then.

Oh, and about homosexuality bringing the population to a sensible level - Not very possible. Growth, in terms of the mind and otherwise, sprouts from DNA. All the DNA does is tells cells to grow so that it'll help the creature survive. And all the cells do is carry out these orders. The DNA is completely dependant on the experiances of the creature. It has no connection to any other life forms. All it knows is survival, and that's all it does. It doesn't care about over-population.

AquaticAmbi · #**245** 12-19-2004, 04:16 PM

Uh, I guess the thread isn't done. You're points are pretty good, Necrum Miner. A lot of what you've said has been discussed already-ish. You really should read the whole thread, or at least skim over it. I know it's long, but there's many parts worth the read.

Anyway, I don't think the members who suggested that homosexuality may be nature's way of keeping the population down on a DNA type level. Take fires in nature started by lightening for instance. The lightening isn't there for the purpose of cleaning out dead grasses and bushes in grasslands or dead trees and such in forests, but it does. It keeps these places healthy although there's no real connection between the two's existence, and it can still be called nature's way of doing that. The could possibly go for homosexuality and the human population.

Jacob · #**246** 12-20-2004, 06:05 AM

'If a child becomes attacted to one sex more than they do another, that's what says straight or gay.'

So, i don't get this. Does this mainly focus around single parent families?

Jacob · #**247** 12-25-2004, 02:46 PM

Just watched a programme called 'Who wrote the Bible?' and an interesting fact was divulged -

Mary Magdalen wrote a Gospel. But was also not a Prostitute.

It also had some other information on Mary, but i'm currently ill [not due to a hangover, but due to an illness i've had all day...oh...the...joy(!)]. But i'm sure somebody else on the forums would've seen this. So, if they want, they can fill y'all in.

***Alcar*** · #**248** 12-26-2004, 02:43 AM

I didn't see the program, not living in England, obviously

But I do know of this information. Not only did Mary Magdalene write a Gospel, but others, such as Phillip, wrote other Gospels as well. These Gospels contain information that deepens the understanding of Jesus, and provides a different viewpoint. We all know the Gospels were written by humans, and is therefore open to human error and biasm.

I can't remember the name off by heart, by Mary Magdalene was made a prostitute by a Pope very early in Christianity. It was only until the 20th century that it was revoked. But it did little, as it was not properly announced.

I think you are referring to the theory that Mary Magdalene and Jesus Christ were married? And that they had offspring? It's very interesting, and I'm currently reading a book detailing just this very subject (along with two other books I've yet to finish...).

One of the reasons I don't believe too greatly in the Papacy, is that it is a twisted perception of what Christianity should really be. And there are so many things wrong.

Alcar...

Jacob · #**249** 12-26-2004, 05:49 AM

'I think you are referring to the theory that Mary Magdalene and Jesus Christ were married? And that they had offspring?'

Never mentioned anything about that, i don't think. Did say how Mary went on about how women have as much of a right to hold a position of power in the Church though, and how women were just as capable as men. This was taken out, however, due to men not wanting such shenanigans to be spoke about.

***Alcar*** · #**250** 12-26-2004, 08:01 PM

:

Never mentioned anything about that, i don't think. Did say how Mary went on about how women have as much of a right to hold a position of power in the Church though, and how women were just as capable as men. This was taken out, however, due to men not wanting such shenanigans to be spoke about.

Yes, some believe that Mary Magdalene was supposed to be the successor of Jesus. But Peter wasn't as happy about having a female head the Church, so he drove her out. If you recall, Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene first, and the Apostles did not believe her when she told them what she'd seen. All this and more, is what i'm reading. And so the Church, even centuries onwards, still place women at a lower level of society, which is just plain wrong. And yet very few do anything to protest...

Though I take it with a pinch of salt. It's just interesting to read all these different theories.

Alcar...

TheRaisin · #**251** 12-26-2004, 11:30 PM

Gak. One thing I really detest about a religion such as this. It's SO easy to make teeny-tiny little changes and add teeny-tiny little flaws over a period of hundreds or even thousands of years and the end result is a PERVERSION of what the original intent was. Or, even more blatantly, facts are just completely changed and somehow get accepted as the gospel truth.

I say we build a gigantic sentient super-computer that records every detail of every religion and every historical event of religious significance for ever and ever amen, so that thousands of years from now, when indubitably some idiot jerk wanting power/wanting to discriminate against some group/wanting to make him- or herself look good, will try to change the facts, someone intelligent and rational can go to the computer and the computer will be like "You're totally right and that guy's an idiot" and it'll spit out a little holographic display chip thing and the protagonist will go and play it in front of a bunch of people and it'll say like "The Supercomputer says that guy's a jackass" and have a little seal of authority on it and they'll be like,
"Well, that's that."

Wouldn't that be nice?

***Alcar*** · #**252** 12-27-2004, 05:25 AM

Who is to say that people didn't leave clues about these inconsitences in the past? There were no doubt those in the know who didn't want to see Christianity twisted into something it shouldn't be. Perhaps the clues are all around us? Staring at us in the face?

*cough*

JESUS I love this book.

Alcar...