The end of the Church of Scotland? [Archive] - Page 2

One Day Soon

13-06-2011, 10:28 PM

I am as confused as TwoCarpets.

Something about a homosexual act demeaning those not involved in it then this. I really hope some admins would sensor you and not for showing us how a ***** and vagina 'match'. This is the exact type of behaviour that shows why religion is just simply wrong.

The little I can gather from your posts, you suggest that the natural state of the world is a heterosexual one? If so, why does homosexuality occur more abundantly in 'nature' and why the hell did God put some nerve endings on your sphincter which you may gain some pleasure from. Or was he just putting all these distractions there to demean everyone else?

I apologise to everyone else on this thread who may not like to hear this sort of thing. I know it can make others feel uncomfortable but things at such a basic level as this need to be considered by ancienthibby

A genuine laugh out loud post. I don't know whether to try to play Devil's advocate in replying to this or to just settle for congratulating you on an excellent and entertaining post.

I picture the father of the strictly patriarchal family from 'Absolutely' standing and declaiming in angst "why the hell did God put some nerve endings on my sphincter which I gain pleasure from"?

I stand by my original position. What the CoS decide to believe is up to them and their members. The tortuous claim that their members will then go out into the wider community carrying anti-homosexual views is I think a pretty thin pretext for legitimising an extended romp through the internal deliberations of the CoS. If the CoS want to go and make an, in my view, wrong decison on gay clergy then that's their funeral. It is then up to their members to decide what they think of that decision. The CoE has already been through this and plenty of people on both sides of that debate were sufficiently able to think for themselves that they chose to either stay with or leave the CoE. So much for the mindless sheep theory.

As to the wider debate on whether god exists and whether or not those of an atheist persuausion on this thread can be convinced of the existence of god, what's the point? If you don't believe in god why not just get on with happily not believing? Next we'll have committed Christians begging atheists to please prove to them that god doesn't exist so that they can be put out of their faith agony.

One Day Soon

13-06-2011, 10:33 PM

Oh its all gone quiet over there, oh it's all gone quiet over there!

There is a distinct element of 'You're not singing (hymns) anymore'. But who knows, it's not full time yet.

Twa Cairpets

13-06-2011, 10:41 PM

A genuine laugh out loud post. I don't know whether to try to play Devil's advocate in replying to this or to just settle for congratulating you on an excellent and entertaining post.

I picture the father of the strictly patriarchal family from 'Absolutely' standing and declaiming in angst "why the hell did God put some nerve endings on my sphincter which I gain pleasure from"?

:top marks

I stand by my original position. What the CoS decide to believe is up to them and their members. The tortuous claim that their members will then go out into the wider community carrying anti-homosexual views is I think a pretty thin pretext for legitimising an extended romp through the internal deliberations of the CoS. If the CoS want to go and make an, in my view, wrong decison on gay clergy then that's their funeral. It is then up to their members to decide what they think of that decision. The CoE has already been through this and plenty of people on both sides of that debate were sufficiently able to think for themselves that they chose to either stay with or leave the CoE. So much for the mindless sheep theory.
I disagree, but we'll leave it.

As to the wider debate on whether god exists and whether or not those of an atheist persuausion on this thread can be convinced of the existence of god, what's the point? If you don't believe in god why not just get on with happily not believing? Next we'll have committed Christians begging atheists to please prove to them that god doesn't exist so that they can be put out of their faith agony.

In the context of this thread and the direction it's gone there's not been much about does God exist, as its pretty clear where people stand. Asking for sources other than bible for justification of pretty unpleasant views isn't saying God doesnt exist. Being directed to believe in the historical Jesus by ancienthibee and pointing out some of the issues with that isn't pointless, it's a discussion.

I'm very happy not believing, thanks. I think it's entirely fair to discuss with people why they have beliefs which drive their morality - why not? It's not (or shouldn't be) taboo. Why should it be different to politics.

97hills

13-06-2011, 11:15 PM

:top marks

I disagree, but we'll leave it.

In the context of this thread and the direction it's gone there's not been much about does God exist, as its pretty clear where people stand. Asking for sources other than bible for justification of pretty unpleasant views isn't saying God doesnt exist. Being directed to believe in the historical Jesus by ancienthibee and pointing out some of the issues with that isn't pointless, it's a discussion.

I'm very happy not believing, thanks. I think it's entirely fair to discuss with people why they have beliefs which drive their morality - why not? It's not (or shouldn't be) taboo. Why should it be different to politics.

I think the bit I've highlighted above is probably the most important part to this discussion. It can be argued by both sides that there are good and bad parts to both sets of beliefs. However, neither is immune from criticism. The ability to create a set of beliefs is so integral to being human but I'm afraid I just can't see how those which are from thosands of years ago should still be applicable today. I think it's a mockery of us and our ability improve on everything we have ever done before. I certainly do not want to stagnate and I am certain if I was to look back at myself 30 years from now I will have a different belief set. However, that will be based on experience and knowledge I have accumulated and not dogmas.

Politicians who do not move with the times and modernise their way of thinking are voted out or disowned by their party. Religion has to be the same. If it doesn't modernise it will continue to decline as their beliefs become less relevant in an evolving society. Therein lies the problem though, modernising means admitting the bible is wrong.

Numbers of followers within one religion can reach the billions, it is really quite scary to think how big a force for good that could be. However, I cannot agree that I need to "get on with happily not believing". It is mainly because there is so much wrong with religion just now that I cannot just get on with it. If you could ever tell me that religious dogmas do not affect my life in any way shape or form, then please continue worshipping. However, by it's nature, I don't think this will ever happen with religion and while it does affect my life I will continue to protest against it

--------

14-06-2011, 10:09 AM

Yep.

I dont know the details of your situation and would not be so rude as to enquire, but I expect the faith reinforcing experience is something that could be demonstrated by people of different faiths and no faiths by looking at statistics. But if its made you happy, great. I just think you're wrong in your conclusions, as you can't or won't give me anything other than affirmation of your belief to consider.

Tell me something about the historical Lord Jesus. Something that isn't from bible.

When the bible is demonstrably wrong with such historical "facts" as Jesus being born under the rule of Herod (who died nine years before) or the (completely uncorroborated) census being undertaken by Cyrenius (who didnt pitch up to the Holy Land until 6 years after JC was born), I'm not willing to trust it as a source of historical accuracy. Unless of course all the other corroborating evidence to show these (and many other historical inaccuracies) are wrong.

Josephus.

"And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

(Antiquities, 20:9)

This tells us that Jesus was called "the Christ" and that he had a brother called James who was killed by the priestly authorities as a troublemaker during the first half of the first century AD. Not from the Bible, but confirming what the Bible says.

I'm not going to go into the whole argument myself here, TC. It's a lot more complex than just "Herod was dead 9 years before" or "the Quirinius census is entirely uncorroborated" and I don't have time to spend at the keyboard right now. The best source I have for a balanced argument on the question of the census that both acknowledges the questions and provides reasonable conclusions is Howard Marshall's Greek Commentary of Luke's Gospel, pp 97-104. Marshall makes a more than decent case for accepting that Luke is simply using shorthand, so to speak, to refer to a census carried out in Galilee and Judea according to Augustus' set policy of taxing the whole Empire. This would have been carried out under the local governors, as it was elsewhere in the Empire. One of those was Quirinius.

As for Herod, the great question is and always has been, WHICH member of the Herodian dynasty are the Gospels referring to? Lots of folks ASSUME they refer to Herod the Great, but that's not what the Gospels say. THEY just say "Herod" - and there were dozens of those, most of them thoroughly bad characters.... But the dates generally quoted and accepted for Herod the Great are that he was born sometime in the late 70's BC and died in 4 BC. Since the dating of Jesus' birth - simply because He didn't hit the public's attention until 30 or so years after His birth and nobody who kept records was noticing the birth of a son in a joiner's family somewhere in the depths of Judea right at the time - can't be fixed beyond 5 or 6 years either way, I don't see the problem.

--------

14-06-2011, 11:00 AM

I am as confused as TwoCarpets.

Something about a homosexual act demeaning those not involved in it then this. I really hope some admins would sensor you and not for showing us how a ***** and vagina 'match'. This is the exact type of behaviour that shows why religion is just simply wrong.

The little I can gather from your posts, you suggest that the natural state of the world is a heterosexual one? If so, why does homosexuality occur more abundantly in 'nature' and why the hell did God put some nerve endings on your sphincter which you may gain some pleasure from. Or was he just putting all these distractions there to demean everyone else?

I apologise to everyone else on this thread who may not like to hear this sort of thing. I know it can make others feel uncomfortable but things at such a basic level as this need to be considered by ancienthibby

The Biblical answer to this is that we live in a fallen world - lots of things exist which God never intended to exist in the beginning, sin and death being the main ones. All sin demeans us - this discussion happens to have been triggered by sexual sin, but we could be talking as easily about greed or pride or laziness or self-absorption or anything else.

If you don't know by now how a ***** and vagina match, I'm not sure that even the most explicit of diagrams would help you. All I can say is that in my - limited - experience, they do.

(Perhaps the nerve-endings around the anal sphincter were put there to warn when we needed to take a dump? The basic point remains that if you mix up the ignition and the exhaust on any machine, including the human body, the machine ain't going to work right.)

I think ancienthibby has already considered these matters, and others of even greater urgency. Just because his opinions are unwelcome to you, you shouldn't assume that they're premature or un-thought-through.

BTW - God doesn't need to think out ways of demeaning us - we do that all too thoroughly ourselves. :wink:

Twa Cairpets

14-06-2011, 12:58 PM

Josephus.

"And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

(Antiquities, 20:9)

This tells us that Jesus was called "the Christ" and that he had a brother called James who was killed by the priestly authorities as a troublemaker during the first half of the first century AD. Not from the Bible, but confirming what the Bible says.

Jospehus as I understand it was written late in the first century, so around 60 years after the Jesus' death, so its far from a contemporary report of the detail of what the bible describes as a remarkable life (and death).

(I also have to have a slight schoolboy chuckle within the context of the thread of a man called "Ananus").:greengrin

I'm not going to go into the whole argument myself here, TC. It's a lot more complex than just "Herod was dead 9 years before" or "the Quirinius census is entirely uncorroborated" and I don't have time to spend at the keyboard right now. The best source I have for a balanced argument on the question of the census that both acknowledges the questions and provides reasonable conclusions is Howard Marshall's Greek Commentary of Luke's Gospel, pp 97-104. Marshall makes a more than decent case for accepting that Luke is simply using shorthand, so to speak, to refer to a census carried out in Galilee and Judea according to Augustus' set policy of taxing the whole Empire. This would have been carried out under the local governors, as it was elsewhere in the Empire. One of those was Quirinius.

As for Herod, the great question is and always has been, WHICH member of the Herodian dynasty are the Gospels referring to? Lots of folks ASSUME they refer to Herod the Great, but that's not what the Gospels say. THEY just say "Herod" - and there were dozens of those, most of them thoroughly bad characters.... But the dates generally quoted and accepted for Herod the Great are that he was born sometime in the late 70's BC and died in 4 BC. Since the dating of Jesus' birth - simply because He didn't hit the public's attention until 30 or so years after His birth and nobody who kept records was noticing the birth of a son in a joiner's family somewhere in the depths of Judea right at the time - can't be fixed beyond 5 or 6 years either way, I don't see the problem.

I'll see if I can find an online version of Howard Marshall and have a look. When you do have the time I'd like to see a fuller reply though. I can understand that the brief answer you have given is (somewhat tortuously, I think) plausible, but it does mean that when "facts" are stated in the bible, they need to be shaped and moulded and re-interpreted to suit. It doesnt for me strengthen the case for taking the teachings of the bible on face value.

I think the huge majority of Bible scholars accept that Herod the Great is who is referred to (but happy to be proven wrong). It'd be interesting if you know of any corroborative evidence or reference for the massacre of the innocents as well (attributed to Herod nd certainly in keeping with his general unpleasantness), as thats a fairly key part of the gospel, certainly not mentioned by Jospehus (I did read one apologetics website which said that he wouldnt have recorded that event as it wasnt sufficiently important!).

Twa Cairpets

14-06-2011, 02:55 PM

The Biblical answer to this is that we live in a fallen world - lots of things exist which God never intended to exist in the beginning, sin and death being the main ones. All sin demeans us - this discussion happens to have been triggered by sexual sin, but we could be talking as easily about greed or pride or laziness or self-absorption or anything else.

If you don't know by now how a ***** and vagina match, I'm not sure that even the most explicit of diagrams would help you. All I can say is that in my - limited - experience, they do.

(Perhaps the nerve-endings around the anal sphincter were put there to warn when we needed to take a dump? The basic point remains that if you mix up the ignition and the exhaust on any machine, including the human body, the machine ain't going to work right.)

I think ancienthibby has already considered these matters, and others of even greater urgency. Just because his opinions are unwelcome to you, you shouldn't assume that they're premature or un-thought-through.

BTW - God doesn't need to think out ways of demeaning us - we do that all too thoroughly ourselves. :wink:

Doddie, if you exclude the biblical message (although in your line of work I do understand that that is maybe easy fo rme to say), what other moral objection exist for homosexual people to be legally and openly acknowledged as being together and being in love?

ancienthibby and yourself seem to be focussing on how one particular mechanical manifestation of that relationship, and one that is clearly only available to gay men. If it is this one particualr act that causes the problem, where do gay women fit in on the morality/sin scale? How about celibate gay men?

I really don't buy this idea that alleged misuse of "design" (and I hesitiate to use that word because it's not design in the sense of "created") is a reason for moral opprobrium.

J-C

14-06-2011, 04:53 PM

Hibrandenburg

14-06-2011, 05:51 PM

My question would be are all homosexuals damned to eternal hell or is there a back door to heaven for them?

CropleyWasGod

14-06-2011, 06:15 PM

Doddie, if you exclude the biblical message (although in your line of work I do understand that that is maybe easy fo rme to say), what other moral objection exist for homosexual people to be legally and openly acknowledged as being together and being in love?

ancienthibby and yourself seem to be focussing on how one particular mechanical manifestation of that relationship, and one that is clearly only available to gay men. If it is this one particualr act that causes the problem, where do gay women fit in on the morality/sin scale? How about celibate gay men?

I really don't buy this idea that alleged misuse of "design" (and I hesitiate to use that word because it's not design in the sense of "created") is a reason for moral opprobrium.

:agree: There seems to be a conflation going on between homosexuality and sodomy. People might be surprised at the extent to which gay men don't practise the latter, either through health reasons or because they just don't like it. Indeed, if gay men are to be pilloried for anal sex, where does that leave straight couples who practise it too?

Sexuality is, for me, a continuum... there is no "either/or". Most people stay in the same place on that sliding scale, many move along it a few times in their lives. And, as you rightly say, it is not just about sex.... many couples, straight and gay, are sexually celibate whilst having a loving relationship.

The challenge for the Church(es) is to deal with the increasing awareness of ourselves, and to find ways of fostering its message to deal with that awareness. That is not an easy task.

Twa Cairpets

14-06-2011, 09:19 PM

Just to show that atheists can spraff huge amounts of unjustifed keech on this subject. Here's a link (http://crommunist.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/black-atheist-bigoted/)to a report on a black atheist group in Atlanta who try to use science and cultural isentity to condemn same sex relationships. They fail every bit as badly as those who look to scripture.

One Day Soon

14-06-2011, 10:14 PM

My question would be are all homosexuals damned to eternal hell or is there a back door to heaven for them?

That's quite good.

And on a positive note I see the thread is about to reach the double figures I predicted on page 3 AND without having resolved anything much or casting any light on the clash of views between atheists and faithists.

God help us. Or, alternatively, may we all secularly help ourselves.

One Day Soon

14-06-2011, 10:42 PM

Out of curiosity, Doddie and Ancient, do you both feel the same way about lesbians / bi sexuals / transvestites and trans sexuals as in your world of biblical scripture all these people would be damned to your hell.:confused:

McGlashan, though he can't read my reply, raises an interesting point here. The real question is, what are the defining differences - if any - between heterosexual and homosexual relationships? Is this purely a matter of anatomy? In physical terms heterosexual couples can do pretty much everything that homosexual couples do. So is this about reproduction, morality, prevalence, relationships, fear?

In any event the CoS angels dancing on the head of this particular pin will drive themeselves mad trying to reconcile the contradictions inherent in the debate. It's unfortunately the triumph of dogma over faith.

lapsedhibee

15-06-2011, 05:58 AM

I can read this if and when I choose, so less of the Mcglashan dickhead, you are without doubt a very large knob or the highest order.:confused:

Think you may have taken that slightly wrongly. McGlashan is a famous Scottish intellectual who holds a mainly geographical definition of homosexuality.

J-C

15-06-2011, 08:44 AM

Think you may have taken that slightly wrongly. McGlashan is a famous Scottish intellectual who holds a mainly geographical definition of homosexuality.

Nope, he uses the name because on another thread about Scotland's independence he has the assumption I am anti English and McGlashan is the character in Absolutely the comedy programme. Instead of discussing the thread properly he retorted to using petty name calling etc, hence why I blocked his posts but I can read them now and again if I feel like it.

lapsedhibee

15-06-2011, 09:24 AM

Nope, he uses the name because on another thread about Scotland's independence he has the assumption I am anti English and McGlashan is the character in Absolutely the comedy programme. Instead of discussing the thread properly he retorted to using petty name calling etc, hence why I blocked his posts but I can read them now and again if I feel like it.

Oh right, my bad. :doh:

McGlashan's a hibby though, so the name should only ever be used as the mildest of insults! :wink:

And defining homosexuality according to postcode (if you're north of the border, you're not homosexual; if south, you are) makes as much sense as some of the stuff posted this thread. :agree:

RyeSloan

15-06-2011, 12:07 PM

That's quite good.

And on a positive note I see the thread is about to reach the double figures I predicted on page 3 AND without having resolved anything much or casting any light on the clash of views between atheists and faithists.

God help us. Or, alternatively, may we all secularly help ourselves.

Give yourself a pat on the back.

You might feel nothing has been resolved nor light cast on the 'clash of views' but personally I think some of the contributions have been excellent and have certianly helped clarify to me why certian people hold certain views.

bawheid

15-06-2011, 12:32 PM

J-C

15-06-2011, 12:50 PM

This post made me laugh out loud!

So he's on ignore, but you still read his posts?

Only If he's posted after one of mine's, it is allowed you know, you can choose.

This is a very good thread and there have been a lot of good posts on it, I ignore him when he responds to other peoples posts as his posts are usually seen when they're quoted, but when he responds to mine especially when I've not reponded to his, I'm curious as to what drivel he's spouting. :wink:

bawheid

15-06-2011, 03:23 PM

Only If he's posted after one of mine's, it is allowed you know, you can choose.

This is a very good thread and there have been a lot of good posts on it, I ignore him when he responds to other peoples posts as his posts are usually seen when they're quoted, but when he responds to mine especially when I've not reponded to his, I'm curious as to what drivel he's spouting. :wink:

But you must have placed him on ignore because you were annoyed/upset at his responses to your posts?

So why then unblock him to read what he has said in response to your posts?

RyeSloan

15-06-2011, 03:38 PM

But you must have placed him on ignore because you were annoyed/upset at his responses to your posts?

So why then unblock him to read what he has said in response to your posts?

Seems obvious enough.

Generally JC50 has no time for ODS's posts so therefore doesn't see the need to read them however when he considers that ODS has repsonded directly to one of his posts he wants to know what he said.

Seems a reasonable enough approach to me.

ancienthibby

15-06-2011, 04:31 PM

What bait? You asked me to consider a historical Jesus and I did. It took about 15 seconds. I gave you a couple of quick historical references which are clearly wrong in the bible, and youve made no comment. The issues with timings of Herod and Cyrenius are both NT, both Luke 2. There is no record of a census. These are matters of historical fact that dispute directly and unequivocally the accuracy of the bible.

Here's another one for you. What were Jesus's last words on the cross. As this has been described by yourself as the centre of the christian faith, you'd have thought it would be important to get it right.

"My God, My God, why have you forsaken me" Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34
"Father, into your hand I commit my spirirt" Luke 23:46
"It is finished" John 19:30

Which one is it, and why does only Matthew, a few verses after, describes how "...The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection went into the holy city and appeared to many people"? At the risk of sounding flippant, you would have thought that the appearance of zombies would have been mentioned by at least the other gospel writers or other people? How does your experiential faith transcend these contradictions?

So no, I don't believe in the historical figure of Jesus, and no, I dont regard the bible as proof of his existence. Anything you can direct me towards to offer corroborating back up to the contrary I promise I'll look at.

I've no idea why you've gone out on the evangelist branch either, but its always going to be easier to persuade people with less access to education and information and a much more fragile hold on life itself that there is a salvation awaiting them - it must appeal to them. Doesn't mean for a second it's necessarily true though. Which last words of christ should be preached as the unadulterated truth?

Our good friend, and resident theologist (the eminent Doddie) has already responded on the point I have highlighted but, with respect to your overall scepticism, I would add the following:

I understand you are not a believer is Scripture, but as one of a world-wide believing group (who does not need to deal in your own empirical data) I would offer the following:

The historical Jesus is confirmed (in Scripture) to have appeared to a vast number of people, including the Apostle Paul, his own brother James, and certain of His disciples;

He also appeared to huge numbers of people (as recorded in Acts), so much so that within five weeks of His resurrection, ten thousand Jews are following Him;

Plus all His disciples (after a period of mourning/inactivity) reactivated their faith and were all killed for it - for following a man who never existed, as you would have it??

Plus, above all else, the proof lies with the experiential understanding of hundreds of millions of people worldwide, as in a comment from J P Moreland, the eminent American philosopher,:

:... it's the ongoing encounter with the resurrected Christ that happens all over the world, in every culture, to people from all kinds of personalities - well educated and not, rich and poor, feelers and thinkers, men and women.' They will all testify that more than any single thing in their lives, Jesus Christ has changed them'!

That is the only evidence that matters.
Amen.

Now I need to add that Garry O has re-signed for the Hibees!!

Life is good!!

Hibrandenburg

15-06-2011, 08:23 PM

That's quite good.

And on a positive note I see the thread is about to reach the double figures I predicted on page 3 AND without having resolved anything much or casting any light on the clash of views between atheists and faithists.

God help us. Or, alternatively, may we all secularly help ourselves.

Although the question was a little tongue in cheek, I was still hoping that someone might have a go at answering it.

One Day Soon

15-06-2011, 08:29 PM

Think you may have taken that slightly wrongly. McGlashan is a famous Scottish intellectual who holds a mainly geographical definition of homosexuality.

Tee hee. Indeed he does LH, indeed he does.

One Day Soon

15-06-2011, 08:47 PM

Nope, he uses the name because on another thread about Scotland's independence he has the assumption I am anti English and McGlashan is the character in Absolutely the comedy programme. Instead of discussing the thread properly he retorted to using petty name calling etc, hence why I blocked his posts but I can read them now and again if I feel like it.

It was a great series - you wouldn't have had the Mickey Weir song sung on any other national television station, so I think you should be flattered really.

In the context of the discussion on this thread about sexuality I will take your statement in relation to me and very large knobs to be a form of flirting. I'm afraid I'm already spoken for by Mrs One Day Soon though.

HUTCHYHIBBY

15-06-2011, 09:06 PM

This thread was an interesting read although the main protagonists were never going to meet in the middle. Pity its headed off in the direction it has re Absolutely characters, although they are amusing in their own right.

J-C

15-06-2011, 09:25 PM

Seems obvious enough.

Generally JC50 has no time for ODS's posts so therefore doesn't see the need to read them however when he considers that ODS has repsonded directly to one of his posts he wants to know what he said.

Seems a reasonable enough approach to me.

Give this man a giant coconut. :greengrin:thumbsup:

Twa Cairpets

15-06-2011, 09:59 PM

OK ancienthibby, I'm going to pick my way through this.

Our good friend, and resident theologist (the eminent Doddie) has already responded on the point I have highlighted but, with respect to your overall scepticism, I would add the following:

Doddie made some comments relating to an apologetics approach to evidence, which is of course what one would expect. I still think, as I replied to Doddie, that the painful twisting of the words of the bible to fit facts that have been able to be established after it was written calls into serious question the veracity of the book in all areas. Essentially, if it is seriously flawed in matters of absolute fact, how reliable is it in matters of moral guidance?

I understand you are not a believer is Scripture, but as one of a world-wide believing group (who does not need to deal in your own empirical data) I would offer the following:

The historical Jesus is confirmed (in Scripture) to have appeared to a vast number of people, including the Apostle Paul, his own brother James, and certain of His disciples;

He also appeared to huge numbers of people (as recorded in Acts), so much so that within five weeks of His resurrection, ten thousand Jews are following Him;

Two things:
1) "I know the bible is true because it says so in the bible" is the classic circular argument. You may not feel the need to deal in "empirical data", but surely you would buy into the illogicality of that argument.
2) The points you make regarding huge numbers of witneses. It does rather seem to me that it is unusual that not one - not one - of these witnesses wrote down what they saw. There is not one single contemporaneous record of Jesus, the miracles or anything else. None. I absolutely accept, before you say it, that the lack of such records does not disprove the historicity of Jesus, but it is must, even to you, be odd that such a force as Jesus is not recorded anywhere. By anyone. In a time when record keeping was strong amongst people in that part of the world. (And this is just focussing on Jesus, never mind any of the OT stuff).

Plus all His disciples (after a period of mourning/inactivity) reactivated their faith and were all killed for it - for following a man who never existed, as you would have it??

At the very best, all this would be would be evidence of their belief, not evidence of Jesus's actual existence. Thirty seven members of the Heavens Gate Cult died because they had absolute faith in a UFO existing in the wake of the Halle-Bopp comet. Is their ultimate sacrifice evidence of this UFO existing?

Plus, above all else, the proof lies with the experiential understanding of hundreds of millions of people worldwide, as in a comment from J P Moreland, the eminent American philosopher,:

:... it's the ongoing encounter with the resurrected Christ that happens all over the world, in every culture, to people from all kinds of personalities - well educated and not, rich and poor, feelers and thinkers, men and women.' They will all testify that more than any single thing in their lives, Jesus Christ has changed them'!

That is the only evidence that matters.

If above all else (your words) the number of believers is the guide for validity, then the Christian count (with all its multi and various conflicting (and often warring) factions and groups accounts for approximately a third of the world population. The experience of 2 in 3 people on the planet is not one of the Christian God.

Why should it be that their deeply held beliefs and convictions of two thirds of the planets population are less worthy than yours, because that must be what you believe?

Finally - You've still not answered:
1) Any non biblical reason why homosexuality is immoral?
2) What you think the proper evangelical approach to the final words of christ on the cross should be?
3) If lesbians (who can't do the unspeakable act due to a lack of appropriate biological apparatus) are equally immoral> Or celibate homosexuals? Or heterosexuals who indulge in certain acts which might be common to both gay men and straight couples?

I'm not asking these to catch you out, but I don't understand how you can formulate an opinion without thinking through the full basis for that opinion and how it applies in related circumstances

PeeJay

16-06-2011, 04:34 PM

The historical Jesus is confirmed (in Scripture) to have appeared to a vast number of people, including the Apostle Paul, his own brother James, and certain of His disciples;

According to Ian Wilson (Jesus The Evidence) and several other sources, the historical person that was the apostle Paul never actually met Jesus! He also never mentions anything of Jesus' earthly life in his writings: not where he was born, where he lived, his parents, his life in general; he doesn't mention the parables or the miracles, nor any of the Gospel stories; there is no reference to the trial nor indeed where Jesus was crucified. Apparently Paul admits to never having known the human Jesus. Yet you claim the 'historical' Jesus appeared before the 'historical' Paul - how can that be? Is Paul's primary evidence wrong, perhaps?

RyeSloan

16-06-2011, 04:59 PM

The historical Jesus is confirmed (in Scripture) to have appeared to a vast number of people, including the Apostle Paul, his own brother James, and certain of His disciples;

He also appeared to huge numbers of people (as recorded in Acts), so much so that within five weeks of His resurrection, ten thousand Jews are following Him;

Plus all His disciples (after a period of mourning/inactivity) reactivated their faith and were all killed for it - for following a man who never existed, as you would have it??

TC's post around this is much more eloquent than mine but I just can't help but think this simply sounds like an old days Derren Brown...none of this proves that he was the 'Son of Christ' in anyway.

Plus, above all else, the proof lies with the experiential understanding of hundreds of millions of people worldwide, as in a comment from J P Moreland, the eminent American philosopher,:

:... it's the ongoing encounter with the resurrected Christ that happens all over the world, in every culture, to people from all kinds of personalities - well educated and not, rich and poor, feelers and thinkers, men and women.' They will all testify that more than any single thing in their lives, Jesus Christ has changed them'!

That is the only evidence that matters.

Evidence that beliveing in something can make people feel something...is that not known as the placebo effect?
While I accept that faith can and is a powerful force that in itseld provides absolutely no evidence that the bible is in any way 'the word of god'.

This is the crux to me. I can understand why people want to and do believe in God (in a general sense) what I don't understand is why people believe the Bible is in any way representative of what the 'word of god' might be when it is clear that there is absolutely no way that (even if Jesus was his son!) his words could have been accurately recorded decades later.

Now I need to add that Garry O has re-signed for the Hibees!!

Life is good!!

Well on that we can agree....:greengrin

Phil MaGlass

17-06-2011, 03:02 PM

never understood why people would swear on the bible, considering it was put together by a bunch of conmen, forcing their will on the people and trying to keep them dumb and scared. Now folk are falling over themselves cos the Kirk want to let gays into the church, wake up and smell the coffee,its the year 2011 not 1011.
Equal rights and opportunities, people should not be treated any differently because of their sexuality.

lapsedhibee

17-06-2011, 04:39 PM

Equal rights and opportunities, people should not be treated any differently because of their sexuality.

On another thread some people are saying a Hertz player should be locked up, hung, castrated, etc, for his sexuality.

PaulSmith

17-06-2011, 04:48 PM

On another thread some people are saying a Hertz player should be locked up, hung, castrated, etc, for his sexuality.

No they aren't, sexuality (straight, lesbian or gay) is exactly that and what Thomson done is criminal

Twa Cairpets

17-06-2011, 06:40 PM

On another thread some people are saying a Hertz player should be locked up, hung, castrated, etc, for his sexuality.

You've posted some keech in the name of getting a reaction, but this one takes the biscuit.

There is, as I'm sure you are completely aware, a difference between consenting sex (of any variety) between adults, and predatory grooming of sexually/emotionally immature children.

It's also got nowt to do with this thread, (although the bible does not specifically, as far as I am aware, condemn it), but I'm pretty sure that christians and atheists alike view it as the lowest act of vileness. But well done you for using it to try and score a few cheap shots and reactions. You must be chuffed with yer wee self.

Hibrandenburg

17-06-2011, 08:50 PM

On another thread some people are saying a Hertz player should be locked up, hung, castrated, etc, for his sexuality.
Bit below the belt mate.

lapsedhibee

17-06-2011, 09:21 PM

You've posted some keech in the name of getting a reaction, but this one takes the biscuit.

There is, as I'm sure you are completely aware, a difference between consenting sex (of any variety) between adults, and predatory grooming of sexually/emotionally immature children.

It's also got nowt to do with this thread, (although the bible does not specifically, as far as I am aware, condemn it), but I'm pretty sure that christians and atheists alike view it as the lowest act of vileness. But well done you for using it to try and score a few cheap shots and reactions. You must be chuffed with yer wee self.

Get off yer high horse. A poster made a bold statement that people should be judged regardless of their sexuality. In the 1960s some people whose sexuality was judged to be criminal were jailed for it. Now after a few short decades it's people who are rude about those very people who are criminalised. There's no reason at all to suppose that pendulum won't swing back, and in another few decades, whether for religious or for other reasons, public displays of homosexuality will be judged intolerable again. Public displays of heterosexuality might well, too.

No doubt Craig Thomson is a vile beast, as you suggest.

I certainly hope, as time passes and all these fashions change, that paedophilia doesn't become any more acceptable than it is now. I believe it was more acceptable in ancient Greece, often thought to be a very civilised culture. I also hope that far more parents get to grips with the disgusting sexualisation of young children, for which they share some responsibility, before they start joining vigilante groups to burn beasts out of their houses.

Abuse of children, physical or sexual, is no laughing matter, but there will be many members of religious societies who will see Thomson's behaviour not just as the result of evil inherent in him but also of the way in which in our society children are exposed to sexual imagery etc etc etc from a very young age without any apparent disapproval from anyone.

I don't have daughters but I have young female relatives, under the age of consent, and the way they discuss sex and their own sexual experiences with their friends is, to my generation, shocking. They are anything but sexually immature, though I would say they are emotionally immature.

But aye, hang him, lock him up and throw away the key, that'll sort it.

lapsedhibee

17-06-2011, 10:30 PM

No they aren't, sexuality (straight, lesbian or gay) is exactly that and what Thomson done is criminal

Point I was arguing against was that people shouldn't be judged on their sexuality. People are judged on their sexuality. In some cases, judged to be criminals. In other cases, such as 'sex addicts', judged to be in need of therapy. If people weren't judged on their sexuality no-one would be called a slut, or a slag, or a stud, or etc. People are judged on their sexuality, FACT.

Twa Cairpets

17-06-2011, 10:47 PM

Get off yer high horse. A poster made a bold statement that people should be judged regardless of their sexuality. In the 1960s some people whose sexuality was judged to be criminal were jailed for it. Now after a few short decades it's people who are rude about those very people who are criminalised. There's no reason at all to suppose that pendulum won't swing back, and in another few decades, whether for religious or for other reasons, public displays of homosexuality will be judged intolerable again. Public displays of heterosexuality might well, too.

No doubt Craig Thomson is a vile beast, as you suggest.

I certainly hope, as time passes and all these fashions change, that paedophilia doesn't become any more acceptable than it is now. I believe it was more acceptable in ancient Greece, often thought to be a very civilised culture. I also hope that far more parents get to grips with the disgusting sexualisation of young children, for which they share some responsibility, before they start joining vigilante groups to burn beasts out of their houses.

Abuse of children, physical or sexual, is no laughing matter, but there will be many members of religious societies who will see Thomson's behaviour not just as the result of evil inherent in him but also of the way in which in our society children are exposed to sexual imagery etc etc etc from a very young age without any apparent disapproval from anyone.

I don't have daughters but I have young female relatives, under the age of consent, and the way they discuss sex and their own sexual experiences with their friends is, to my generation, shocking. They are anything but sexually immature, though I would say they are emotionally immature.

But aye, hang him, lock him up and throw away the key, that'll sort it.

Sexuality is nothing to do with paedophilia. The former is to do with adult behaviour, the latter with children. Your point is entirely irrelevant.

And I do have a daughter, just a little younger than those Thomson was after, so I make no apologies if I have no tolerance whatsoever for his behaviour. I dont give a flying **** if those of religion suggest he is posessed of demons or if athiests see him as just a bad person. His behaviour is to me one of the very few moral absolutes that transcend prevailing moral fashion or religion. It is an absolute wrong.

Sir David Gray

18-06-2011, 12:15 AM

Your last two paragraphs here are directly contradictory. It's of no concern but you dont agree with it? That would describe unfounded prejudice wouldn't it?

I don't agree with sexual relations between two people of the same sex as I find it unnatural but there's not anything that anyone can do if two adult males or two adult females decide to have sex in their own home and I don't think anything should be done either.

Marriage is an entirely different thing altogether, though, as it is an historical institution with legal responsibilities and I'll repeat what I have already said, which is that marriage should only be defined as the union between one man and one woman, with no exceptions.

Its not a question of offense for me, more of a concern and anger that this type of view is still prevalent with no reason other than "it's unnatural" (which it isn't) or the "bible says it", which is a cop out.

What do you think of people who choose not to have children - what right do they have to be married if "the primary reason of marriage is to produce children"? People who have every right to be offended by your position are those who want kids but cant - do they suddenly not have the right to be married? If one member of the couple is fertiel and the pther isn't, should the fertile one leave to find someone to breed with?

I truly hope you answer is no. Assuming it is, it immediately puts your "marriage for procretion" argument in the bin. If heterosexuals are allowed in your view to be married for love, then so surely must homosexuals. The ONLY argument you have is that you dont like the physical act. But as youve already said that what people do in private doesnt concern you, you're left with a very weak defence of "God says it's bad". Or you're a bigot.

People who are married but can't conceive naturally could decide to adopt or foster children.

I believe that children should always have a mother and a father, obviously that is not always the case in natural births as the father may not be around after the birth or one or both of the parents could die but I do not agree with children being deliberately placed in homes where they would have two "fathers" or two "mothers".

No, they aren't. It is reasonable for me to infer from your original post that your take most, if not all, of your position from what it says in the bible. I have never once suggested you are a bible literalist, my point is that if you choose to accept that the bible has some fundamental truth in it's writing in this area, it's pretty arrogant for you not to agree with any of the other less than savoury or unusual instructions within its pages too. If you choose to cherry pick the bits that match with your views, it's really just a mask for prejudice.

I base my opposition to homosexual relations, not just because of what it says in the Bible but also because it makes sense to me.

I see sex as something that should be used to create human life. You don't need a degree in biology to realise that this is simply not possible when two people of the same gender have sexual intercourse.

I therefore see same sex sexual relations as being wholly unnatural. The reason that I choose not to oppose adults who decide to have sex with another adult of the same sex is that they are responsible for what they do in life and I don't see how anyone can realistically legislate against people having homosexual relations in their own home.

I don't believe you. You have issues with the act that certain individuals do that has no impact on your life. You view it and their behaviour as unnatural and against God. Would you be comfortable sharing an office or workspace with a gay man? Would you be happy to play sport with a gay man? Would you be happy to live next door to a lesbian couple?

Yes, yes and yes.

I would have no problem with any of those things whatsoever.

My opposition is solely against homosexual relations. I've said this before but you've stated that you don't believe me, however I'll say it again. I never have had and never will have anything against individual people who are homosexual.

If a homosexual was part of my sports team, a fellow employee or a neighbour then they would encounter no problems from me.

You didn't really answer any of the questions did you? I didnt ask you if you thought all heterosexual relations are perfect, I asked if you thought an abusive heterosexual relationship was moraly better than a loving homosexual one.

Again, your position doesnt generate any feeling of offence in me, but it does make me angry because it perpetuates the alienation of a sector of the society with blind prejudice based on the bible.

I think they are both flawed but for different reasons. A relationship where one partner is abusive to another can never be condoned, no matter if it's heterosexual or homosexual.

A homosexual relationship, regardless of whether it's loving or not just doesn't sit well with me. If two people of the same sex think that they have met their perfect partner then that's fine and no-one should stop them living together or from doing whatever they choose to do behind closed doors, but I just don't agree that homosexuals should be allowed to enter into a marriage.

Anyway, I've said my piece on several occasions now and I've stated my position quite clearly on this issue. It's a subject which I feel quite strongly about and I am unlikely to change my views on this any time soon.

I welcome all the replies I have received but I feel I'm just starting to repeat myself so I will continue to check the new posts on this thread but unless someone asks me another direct question or makes an entirely new point, I'm probably going to be done with this thread.

Cheers. :aok:

Twa Cairpets

18-06-2011, 08:51 AM

I don't agree with sexual relations between two people of the same sex as I find it unnatural but there's not anything that anyone can do if two adult males or two adult females decide to have sex in their own home and I don't think anything should be done either.

Marriage is an entirely different thing altogether, though, as it is an historical institution with legal responsibilities and I'll repeat what I have already said, which is that marriage should only be defined as the union between one man and one woman, with no exceptions.

People who are married but can't conceive naturally could decide to adopt or foster children.

I believe that children should always have a mother and a father, obviously that is not always the case in natural births as the father may not be around after the birth or one or both of the parents could die but I do not agree with children being deliberately placed in homes where they would have two "fathers" or two "mothers".

I base my opposition to homosexual relations, not just because of what it says in the Bible but also because it makes sense to me.

I see sex as something that should be used to create human life. You don't need a degree in biology to realise that this is simply not possible when two people of the same gender have sexual intercourse.

I therefore see same sex sexual relations as being wholly unnatural. The reason that I choose not to oppose adults who decide to have sex with another adult of the same sex is that they are responsible for what they do in life and I don't see how anyone can realistically legislate against people having homosexual relations in their own home.

Yes, yes and yes.

I would have no problem with any of those things whatsoever.

My opposition is solely against homosexual relations. I've said this before but you've stated that you don't believe me, however I'll say it again. I never have had and never will have anything against individual people who are homosexual.

If a homosexual was part of my sports team, a fellow employee or a neighbour then they would encounter no problems from me.

I think they are both flawed but for different reasons. A relationship where one partner is abusive to another can never be condoned, no matter if it's heterosexual or homosexual.

A homosexual relationship, regardless of whether it's loving or not just doesn't sit well with me. If two people of the same sex think that they have met their perfect partner then that's fine and no-one should stop them living together or from doing whatever they choose to do behind closed doors, but I just don't agree that homosexuals should be allowed to enter into a marriage.

Anyway, I've said my piece on several occasions now and I've stated my position quite clearly on this issue. It's a subject which I feel quite strongly about and I am unlikely to change my views on this any time soon.

I welcome all the replies I have received but I feel I'm just starting to repeat myself so I will continue to check the new posts on this thread but unless someone asks me another direct question or makes an entirely new point, I'm probably going to be done with this thread.

Cheers. :aok:

I dont think anyone expects you to change your mind.

If you decide to bow out, no problem - you started an interesting thread, but what you believe to be answers to the questions that have arisen are really just re-affirmations of a stance.

You have raised not a single reason other than "unnatural" or "uncomfortable" as non-biblical reasons for homosexuality. The issue is quite clearly yours, not the people you disapprove of. It "makes sense" to you becaue you're prejudiced on this subject - I don't know if its fear or ignorance or a slavish devotion to bits of scripture, but whatever the reason, its direct prejudice against other people on a personal level.

You are assuming that homosexuality is just sex, and none of the emotional relationships that are attendant, and you are actively disagreeing with the right of people to be recognised officially and legally as being together.

I still dont believe that you have no issue with gay people - you may think you're fine, but your disapproval of their life choice will colour your opinion of them. Of all the (many) things in your posts that are distasteful, unpleasant and unthinking, this justification that you're fine with "them" is probably the worst - you're quite happy to ghetto-ise their behaviour, make them feel guilty about it and, presumably, quite happy to explain to them why it is that God views them as an abhorrence.

Finally, this line made me laugh.

I see sex as something that should be used to create human life.
If you listen very carefully, you can maybe hear the 1850's calling to you down the decades.

lapsedhibee

18-06-2011, 08:52 AM

Sexuality is nothing to do with paedophilia.

Eh?

Here, for convenience, is the Wiki entry:

"Paedophilia is defined as a psychiatric disorder in adults or late adolescents (persons age 16 or older) typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children."

I take this to mean that paedophiles are sexually oriented towards young children.
Straight people oriented towards members of opposite sex; gay towards members of same sex; zoophiles towards animals; etc etc.

What do you take it to mean?

Some of these orientations are socially acceptable, some not. Precise definitions of what is socially acceptable, and what is vile and disgusting, change with time -homosexuality being the most obvious current example.

Personally think this is relevant in the thread because unless our present society gets a firmer handle than it has at the moment on what is and is not socially acceptable (for example, the very young and very drunk girls, and boys, wandering about Lothian Road and Leith Street every weekend), Christianity and the Church may become much stronger forces in the future than they have been over the last few decades. Whether you think the Bible is a load of uncorroborated mumbo-jumbo or not, a pendulum may swing back towards an institution - any institution - which can be seen to give clear moral leadership. The Church of Scotland is probably still quite well poised to take on that role, and who knows whether, when it does, the acceptance of public homosexuality will be approved or not.

Twa Cairpets

18-06-2011, 09:25 AM

Eh?

Here, for convenience, is the Wiki entry:

"Paedophilia is defined as a psychiatric disorder in adults or late adolescents (persons age 16 or older) typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children."

I take this to mean that paedophiles are sexually oriented towards young children.
Straight people oriented towards members of opposite sex; gay towards members of same sex; zoophiles towards animals; etc etc.

What do you take it to mean?

Some of these orientations are socially acceptable, some not. Precise definitions of what is socially acceptable, and what is vile and disgusting, change with time -homosexuality being the most obvious current example.

Personally think this is relevant in the thread because unless our present society gets a firmer handle than it has at the moment on what is and is not socially acceptable (for example, the very young and very drunk girls, and boys, wandering about Lothian Road and Leith Street every weekend), Christianity and the Church may become much stronger forces in the future than they have been over the last few decades. Whether you think the Bible is a load of uncorroborated mumbo-jumbo or not, a pendulum may swing back towards an institution - any institution - which can be seen to give clear moral leadership. The Church of Scotland is probably still quite well poised to take on that role, and who knows whether, when it does, the acceptance of public homosexuality will be approved or not.

I'm defining sexuality as the expression or choice of sexual preference between adults in a consenting relationship. Other areas of sexual preference (as distinct from sexuality), such as paedophilia or rape, are less to do with sex and more to do with control, and involve the impostion of one persons will on another person who does not want to be involved.

I take the point in your last paragraph, and you may well be right. It's one of the reasons why opinion based on faith must be challenged and challenged and challenged again. Because, in my opinion, religion is based entirley on the moral teachings of people from 2000 years ago, and not the divine word of a creator, a society seeking a quick "moral leadership" fix by looking to the bible is, in one fell swoop both deluding itself on the veracity of that guidance and setting us back two millenia of human development. If nothing else, this thread has shown (so far), that no-one is able to give any valid reason other than the bible as to why consenting homosexuality is wrong - something which can easily be done for paedophilia. I dont see this therefore as much as moral leadership I'd want to follow.

J-C

18-06-2011, 09:35 AM

I see sex as something that should be used to create human life.

I'm 52 and Mrs C is now 50, should we now stop having sex because as she's went through the change and she cannot have anymore kids??? or can we still carry on enjoying sex till we are old and wrinkly( sorry for the image ).

Humans are 1 of the few animals( yes no matter what your bible says, we are animals )who actually enjoy sex for pleasure, I think Bonobo Chimps and Dolphins are others that also enjoy sex for pleasure, someone correct me if I'm wrong here.

hibsbollah

18-06-2011, 09:56 AM

I'm 52 and Mrs C is now 50, should we now stop having sex because as she's went through the change and she cannot have anymore kids??? or can we still carry on enjoying sex till we are old and wrinkly( sorry for the image ).

Humans are 1 of the few animals( yes no matter what your bible says, we are animals )who actually enjoy sex for pleasure, I think Bonobo Chimps and Dolphins are others that also enjoy sex for pleasure, someone correct me if I'm wrong here.

No you're spot on, bonobos are a bunch of durties. You reason you rarely see them in zoos is they are usually pleasuring each other in ways that sensitive souls like Falkirk would find unsettling. Paul Hartley and Romanov would probably approve though...

97hills

18-06-2011, 11:59 AM

I'm 52 and Mrs C is now 50, should we now stop having sex because as she's went through the change and she cannot have anymore kids??? or can we still carry on enjoying sex till we are old and wrinkly( sorry for the image ).

Humans are 1 of the few animals( yes no matter what your bible says, we are animals )who actually enjoy sex for pleasure, I think Bonobo Chimps and Dolphins are others that also enjoy sex for pleasure, someone correct me if I'm wrong here.

When a conflict arises between bonobo chimps and they're almost at the point of fighting, they stop and start rubbing genitalia. Maybe the UN should look into this method of peace-keeping!?!?

97hills

18-06-2011, 12:24 PM

I don't agree with sexual relations between two people of the same sex as I find it unnatural but there's not anything that anyone can do if two adult males or two adult females decide to have sex in their own home and I don't think anything should be done either.

Marriage is an entirely different thing altogether, though, as it is an historical institution with legal responsibilities and I'll repeat what I have already said, which is that marriage should only be defined as the union between one man and one woman, with no exceptions.

People who are married but can't conceive naturally could decide to adopt or foster children.

I believe that children should always have a mother and a father, obviously that is not always the case in natural births as the father may not be around after the birth or one or both of the parents could die but I do not agree with children being deliberately placed in homes where they would have two "fathers" or two "mothers".

I base my opposition to homosexual relations, not just because of what it says in the Bible but also because it makes sense to me.

I see sex as something that should be used to create human life. You don't need a degree in biology to realise that this is simply not possible when two people of the same gender have sexual intercourse.

I therefore see same sex sexual relations as being wholly unnatural. The reason that I choose not to oppose adults who decide to have sex with another adult of the same sex is that they are responsible for what they do in life and I don't see how anyone can realistically legislate against people having homosexual relations in their own home.

Yes, yes and yes.

I would have no problem with any of those things whatsoever.

My opposition is solely against homosexual relations. I've said this before but you've stated that you don't believe me, however I'll say it again. I never have had and never will have anything against individual people who are homosexual.

If a homosexual was part of my sports team, a fellow employee or a neighbour then they would encounter no problems from me.

I think they are both flawed but for different reasons. A relationship where one partner is abusive to another can never be condoned, no matter if it's heterosexual or homosexual.

A homosexual relationship, regardless of whether it's loving or not just doesn't sit well with me. If two people of the same sex think that they have met their perfect partner then that's fine and no-one should stop them living together or from doing whatever they choose to do behind closed doors, but I just don't agree that homosexuals should be allowed to enter into a marriage.

Anyway, I've said my piece on several occasions now and I've stated my position quite clearly on this issue. It's a subject which I feel quite strongly about and I am unlikely to change my views on this any time soon.

I welcome all the replies I have received but I feel I'm just starting to repeat myself so I will continue to check the new posts on this thread but unless someone asks me another direct question or makes an entirely new point, I'm probably going to be done with this thread.

Cheers. :aok:

You're simply just stating your argument rather than backing it up with any reason.

Children having both a father and a mother just don't hold up, even in heterosexual relationships or with foster children.

Yet again, you refer to same sex relationships being unnatural but still have not replied as to why they occur in the natural world? The argument that our sole purpose of being in a relationship is to have sex in which a child can be created just doesn't stack up either for the reasons that have been previously mentioned to you.

Marriage is one of the few things which is consistent around the world. Covering many religions and non religions. At it's simplest, it should be an expression of love. In its' modern incarnation, it has become more of a legal bonding. You can argue that a Christian wedding should be anti-gay because of scripture but don't dare take that view outside that little world. I will not be bound by dogmas which are thousands of years old, nor should anyone else. Legislative power should never be in the hands of religions and I'm very happy we live in a nation where we almost have a total separation of state and religion and any politician who openly says he is carrying out god's will, will be openly ridiculed.

Believe what you believe, state it over and over again, but unless you can back any of it up or at least respond to the contradictions within your arguments, don't expect your opinions to hold any credence. I just see prejudice within your posts

hibsbollah

18-06-2011, 07:17 PM

When a conflict arises between bonobo chimps and they're almost at the point of fighting, they stop and start rubbing genitalia

Its what the good lord intended.

Hibrandenburg

18-06-2011, 10:19 PM

Its what the good lord intended.

Lightning bolt smiley!

Hibrandenburg

18-06-2011, 10:22 PM

I'm 52 and Mrs C is now 50, should we now stop having sex because as she's went through the change and she cannot have anymore kids??? or can we still carry on enjoying sex till we are old and wrinkly( sorry for the image ).

Humans are 1 of the few animals( yes no matter what your bible says, we are animals )who actually enjoy sex for pleasure, I think Bonobo Chimps and Dolphins are others that also enjoy sex for pleasure, someone correct me if I'm wrong here.
Exactly. If you've got the horn then the last thing your thinking about is the continuation of the human race. That applies for boys and girls.

BEEJ

19-06-2011, 07:12 PM

Here's another one for you. What were Jesus's last words on the cross. As this has been described by yourself as the centre of the christian faith, you'd have thought it would be important to get it right.

"My God, My God, why have you forsaken me" Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34
"Father, into your hand I commit my spirirt" Luke 23:46
"It is finished" John 19:30

How does your experiential faith transcend these contradictions?
So many complex issues being debated on here - could be about time to split this thread up into six or seven different strands. :wink:

On this particular point you’ve raised I have to smile. If each of the gospel writers had quoted the same words verbatim, you and many others would have been swift to claim that it was a conspiracy and a ‘put up job’ - as any police officer will tell you when different accounts given in evidence are identical. So there is an immediate sense here of “you cannae win”.

Neither Matthew or Mark in their accounts claim that these are the last words of Christ on the cross. Indeed they both talk about how, after receiving a drink of wine vinegar (something on which all four gospel writers comment), Jesus cries out in a loud voice before taking his last breath. This ‘cry’ might well have incorporated the words quoted in the accounts of Luke and John.

The point is that you’re approaching this from the assumption that each of the gospel writers has set out to tell the same story to the same readership from exactly the same perspective. They were therefore required to keep a detailed narrative of events and speech, one which captured every single word of dialogue uttered. Quite the opposite is true and each gospel writer is approaching the one fundamental topic of the life and ministry of Christ so as to emphasise a different theme to a different readership.

Matthew and John were direct witnesses of the events. Mark is believed to have taken his account of events from Peter. Luke says himself that he examined many eye-witness accounts and written sources (Ch1:1-4) in order to compile his gospel account. (There, by the way, are the contemporaneous written accounts you mentioned elsewhere; but I guess as they are referred to only in the Bible, they won’t count. :greengrin)

Matthew was writing specifically to a Jewish audience; Mark to the Romans. Luke’s gospel was directed at a Greek readership.

The importance of the words that you have quoted in the accounts of the Matthew and Mark narratives is that this is the only time captured in New Testament scripture where Jesus actually refers to God as ‘God’ rather then ‘Father’. There is deep significance to this as to what is actually happening while Jesus is on the cross (but that’s for another day).

So the significance of these spoken words to these two gospel writers might well outweigh the few words spoken by Christ thereafter. The point is that neither Matthew or Mark state that these were his last words; they are simply the last words that they choose to quote.

Of course, a far simpler explanation could be that the final words of Christ, “It is finished.” were only actually heard by John amidst all the wailing and shrieks of agony that would have been evident during a prolonged and horrific scene of triple crucifixion watched by several anguished, heartbroken onlookers.

I very much doubt that any of them were taking copious notes at the time in the style of a Fleet Street reporter.

steakbake

19-06-2011, 09:07 PM

So this thread began about a month ago.

I haven't so far read anything about the Church of Scotland coming to an end.

Perhaps the answer to the original question is "No".

Twa Cairpets

19-06-2011, 09:07 PM

Cheers BEEJ, a few comments

So many complex issues being debated on here - could be about time to split this thread up into six or seven different strands. :wink:

On this particular point you’ve raised I have to smile. If each of the gospel writers had quoted the same words verbatim, you and many others would have been swift to claim that it was a conspiracy and a ‘put up job’ - as any police officer will tell you when different accounts given in evidence are identical. So there is an immediate sense here of “you cannae win”.

Maybe, but as that isnt the case we'll never know. I suspect however that consistency regarding the last words of the son of God would not have been seen as surprising.

Neither Matthew or Mark in their accounts claim that these are the last words of Christ on the cross. Indeed they both talk about how, after receiving a drink of wine vinegar (something on which all four gospel writers comment), Jesus cries out in a loud voice before taking his last breath. This ‘cry’ might well have incorporated the words quoted in the accounts of Luke and John. It might, but again, the insertion of assumptions to fit around the discrepancies causes two things: 1) the increased liklihood of the bible just being written by people without particularly good editing skills, and 2) the reduced validity of people taking instruction on the basis of what is written within it.

The point is that you’re approaching this from the assumption that each of the gospel writers has set out to tell the same story to the same readership from exactly the same perspective. They were therefore required to keep a detailed narrative of events and speech, one which captured every single word of dialogue uttered. Quite the opposite is true and each gospel writer is approaching the one fundamental topic of the life and ministry of Christ so as to emphasise a different theme to a different readership.

Matthew and John were direct witnesses of the events. Mark is believed to have taken his account of events from Peter. Luke says himself that he examined many eye-witness accounts and written sources (Ch1:1-4) in order to compile his gospel account. (There, by the way, are the contemporaneous written accounts you mentioned elsewhere; but I guess as they are referred to only in the Bible, they won’t count. :greengrin) CorrectMatthew was writing specifically to a Jewish audience; Mark to the Romans. Luke’s gospel was directed at a Greek readership.

The importance of the words that you have quoted in the accounts of the Matthew and Mark narratives is that this is the only time captured in New Testament scripture where Jesus actually refers to God as ‘God’ rather then ‘Father’. There is deep significance to this as to what is actually happening while Jesus is on the cross (but that’s for another day).

So the significance of these spoken words to these two gospel writers might well outweigh the few words spoken by Christ thereafter. The point is that neither Matthew or Mark state that these were his last words; they are simply the last words that they choose to quote. Again, this may be the case, but does it not at least strike you as strange that this happened?Of course, a far simpler explanation could be that the final words of Christ, “It is finished.” were only actually heard by John amidst all the wailing and shrieks of agony that would have been evident during a prolonged and horrific scene of triple crucifixion watched by several anguished, heartbroken onlookers.

I very much doubt that any of them were taking copious notes at the time in the style of a Fleet Street reporter.

I don't really buy these arguments (as you might have guessed). If there are queries as to the exact context of the Gospels, is it not fair to assume there could be queries as to the context of, say, the ten commandments?

There are many, many discrepancies in the canonical gospels: the reporting of the nativity (where Jesus was born, who attended etc), the issue of the dead rising previously mentioned, how Judas died, the tearing of the temple curtain, who was present at the resurrection and what they saw, the day of the trial of Jesus relative to Passover, what the crime of Barrabas was to name but a few. The differences in the gospels are just not explainable by different reportage styles by the writers, particularly not if it is the inspired word of God.

Whichever way you look at it, the opportunity to interpret the bible is so massive, even just within the canonical gospels never mind Paul, Revelation, the OT and all the rest as to render the teachings within it as being essentially valueless if they are taken as the word and instruction of God. That's not to say that some of the things in the bible aren't good - but that is as explicable by considering that they were written by people who just happened to have good values. It just means that it isn't divinely inspired and isnt even approaching infallible.

BEEJ

20-06-2011, 07:46 PM

It might, but again, the insertion of assumptions to fit around the discrepancies causes two things: 1) the increased liklihood of the bible just being written by people without particularly good editing skills, and 2) the reduced validity of people taking instruction on the basis of what is written within it.
My point is that you are the one making assumptions in this instance.

You're assuming that Matthew and Mark have quoted those spoken words because they believe those were Christ last words on the cross. Neither of them state that as being the case. The words they quote are significant, however; of far greater significance than merely being the last sentence that Christ uttered.

Anyway, why would Jesus very last words necessarily be the most profound? That might be the way that 'Hollywood' portrays the passing of hero-figures but it's not necessarily true to life. :wink:

Again, this may be the case, but does it not at least strike you as strange that this happened?
No. Not at all. :greengrin

There are many, many discrepancies in the canonical gospels: the reporting of the nativity (where Jesus was born, who attended etc), the issue of the dead rising previously mentioned, how Judas died, the tearing of the temple curtain, who was present at the resurrection and what they saw, the day of the trial of Jesus relative to Passover, what the crime of Barrabas was to name but a few. The differences in the gospels are just not explainable by different reportage styles by the writers, particularly not if it is the inspired word of God.
I might be reading you wrong here - but not all the points you've listed there are apparent discrepancies - I think you've included one or two instances where only one or two gospel writers refer to the event in question rather than all four.

That's not a contradiction. To pass over certain events in order to focus on the telling of others is not in itself a denial that those events actually happened. It simply reflects that there was far too much to write about. To quote the very last verse of John's book here (apologies if the quoting of scripture offends anyone):

Ch 21:25 - "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."

So much material! Impossible for one author to capture it all.

Anyway, we'll leave it there.

(PS In addition to the writings of Josephus that Doddie mentioned earlier, I understand that the Roman historians, Tacitus and Suetonius, both wrote about Christ and his followers.)

Twa Cairpets

20-06-2011, 09:10 PM

My point is that you are the one making assumptions in this instance.

You're assuming that Matthew and Mark have quoted those spoken words because they believe those were Christ last words on the cross. Neither of them state that as being the case. The words they quote are significant, however; of far greater significance than merely being the last sentence that Christ uttered.

Matthew27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
27:47 Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias.
27:48 And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink.
27:49 The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him.
27:50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

Mark15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
15:35 And some of them that stood by, when they heard it, said, Behold, he calleth Elias.
15:36 And one ran and filled a spunge full of vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink, saying, Let alone; let us see whether Elias will come to take him down.
15:37 And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.

Luke23:44 And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.
23:45 And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.
23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

John19:29 Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth. "They filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth."
What did the soldiers give Jesus to drink?
19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

Now, I grant you that it doesnt explicity say he said nothing else, but to infer anything else is really stretching it, I'd suggest. I also tend to think that the last words are somewhat important, especially considering the massive differences.

I might be reading you wrong here - but not all the points you've listed there are apparent discrepancies - I think you've included one or two instances where only one or two gospel writers refer to the event in question rather than all four.

That's not a contradiction. To pass over certain events in order to focus on the telling of others is not in itself a denial that those events actually happened. It simply reflects that there was far too much to write about. To quote the very last verse of John's book here (apologies if the quoting of scripture offends anyone):

Yes, you're right, I should have said anomalies/contradictions. And you're also right about absence of reporting not being evidence of absence. I do think, though, that the rising of the dead might just have warranted a mention by all the gospel writers.

Ch 21:25 - "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."

So much material! Impossible for one author to capture it all.
Anyway, we'll leave it there.

(PS In addition to the writings of Josephus that Doddie mentioned earlier, I understand that the Roman historians, Tacitus and Suetonius, both wrote about Christ and his followers.)

Yep, all that material, and not one person thought to write it down. Josephus doesnt mention it. Tacitus doesnt mention it. Suetonius doenst mention it. Not one contemporary writer mentions anything about it, yet there are surviving records of the time by many writers, both contemporary and from the time of those referenced.

Again, I'll grant you that the lack of these records doesnt prove that the events recorded didnt happen. But on a balance of evidence, it works for me as fairly conclusive.

Twa Cairpets

22-06-2011, 10:15 AM

For the "it's not natural" brigade, I thought this (http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=the-intelligent-homosexuals-guide-t-2011-06-21) might be worth reading through:

HibsMax

24-06-2011, 12:38 AM

Found this website and thought that some contributors to this thread might enjoy it.

LINK (http://evolvefish.com/)

Sir David Gray

04-07-2011, 12:37 AM

Apologies in the delay in responding to this post, I have been away on holiday over the past couple of weeks.

So this thread began about a month ago.

I haven't so far read anything about the Church of Scotland coming to an end.

Perhaps the answer to the original question is "No".

I'm glad the issue of the Church of Scotland has been brought back up again as it seems to have been lost in the more general debate about homosexuality and same sex marriage etc.

As you point out, it's only been about a month since the Church took the decision to allow the ordination of homosexual ministers. It will take a lot longer than that before the full effect of this decision has been felt throughout the Church.

Indeed the CoS is now going to have a period of reflection over the next two years when a report on this issue should be published and another vote can take place. I would suggest that it won't be until near the end of this period before we really see what kind of effect this issue has had on the Kirk.

In the long run, I think it has the potential to ruin the Church of Scotland.

If you listen very carefully, you can maybe hear the 1850's calling to you down the decades.

It wouldn't be the first time that someone has said to me that I should probably have been born about 100 years ago. :wink:

Please don't think I am ignoring the rest of what you said in that post. I just wouldn't be saying anything different to what I have said already.

What I will say is, I am just recently back from a holiday down south where I spent a very enjoyable evening with several people, two of whom were a homosexual couple. You know, those people that I allegedly hate...!?

Yet again, you refer to same sex relationships being unnatural but still have not replied as to why they occur in the natural world?

I'm glad someone mentioned this point to me. Why should the fact that homosexual relations occur in the animal kingdom be a reason for the legality of same sex marriage in the human world?

In the animal kingdom, the young are out reproducing as soon as they become sexually mature. Should we be adopting this behaviour as well and expecting 12 and 13 year olds to be going out and having children because that is when most humans become sexually mature?

In some cultures, this does happen and is seen as being completely normal behaviour. Thankfully in our culture we have a slightly more civilised outlook on this issue and sexual maturity and the legal age of consent are two completely separate issues.

97hills

04-07-2011, 12:21 PM

Yet again, you refer to same sex relationships being unnatural but still have not replied as to why they occur in the natural world?

I'm glad someone mentioned this point to me. Why should the fact that homosexual relations occur in the animal kingdom be a reason for the legality of same sex marriage in the human world?

In the animal kingdom, the young are out reproducing as soon as they become sexually mature. Should we be adopting this behaviour as well and expecting 12 and 13 year olds to be going out and having children because that is when most humans become sexually mature?

In some cultures, this does happen and is seen as being completely normal behaviour. Thankfully in our culture we have a slightly more civilised outlook on this issue and sexual maturity and the legal age of consent are two completely separate issues.

Good quote mining there. Here is what you said:

I therefore see same sex sexual relations as being wholly unnatural

I have pointed out to you that same sex relationships are natural in the most obvious and basic way possible. I have not even hinted that we should take everything from the natural world such as pedophilia as you appear to be suggesting. I just fundamentally object to someone saying something is not natural when it so obviously is!

Removed

04-07-2011, 07:37 PM

Good quote mining there. Here is what you said:

I have pointed out to you that same sex relationships are natural in the most obvious and basic way possible. I have not even hinted that we should take everything from the natural world such as pedophilia as you appear to be suggesting. I just fundamentally object to someone saying something is not natural when it so obviously is!

If it's so obviously natural why can't I see it?

97hills

04-07-2011, 09:04 PM

If it's so obviously natural why can't I see it?

You don't see how something that occurs in abundance in the natural world is obviously natural?

Removed

04-07-2011, 09:14 PM

You don't see how something that occurs in abundance in the natural world is obviously natural?

Really, does it?

What natural world are you talking about?

97hills

04-07-2011, 09:21 PM

Really, does it?

What natural world are you talking about?

Yes, homosexuality occurs more frequently in the animal kingdom than it does between two humans.

Removed

04-07-2011, 09:51 PM

Yes, homosexuality occurs more frequently in the animal kingdom than it does between two humans.

So how often do you see it in your natural world unless you have a David Attenborough boxed set or watch some random dug humping a blokes leg on you've been framed?

97hills

04-07-2011, 09:55 PM

So how often do you see it in your natural world unless you have a David Attenborough boxed set or watch some random dug humping a blokes leg on you've been framed?

I'm sure the scientists look at a few things before they resort to you've been framed as their source :wink:

CropleyWasGod

04-07-2011, 10:10 PM

Really, does it?

What natural world are you talking about?

This one?

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

Removed

05-07-2011, 11:00 PM

You don't see how something that occurs in abundance in the natural world is obviously natural?

Yes, homosexuality occurs more frequently in the animal kingdom than it does between two humans.

This one?

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

Animal Homosexuality. Really?

http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html

97hills

06-07-2011, 12:04 AM

Animal Homosexuality. Really?

http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html

I actually can't believe I lost a few minutes of my life reading that tripe.

I should have noticed the organisation before I read it:

NARTH: National association for research and treatment of homosexuality.

This is an organisation that believes homosexuality is curable. You're either on the wind up with this sort of stuff or you actually believe it. If the latter, then I dont feel like wasting my time with someone who cites this sort of organisation as a reliable source or perhaps more worryingly, believes that homosexuality is some sort of curable disease

Removed

06-07-2011, 12:07 AM

I actually can't believe I lost a few minutes of my life reading that tripe.

I should have noticed the organisation before I read it:

NARTH: National association for research and treatment of homosexuality.

This is an organisation that believes homosexuality is curable. You're either on the wind up with this sort of stuff or you actually believe it. If the latter, then I dont feel like wasting my time with someone who cites this sort of organisation as a reliable source or perhaps more worryingly, believes that homosexuality is some sort of curable disease

So it's tripe because it's not what you believe. Brilliant.

97hills

06-07-2011, 12:12 AM

So it's tripe because it's not what you believe. Brilliant.

This is like arguing with a 5 year old.

Yes it's tripe but that's why I don't believe it. If you can provide me with any meaningful evidence or reasonable argument to the contrary then my views of what is tripe and what isn't will change

Removed

06-07-2011, 12:16 AM

This is like arguing with a 5 year old.

Yes it's tripe but that's why I don't believe it. If you can provide me with any meaningful evidence or reasonable argument to the contrary then my views of what is tripe and what isn't will change

:faf:

Plenty evidence from lots of different people in that article, it states that one of them is homosexual himself I think. How about you telling me which bits of it are tripe because you haven't given any reasonable argument against any of it.

In 1996, homosexual scientist Simon LeVay admitted that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality:

Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.

J-C

06-07-2011, 07:49 AM

From what I can gather from the last 8-10 posts is that animals are probably not homosexual but use sex as a means of keeping binds between themselves, I can't see these animals as choosing homosexuality rather they have sex with whoever as purely a bonding act which keeps them stronger.
Unlike humans who choose to be homosexual because that is their choice.
Surely it's obvious that we as animals have the capabilty to have these urges, mostly they're ignored and monogamy is the norm but occasionally others feel the need to be either homosexual or lesbian and indeed both( bi sexual ). I'm pretty sure millions of years ago our ancestors living up trees practiced this and as we grew as a species we outgrew these tendencies becoming largely heterosexual monogomy.

p.s to all the churchy type out there, we are animals and we did start out life up trees like our cousins the chimps,bonob's and apes etc.

Twa Cairpets

06-07-2011, 05:07 PM

Please don't think I am ignoring the rest of what you said in that post. I just wouldn't be saying anything different to what I have said already.

Well, not really, as you've still not come up with anything other than scripture and your own hang-ups as to why you think you're in the right here.

What I will say is, I am just recently back from a holiday down south where I spent a very enjoyable evening with several people, two of whom were a homosexual couple. You know, those people that I allegedly hate...!?

I'm tempted to not believe you again, but lets assume you're telling the truth with your homosexual couple. By the way, I don't believe I have ever said you hate all homosexuals. I believe you're probably a bit scared of them, and massively judgemental of them on the basis of what you believe they get up to, but that's a moot point.

So. you're sitting there with these gay people. Did you tell them they shouldn't be allowed to have a legally recognised partnership? Did you tell them you think they're "unantural"? Did you tell them that they will be damned forever due to their ativities? Did you tell them they are to blame for the downfall of the church in Scotland. Did you tell them that they should be denied the right to publicly tell the world that they are together and celebrate that relationship with the wider community?

No? Because your position when it comes to real people, is untenable and pretty vile.

Twa Cairpets

06-07-2011, 05:25 PM

So it's tripe because it's not what you believe. Brilliant.

Plenty evidence from lots of different people in that article, it states that one of them is homosexual himself I think. How about you telling me which bits of it are tripe because you haven't given any reasonable argument against any of it.

In 1996, homosexual scientist Simon LeVay admitted that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality:

Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.

It's not evidence, it's opinion written in a sciencey way to convince the uncritical that it's real. It's always a good idea to have a look at the references provided, and the references in this article are, predominantly), web blogs, the NARTH organisation itself, and a range of other organisations with a very anti-gay agenda, such as "The American Society for the Defence of Tradition, Family and Property"

If you read the article, lots of things should raise serious red flags if it is to be taken as a piece of genuine research or evidence. The quote you make yourself is very telling "...homosexual scientist Simon LeVay...". Hello? What? What on earth does the sexuality of the scientist have to do with the validity of his research findings? Erm. None whatosever. So why mention it other than trying to add some validity to the the spurious findings.

Also, any report with this phrase:

"To explain this abnormal behavior, the first observation must be the fact that animal instincts are not bound by the absolute determinism of the physical laws governing the mineral world."

Should send the sane reader running for the hills.