Frailly your post are damn long I can read every thing. Pleas do repeat any thing you think I have misted thanks.

That is not fantasy that was a scientific thirty that was disprove it was basted on the information available at the time.

I don't know as much as you do about the bible I am going to e-mail that quote to my best friend how is in seminary.

just like Galileo we can only test what we have.

I spoke to former criminal how went trow the system and he told and and illustrated haw bad what we use is. He clearly islastrated haw the system we use makes criminals be come better criminals we have the 2ed heist level of people behind bars next to chinal some thing is relay not working there.

But you are still looking at things as bad and good why do we need to quiff things in that why why can things just be as they are. Therese not gray in good and bad.

Even though I have limited time, I must say that your last post, Serpicus, goes against what you have said in your others: "As regards the bible talking about gay people. It was certainly not referring only to Greek army m2m acts. It referred to sodomy in general. Not JUST gays.. btw Sodom and Gammorah weren't exactly hetero...but hey..... I think I made my stance on that clear.
Sex is for a married couple. Marriage is between a man and a woman. There is no provision for m2m.
It is frankly ridiculous that gays try to get married in church, when the criteria of marriage from a religious stand-point is laid out.
---If gays want court marriages or civil unions, sure. It's a free country.---
But if you tell me that they want to go through seeking "God's sanction" for something that "God" has already declared impremissible, it seems they are trying to silence some of their own doubts on the legitimacy of their union. And even if it is allowed by a "fatwa" from the local priest, trying to mince words does not change the code that has been laid out.

Religion is to make the Higher Being's intentions known. Changing our understanding of it, does not change his intentions. If it did, then it is not religion - it is fantasy.”

You have stated repeatedly that the “Bible” has been distorted and is not all that reflective of this deity’s sacraments, yet here you hold that the Bible has marriage absolutely pinned down. Your point about “fatwa from the local priest” is also quite contradictory as you have often stated that the major religious texts are misinterpretations, so who are you to say now that these same religions are correct on only this subject. Likewise you are only using a Judeo-Christian interpretation here (your favored west-centric point as you would say), rather than any other belief system. Even though the majority of religions condemn relations between homosexuals there are still those that do not. Therefore why do you jump to the conclusion that “God” has declared homosexuality to be wrong? It seems that more and more you are doing the interpretation for the deity of your choice, rather than letting the facts speak for themselves.

“The sphincter is not even "evolved" for penetration.”
Says the man who ignores evolution as an “unproven theory”. By the way the anus has quite a crud-load (excuse the pun) of unnecessary nerve endings by any standards that are related to defecation. Oh yeah, and how do you resolve oral sex by that measure. It is not “evolved” for sex either. Plus, here you assume that anal sex is only for gays. Grow up. Sorry about that…a moment of anger. I would not recommend bringing up your “it’s a choice” argument without any proof. Have you ever seen gay mice go at it? Homosexuality is well documented in many species across many genera. It is no more a choice in this respect than breathing.

Perhaps you remember your statement “what makes good, good and bad, bad”. Well then, why do you personally consider the above things to be malignant, yet many religions actually incorporate some part of these acts within their texts? All these contradictions within religions worldwide do not make sense in light of your statement “When I was speaking of religions, I was referring to the immutable essence in them all, which demonstrates something that lies beyond our science and philosophy”.  Which brings me back to this: “As regards your analysis of polytheistic religions, you still need to read up and then speak... lol With that last statement on polytheist religions you need to brush up on your reading of history and anthropology.” Even though I am not as schooled as many people on religion, it is clearly you who is in the dark in this affair.
-To dinner I go.

I agree with you there EWM. Good, bad, and morality are constructs of religion. Now if we could only tell that to the Dawkinists. 

As regards your Galileo retort, his claim was not scientific by the standards of his contemporaries. His theories could not be proven by the simple observation that was at the disposal of his contemporaries. The anlagy holds true, since by our standards "God" cannot be proved or demonstrated. Using empiricity as the only criterion is just like the criterion used by the "world is flat" proponents to discredit Galileo.
So we do see eye to eye on this, it's just a matter of perspective. It is this perspective that what I was trying to throw light upon, and the inadequacy in our presumptions and assumptions based thereon.

I agree with your second para too.
A tiger that kills its prey is certainly not evil. Nor is a Drug-dealer who pushes his wares. But the drug dealer in doing so, is costing people lives and ruining families. In effect he does end up doing what the "Devil" sets out to achieve.
which is why one may kill to eat (plants, bacteria, viruses, animals) or survive (self-defense when attacked - although it is prescribed only when unable to disarm the opponent first after all other negotiations fail). But one may not cause harm to another for selfish motives, nor play with the lives of another to enrich oneself.

But you're right, what is good and what is evil are indecipherable without a codex of sorts. A framework clearly lacking in Atheist ideologies. What is amusing in atheist circles, is that they derive their sense of right and wrong from their upbringing, which ultimately is derived from religious doctrines that have been ingrained into society. A good example is the innate urge of people to distinguish themselves in a form of pseudo-class structure (a form of alpha dominance) that is based on IQ, grades, or wealth; while at the same time they resist overtly recognising such inclinations and denegrate them due to Judeo-Christian-Islamic value sets.
Religion or Judicial jurisprudence provides just that. A value set. Racism would be commonplace, and genocide of native inhabitants acceptable, if they were left to pure "public opinion" or Zeitgeist, which btw as demonstrated leading up to the Iraq war and Nazi germany, are easily pliable with a skilled enough orator or a dumb enough audience.
Ultimately, when people stand up and take a stand against racism, it is not a Zeitgeist that is taking shape, rather a moral value of all humans being equal that comes directly from monotheistic religion.
Hinduism although initially mentioning all people as creations of Brahma dilutes its message with later period "add-ons" of caste and race. Ironically, each drawing on the socio-political structure of that land at that given time. So much for Zeitgeist working in exact opposition to the "civilizing" progression laid out by Dawkins.
Historically, all ancient societies swayed to Zeitgeist. An end result was often the "brazen bull "and the "gladiator killing slaves in the collosseum to cheering fans". But with the guidelines laid out in religion, we find the clear criteria which actually enables the demarcation between what shade of gray is acceptable as human weakness, and which shade is abhorrent.

You will find that the whole religion vs science debate is simply an echo of middle-Dark Age Europe. Science and religion in other parts of the worls have always existed as complementary bodies of work, each supplementing the other in areas where human perception or understanding fail to reach a conclusion.
A fine example is the developer of the Sine system and algebraic calculations was a practicing iranian muslim.
Ayurveda as a healing tradition built on botany is an age-old concept of Hindu India.

Regardless of how much the West likes to flatter itself, cro-magnons were trying to distinguish the berries in their left hands from their testicles in their right, when the rest of the world was developing civilization. It seems this need for distinction, even when dealing with incomparable objects or ideologies, is intrinsic to most debates in the West, ranging from politics to religion and science.
One can certainly see that the superimposition of Greek/Mediterranean civilization on a people not adapted to actually deal with culture, science, and religion, would have such a disgruntling effect.
Posted on: December 04, 2007, 03:55:15 pm

---

Hey dom, pleasure to see that you took the time out to join us.

I am citing the Bible since the previous poster used it as an example. I made quite clear in my post that it presented a certain aspect of looking at a subject that is otherwise considered controversial.

I also made it clear that the Biblical view was not necessarily my view word for word.

The fatwa issue I mentioned was a direct reference to the misinterpretations of religion, not a contradiction thereof.

Now, to the point of the homosexuals.

1. I used "evolved" in quotations to indicate my neutrality on the issue of creation vs evolution or creator driven evolution. whatever.

2. As regards the anus being loaded with nerve endings, you will find that the nerve endings are not exactly pleasing when pumped. I dont know if you've been feeling something else there -wink wink. 
But seriously, as regards nerve endings, you will also find that there is an equal amount of bacteria and chance of serious infection. Not to mention that an overzealous partner can actually rip the sphincter when enjoying himself. Again you appear to have caught the bull by the tail as it were, and ignored the larger picture.

3. Oral sex is not sex per se. It is more akin to stimulation. Like a handjob. Even if you pump your fist or your girl's/boy's fist you are not copulating with them. Masturbation does not qualify as copulation, nor would a blowjob. You seem to be sticking to a term that included "seX" even if in practice it is less like sex and more like "foreplay".
But it is still sexual contact.

4. When dealing with this subject, you will find that other world religions have also dealt with the concept. What you quote of world religions is what is left o f them. The degradation of content was, btw, the necessitator of subsequent revelations to begin with.
But, if you were to look at world religions, the only mention of homosexuality as acceptable resides in Greek myth, and Sumerian myth. No other religion considered acceptable. Other civilizations ok. But no other religion in their texts. Most prescribed sexual contact as being between husband and wife after a prescribed ritual. And marriage as being between male and female.
Archaic tribal customs and traditions fall more under the category of degradation of content as opposed to actual textual content of a scripture as can be demonstrated by the modern treatment of custom over textual content.
So when things are introduced into humanity as a result of our animal urges, when we, as you cited, behave like lab rats and the spring bucks that display homosexual tendencies, the Higher Being does make it clear as to what is acceptable and what is not.
In the end, your argument there, becomes a meatless rant of justification of indilgence. Nothing more.

5. I did not assume anal sex as being only for gays.. I mentioned very very clearly m2m and m2f.
I understand you were in a rush, but don't say that I assume something simply because you did not read closely enough. lol

6. As regards my question "what makes good good and bad bad", I was stating that very question in response to your citation of Dawkins. In effect if you were to read closer in that very section, I had mentioned that very thing - it is religion that is ultimately responsible for what we today call "good" or "bad" right down to our response to attributes and adjectives. And I posed questions above in direct response to Dawkin's abstract Zeitgeist argument. Maybe you were in a rush here too.   

7. As regards your polytheistic argument, well your premise of religions having contradictions was already made clear when I stated that people have adjusted their religions to incorporate that which was "socially acceptable and pleasing". Greek society did not have an original mythology. It was, as per recent research, built from the Mycenean remnant. In effect the greek obsession for the human male form on a social level, could just as easily have been a motivation for the Ganymede myth. It may also interest you to note that its predominance in Greek society was at its Zenith in 5th century BC.
there is also evidence to suggest that prior to 900bc, ancient greece looked upon homosexuality as a weak or distasteful trait that was discouraged.
In Sumerian myth there is no direct reference to homosexuality except a vague allusion in the Gilgamesh epic, and that too is more interpretative than explicit.

8. Even though we do have lab rats going at it, no scientist or research to date has been able to decipher or determine what causes such behaviour. One may state that it is inborn, just as esily as one could say that it is a genetic mutation that is passed down through the gene pool. Assumptions can be as far-flung as stating that it is a temptation by the devil to the statement that it has been passed through the human gene pool as a learned trait of a sin committed by ancestors a long time ago.
Any assumption in this case, ranging from the outrageous to the mundane, is pure conjecture. The fact that it is not normal is the only consensus, even in the scientific world - normal being defined from the basic "natural" purpose of sex.

Let's also not forget that every argument that you have levied here in your attempt to ratify homosexuality in general or sodomy in particular, can be used to justify paedphilia, from your nerve endings to innate inclination, right down to scientifically citing the behaviour of certian shrews and rodents where the male impregnates new-born shrews that store the semen till they reach the age of maturity.
But I hope you will not go that far. 

Fact is, regardless of how we like to splice it, at the end of the day all the liberal and conservative debate in the world still does not arrive at a viable conclusion.
The more we try to degrade it, the more religion shines as a guidance or set of criteria that illuminates in areas where our facts, research, science, and debating skills dim.

Hey Ewm,

As regards the bible thing, your friend is 100% correct.
The book is a collection of letters.

But that;s the new testament.

For the old testament we have documentary hypothesis.

But does that in any way leigitimize sodomy.... Look outside christendom, and - as i mentioned in my post - it is still not condoned.

As regards Chruch, I'm not a christian, and frankly the Bible does not have any historicity to convince me otherwise.
The old testament is nothing more than anachronisms from ancient Judea reflecting the socio-political aspirations of ancient Israel from about 800B to 200BC. A simple anachronism is mix up between Esau and Jacob's story with Isaac and Ismael's story.

When dealing with Gays or sodomy, the bible is certainly the only book on the issue. However, when the verses or letters that you have do indeed speak of anti-sodomy laws, when the old testament again speaks of anti-sodomy laws, when Islam has anti-sodomy laws, when Hinduism does not allow Gay marriage, when ancient religions except Greek myth (which I have again dealt with above) also reject m2m or f2f, and when biologically the natural purpose of pairing is reproduction - which is absent in abnormal penetration into an orifice that is not even geared for the same - trying to justify such an act simply because "modernity" finds pleasure in bringing "ancient vices" back to society is frankly hypocritical.

The bible is 2,000 old don't you think things have changed in 2,000 years?

In Rome sodomy was looked on as "normal" rome I don't wont to go in to what they did there in risk of violation of forum rules and that was legal. By why do some in the religious community fell so strongly about this if you don't like don't do it, fixed!

Its very confusing because it was all so ok to spread sacrificed animals which would be is not only agitated the health code but it would be animal abuse. But not one person I have heard stand up saying I think it should be ok to spread animal blood around. Nope there focused on sex acts why is sex so much more offensive to you than not be able to kill animals?

And what dose sex have to do with gay Margie any way?

Rhaz Do you relay think you could stop that for of sex even if you wonted? People how know are old anuff to wed are old anuff to chose if the risk is acceptable or not. What about orly that can real transfer sickness but no ones saying no sex orly.

You argue that it is irrelevant based on the fact that between 4,000 and 1,900 years have passed between now and then, and that society has undergone changes.  That may be true, however, it is your arguement that is irrelevant unless you can provide specific examples of these changes that specifically make the ideas and ideals instituted within the Bible useless.  So please, don't keep us waiting, we'd ALL like to hear what these instances are.


Gay Margie?   

Asr egards society's changes, there has been technological changes, but has man really changed.
We have the same desires, same lusts, same robberies, same wars, and same murders. Not to mention the same class system, and political system that mirrors Rome all the way down to the avg income american being treated like Pleb in front of elitist lobbyist agendas.
So as far as relevance goes, time has passed, but people are just as barbaric as before - maybe with a tinge of the sanctimonious.

As regards marrying for love - of course. Why separate sex and love. That's just it. Love, sex, and marriage are part of the same parcel. There is no separation. You do marry for love, not for sex. But then why feel that you can have sex out of marriage. Irrelevant rebuttal to different points.
As I said, in civil unions, people of the same sex in free US can get court unions. But whether they get married to have sex or whether they get married in civil unions is irrelevant.
Marriage is primarily a ritual stipulated by the Divine, as part of acknowledging your love for someone of the opposite sex and through this acknowledgement of the Divine as witness accept each other as partners to share your lives, bodies (vis a vis sex), and "partnership.
The issue here is the acceptance of the Divine and completing the formality he has laid out as part of his requirement and right upon you.
Marriage is not the fan-fare of the west, with bridal gowns and flowers and hooplah. That's cultural and social. As far as the Divine goes, marriage has been revealed as part of the paring ritual, where you finally and officially declare to the divine your intent. All that is needed there is the person conducting the ceremony, the witnesses of maybe 3 people at least, the vows which demonstrate sincerity (and as far as needing the ritual, anyone who says he "loves" with all his heart still gets "cold-feet" at the time of actually going through with it, the ritual serves in itself as a true test of commitment). Marriage itself is a commitment not to be taken lightly or flimsily.
But as regards the Divine aspect, and his having prescirbed the ritual, he has also prescribed for whom the ritual is actually valid. Of these stipulations, m2m or f2f are prohibited. Homosexual marriage in church or trying to relgiousize it, is like trying to ratify in court a contract to kill.
If the very premise of the contract is itself in contravention of the law, how can you expect its ratification in the court of law?

As regards Rome accepting sodomy, there is some controversy to that. There were Emperoros who practiced it, but there is evidence to sugges that such acts were perpetrated to the disdain of public opinion and the senate at large. There is also an instance of an Emperor being murdered by his own guards specifically for his affection for his charioteer.
In any case, social acceptance is not our concern. rome also considered feeding people to animals as "acceptable". And Sodomy in roman society was more a borrowed trait from Greece, as the Romans held greek society in such high esteem that it was considered chic for teh aristocracy to speak Greek instead of Latin. In fact Alea Eacta Est, was itself supposedly never uttered in Latin, but in greek.

But coming down to it, sodomy can be deemed acceptable by people. Racism can be deemed acceptable. Polygmay can be deemed unacceptable. But in the end, as we can clearly see, Zeitgeist is confusing and vacillating. People pick and choose what they accept and disregard based on what they "want" and what they consider "chic".
Trying to argue pro-sodomy citing ancient Rome and Greece is like trying to argue anti-sodomy citing Nazi germany and Bible Belt USA.
At the end of the day, all I was talking of was religion. At the heart of religion is the fact that sex is for male and female. Through the naturally provided or "evolved" orifice. Foreplay to heighten the arousal is also part of natural sex.
But sodomy in an orifice that is geared for expulsion, or coupling between the same gender is in contravention of the basic purpose of "coupling" - reproduction. So from a moral, or social, or biological standpoint homosexuality ends up as abnormal behaviour, no different from paedophilia - an urge to satisfy oneself with what one feels "appealing" as opposed to what is "natural or normal".
And if one cannot be normal, then abstain or fast, as it will teach the person self-control.
But before we actually know whether homosexuality is inborn, the result of brain chemistry, or an acquired preference that develops due to psychology or childhood events, trying to argue against religion's stand on it, simply because people find it "modern", and trying to justify it by arguing that one must satisfy the sex drive, is no different from what a paedophile says when he rationalizes his inability to abstain from "raping minors".
What is then wrong in religion's prohibition of such acts, and the penalties that deter and bring out the gravity of the crime.

What exactly was your point of sacrificing animals? Could you repeat that once more please.