Gay marriages?

dude... you're making absolutely NO sense whatsoever... Drew just explained to you the actual theological teaching of the Bible, compared to your nonsense about original sin... He doesn't think it's stupid, he's showing you that you're wrong in your interpretation of the Bible you thump.
 
Drew could say whatever the hell he wants. I have a strong faith, attended catholic school/sunday school, been brought up in that lifestyle. Drew isnt going to change my mind in anyway, hes not right in anyway, i'm not right in any way. Just give up trying to change my mind, and trying to prove me wrong. I gave up a long time ago because nobody is going to win. So drew for all i care go makeout with JD_may and fight to the death for gay rights, i couldnt give two shits. Just dont do it in public.
 
There is no right or wrong interpretation of the bible...people can interpret it however they want, however wrong you may think it is.
 
Actually, Patty and I had a huge discussion over this and came to somewhat of an agreement. While people can go and interpret a text any way they wish (Hell, if I was creative enough, I could find communist messages in Charolettes Web), the text's true meaning is defined by the author in most cases. The text was written for a specific purpose, a meaning which the author wishes people to 'know'. Thus, every text, even the bible has one overall true message, instilled by its author. Its up to you to get it or not.

However, might I point out that humans are continually optomistic. We always believe our society is doing, for the most part, better than our past generations. Thus, as history unfolds, ideas and laws that were once 'right' become outdated. For example, the Bible gave people power once to go around and claim anyone as a heratic, in which case you would be executed for your sins. People thought it was the 'true meaning' and had right to do so through the bible. They, obviously were wrong. However, that is from our now future perspective. They would have been rioght if we lived in that era. So my question, which I hope goes unanswered yet thought over by each of you - How do we know that we are not in a 'heretic burning' stage of human history?
 
Can i laugh at you on that one? I mean, besides the fact that what you said is logically impossible, because two opposing truths cannot be true at the same time...

Lemme tell you a wrong interpretation... No wait, let me give you a hint: crusades, spanish inquisition, saint barthélémy massacre...

There is an overriding theological truth stated in the Bible. Many denominations vary on little things and practices, but the message (The Good News, look it up) is the same throughout most denominations, with some radical and less radical changes.

There is a strong theological message to the Bible: the life of Christ and the Atoning Sacrifice. If you interpret it different ways, a HUGE portion of theological message is lost.

Take republican idiot: he says that (and it makes sense since he's catholic) Jesus only died for original sin (Adam and Eve), not for any other sins. The Bible says the opposite. Someone is right, and someone is wrong. Im gonna go with the Bible.

There are obviously true interpretations, misinterpretations, and flat out manipulations of the text for personal gain (again a hint: the crusades, the spanish inquisition...). Someone is right, someone is wrong.

I find it funny that you say the Bible is so openly interpretable, when you're arguing from a Biblical viewpoint against homosexuality...
 
Dude, he disagreed with you on a matter of theology, not even gay rights... I didn't realize understanding the Bible made you gay. You afraid of something?
 
im livin here in Massachussetts, and ever since gay marriage, nothing has changed. The world has not gone to hell, and our children are not being corrupted. The only people gay marriage affects is gays themselves. Anyone pulling the "bible says so" clause, I suggest your read Letter To A Christian Nation, with an open mind. It's really quite good.
 
People used the bible to their advantage during the crusades, it was more of a power struggle, kind of like Islam is using the Koran to their advantage to

you can't interpret the bible in any way that would cause one to violate the 10 commandments, so I guess I would have to agree that you can't interpret it any way, there are some limitations, but the bible is also quite metaphorical at the same time, and that's the reason people can take more out of it than the writer/writers may have intended.

 
i dont support gay marriage but i would never use the bible as one of my points. the people who do are to selective with it, in the next passage after "a man shall not lie in bed with another man" it says " children who misbehave should be stoned to death" and then " a man with long hair should be shamed" they need to either believe in it or not.
 
in my opinion that IS what they intended. they wrote it like that for power over others. but that's just my opinion.
 
my faith isnt the only reason i am agianst gays. For godsakes a guy having sex with another guy is uhhh let me check, wierd. Its not normal, ok its just not. Theres my reasoning, say what you want. If you guys want to support gays have fucking fun once agian, i dont see the point unless your gay. I think blacks should have the same rights as whites, but i'm not fighting for it as if i was black. So if your not gay give up trying to prove me wrong.
 
You know, if you lived in the south before 1850, you would be like "What, end slavery? Uhhh... weird!" Times change, and society's views on social acceptability shift as well. Its definently time that same sex couples be allowed civil unions in our country.
 
Read the thread already...being gay isn't as different as you might think; it's a small genetic mutation. There are several researched ideas that have been given, unlike yours.

You are what people mistake me for: someone who hates gays.

Research before you throw out opinions that are totally based on your own experience.

Gays are just like normal people except they aren't attracted to women. They aren't all femine like MTV makes them out to be.

You are one of the people that give conservatives a bad name.
 
if you read up the whole post, i know why gays are the way they are, i did take phych and my teacher loved the topic. So uhh yeah i know what i am talking about.
 
Dude, its a developmental change and a genetic one, twin studies have pretty much proven that. Theres lots of factors that are at play, not just one or two simple ones. Despite that fact, gay people are still people, and I dont see why they should be denied rights that any other person could enjoy. Hell, if mentally unstable alcoholics are allowed to have children, why cant a couple get married and raise a child in a loving household?
 
NO!!! That's what everyone thinks it was about, I was just saying how gayness goes against human instict and therefore it's not natural, but I have seen many opinions have proof since.

I still am against gay marriage, however. Civil unions are the way to go.
 
I know lots of kids who had great dads like those. And even if our social service industry worked (which it doesnt), irresponsible people still have kids while loving same sex couples cant adopt or marry.
 
well they;re not supposed to have kids, and its not hard to make them on there own with no help from the government. Gays cant exactly makes there own kids.
 
I think what he's trying to say is that the gay couples can't have a baby...therefore it's unnatural.

He had the same opinion as I did when I didn't know as much.
 
So I’m sure there's never been a case where heterosexual couples have found it impossible to bear children where either the mother or the father was infertile... I suppose you'd be against them having children too.

Your morals are tainted, your conception of what is free will, what is right and what is wrong, and who to impose your ideas upon are all incorrect, and the errors that you have made in conceiving these notions have made you into a bad person.

I do not believe people strive to become bad persons, so if you truly believe in your stances, and believe that you are a good person maybe you should reevaluate your positions with a more open point of view. Apply your morals to yourself but hold back upon judging others. If you believe in a God, I'm sure you can find faith in him to do all the judging himself. He would not need you to condemn others nor need you to impose your restrictions upon them.
 
and you act as though you are at this level of acceptance and moral correctness and that people who don't agree with you are below you or that they simply haven't matured to your level. God that's annoying.
 
I find it far more annoying when people pick and choose particular parts of a doctrine to support their hate for others.

Is it not mature to believe that possibly there are multiple understandings of how to live a good life? It is immature to set one set of rules and one set of beliefs as the only set of acceptable ways of living, this especially when these beliefs include hate and discrimination.

I am not setting out to make him believe something else in particular only to consider that the way he has been aproaching his views on life and the actions he has taken due to these views is allowing and encouraging hate and discrimination to exist.
 
ah so you took psych (phych in your case, whatever) so you know what youre talking about?

ive taken around 40 credit hours around this issue. Im certainly by no means an expert, but shit, you sound like you dont have a clue, and I could confidently say I have had more research in this area than you. Not to mention you never refute anything, you just say the same bullshit over and over, which tends to include, far too often, how we must be gay because we agree with others who don't oppose gays/gay marriage. It's just too redundant, fuck it.
 
I gave approaches for evaluating a point of view and how to apply it to ones self. I also pointed out that if he believed in a superior figure, that I would assume that that belief would mean that who ever he believed to be the superior existence was fully capable of doing the judging.

I did not say what should be the case for morals or ideas
 
I agree that you presented your points in a more mature way than most, but then you went ahead and said his morals were tainted.
 
To defend that, they are, when you manipulate an actual set of morals and twist them to conform to your own personal needs and wants; I believe that makes those morals corrupted.

morality is something that regardless of what you believe should be set equally amongst all, so to invoke a different amount of rights for a particular set of persons because you don't feel like their beliefs allot them the same rights you are granted because you favor your beliefs over theirs means you've corrupted your set of morals.

Morality is a way for one to live ones life, not a way for one to control the lives of others.

 
not everybody views the same moral structure (a religion, for example) so it's still, in my opinion, passing poor judgment on somebody who interprets said structure differently than another. Somebody may see being gay in another way, simply because that's how it appears, NOT because they consciously manipulate it to fit their liking.
 
this was on the second page and may have been dealt with already, but i couldn't help myself...

IT COULD BE A RECESSIVE GENE YOU FUCKING IGNORANT FUCK!

damn, people like you really grind my gears. i feel like i'm reasoning with a pile of fire wood.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top