Posted on 11/24/2005 6:30:15 AM PST by A. Pole
Indeed. It's compassion for those stuck in the lifestyle and concern for the current and future generations.
No. Yes. No. Sometimes. Yes.
I say that it would be a disservice to refer to the Bible as the most reliable science textbook. It is simply the most reliable book ever written. 600 years ago the finest scientists in the world would have told you that all available empirical evidence would show that the world was flat.
You replied:
But do theologians and Bible readers have a better record? There's evidence that the most learned scientists of Columbus's day knew that the earth was in fact round. Two centuries after his voyage, clergymen were still burning witches because of what it said in the Bible. Catholics and Protestants were killing each other about the same time, because their interpretations of the Bible differed.
Well, first of all, we both know that at some point in history the commonly accepted scientific fact was that the earth was flat. The people whose lives were most affected, the mariners, depended on it. We've seen the maps showing "the edge". But, you do have a point in comparing that to Christians of a similar time making mistakes based upon faulty Biblical interpretation.
I see a difference in that the eternal truth of the Bible has always been available since it was written, regardless of whether it was understood. The eternal truth of science has never been available as such, it must be invented/discovered as we pass through time, and under the direction or allowance of God. (I say "allowance" because we both know that many useful and important discoveries/inventions have been made independent of that person's reliance on God. I just believe that God has a hand in EVERY good thing.) IOW, and comparatively speaking, the Christian has no need to "search" for the truth, he needs only to accept it. The scientist, without God, is completely on his own. That's why I trust the Bible over any textbook.
Secular learning isn't something to be scorned. If someone writes about navigation or aviation or genetics relying wholly on quotes from the Bible it's an indication to me that they aren't using all the information at hand, and that their arguments may not be the best grounded in the facts.
I don't have anything against "secular learning", as long as it is true. Jesus himself learned the fine trade of carpentry wholly independent of mechanical scriptural teaching (since there isn't any on carpentry). In learning, he used true information outside the Bible, but I would say that does not at all mean that true information did not originate from God anyway.
In addition, when you talk about "using all the information at hand", I would comment that all true information, whether specifically mentioned in the Bible or not, comes from God. Mature Christians know this, so they should not be afraid of discussing ideas from both a Biblical and a secular perspective. Truth is truth.
Finally, when you say that Biblically-based arguments "may not be the best grounded in the facts", you do not imply that there are additional, extra-Biblical facts that the Christian may be forgetting or ignoring. You are verily implying that there are extra-Biblical "true facts" that directly contradict what is in the Bible. This leads me to ask you if you would care to comment on your view of the truth of the Bible, and whether you believe every word of it is divinely inspired, without error?
I said it's in the Bible, not that Christ taught it.
You didn't read lj comment I was replying to.
I think your wasting your time pointing out my lack of credibility. Do you think you're going to improve that or are you just hoping I'll stop commentinmg on your crusade?
I am thinking this standard through as we speak. I understand the standard, but like any other standard of proof you have to establish it by credible evidence. Since homosexual sex is not normally conducted in public, it would seem very difficult to do more than place the applicant under oath and ask him or her to swear that he or she meets the standards. If there is something that I have not thought of pleases enlighten me.
In practice the standard is going to be ask but don't tell. If a homosexual does not publicly identify and does not support the gay agenda then it would seem to me that he would qualify.
I don't save posts like some of the obsessed people here. I made the remarks about your research posts and instead of learning anything you keep posting them. What's the point of doing it again? Plus why would I read the crap again and waste my time trying to educate a zealot?
On this thread I made comments about why the fight you and lj are waging against the "agenda" is intellectually bankrupt and a gross overgeneralization. Instead of responding and having an adult conversation, you dredged up my profile for the umpteenth time in some personal attack that was unrelated to any substance here. This is a technique of the defeated.
You keep saying I runaway. When your comments are repetitious why stay? And what makes you think anyone is obligated to stay until your say they can go. What's wrong with you?
There was a time on this site when others would take you on and point out how wrongheaded and obsessive your posts wer. And I would add anti-american. But many of these people won't post on hate-the-homos threads anymore.
Once in awhile I see some comments that are so wrong they beg to be challenged. After I make my point there's not reason to stay, just to teach you the same lesson over and over. So use your propaganda terms to characterize my actions anyway you want. I leave when I want.
I'm willing to concede that others here don't seem to understand what's going on and when their leader is shown to have no clothes on they get defensive.
Do you have any data on homosexuality being passed from generation to generation?
You're making a common mistake in assuming that if something is genetic it must be passed on through the generations. While most often that IS the case, not always. A few examples: after fertilization, a gene in the embryo mutates. Neither of the parents had this particular genetic construction, but their offspring indeed does. It is certainly "genetic," but not "hereditary."
Here's another: each of us (other than identical twins) are unique combinations of genes coming from each parent. The unique mixture produces an individual who, based on that precise mixture and interaction among the genes, is constructed in ways unlike their parents. For example, Isaac Newton's parents certainly weren't as smart as he was, but their genes (and whatever particular environmental factors) combined to produce--arguably--the greatest genius of all time. And, I'll bet that Denise Richards' mother is no way near as good looking as she is. So, the way the new combo of genes works together is unique to that individual and can never be passed on precisely in the same way--other than with a clone. Genetic--but not directly hereditary.
Male homosexuality is probably a particular combination of genes that is likely a fellow traveler with other traits--some of which we associate with gay males. Can environment affect sexual behavior? Of course--but IMO only in the extremes. For example, if a man is imprisoned for ten years and has no contact with a woman (and has always been stimulated by T&A) but now after isolation has a sexual encounter with another male, is he gay? No--I don't think so; he certainly engaged in a homosexual act, but his orientation is still straight since he will be exclusively with women when he gets out.
Since homosexuals--by their behavior--take themselves out of the gene pool, it is an interesting question and one that more answers await more research.
I don't know if you've read some of the voluminous threads lately about this document, but it's been hashed out pretty well. People who know about such things; for instance, how seminarians are vetted, tested, and so on - think this will screen most out.
To me, the important part is will current priests and bishops who are homosexual get swept out? That needs to happen at least as much as no new ones.
DU is a democratic site, in case you're wondering. Conservatives come in religious and non-religious varieties, and together are responsible for Bush's victory (and hence should be mutually grateful). However, the condemnation of members who are homosexual (I'm not) is wrong. And using religion - not as a respectable point of discussion and reflection - but as a club to beat other FU members over the head with, is certainly NOT (at least I think not) the purpose of FR, nor does it represent the sentiments with which it was founded (does it?). Moreover, if the conversation is reduced to the type of condemnations you see littered like mental garbage throughout this thread, then you are correct - there is little more I can say. But DU is a place for intolerance, so you might as well go there yourself.
On the contrary, I think pointing out your character issues and lack of credibility is a wise use of my time.
In other words you cannot support your statement that my tactics are dishonest and harmful. You are running away again.
While I'm doing that, please support your statement that my tactics are dishonest and harmful.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.