Homosexual Priests

[Darren]

so what's your take on this one?

I think its amusing that the church has been going on so much about how basically gay sex was just wrong, yet is now considering allowing gay clergymen.

The bible tells that God destroyed Sodom and Gommorrah (sp?) because of the things that were going on there. Also where we get the name "sodomy" from.

So since forever, the church has been a believer in the "gay people are sinners" thing.

Yet now, in a bid to move with the times, homosexual clergy are being allowed?

Hmmm.

I think perhaps the church has "sold out".

The sheer hypocrasy of such a major organisation astounds me. To say something is wrong for so long and then repeal this to "move with the times" is kinda laughable.

Anyone got any thoughts?

(Don't get me wrong, no issues with gay people.. what they do in the privacy of their sordid little homes is their business.. I'm more having a go at the church here).

[petri_dish]

Yeah, it is being very hipocritical, but I think it's good that at least they're now starting to allow it...

[Big Mark]

The Church is the only organisation that manages to be at once both two decades and two millenia out of touch on pretty much everything. In the early eighties Western society as a whole was starting to accept that maybe gay people weren't all that bad, look what the Church is doing now. In twenty years a gay preist will be just another priest, as all the oldies who think otherwise will have finally bitten the dust.

Actually, that's pretty much the reason why I stopped believing in what my Catholic upbringing should've instilled in me. The Bible was written for the audience of its time; while the basic concept of it ("do unto others as you wish done unto you") still bears relevance humanity as a whole has moved on from the primitive, cryptic, ambiguous ramblings that most of it is.

[Siiiiick]

im against it, at least in the catholic church.

[MDF]

HYPOCRITS, in a few years they'll start saying sex is ok and that condoms do stop aids.

[Siiiiick]

definately hypocritical...no to homosexual priests

[MeMaby]

but you've also gotta realize that some of the *newer* denominations have never held true to the bible word for word. i think they're just moving with the times and realizing that people have been interpreting the bible in different ways for a thousand years. this is just a new interpretation of love thy neighbour and stuff. if your neighbour is gay you still gotta love them.

last time i checked the bible also said an eye for an eye but that's frowned upon. i'm not gonna go on a huge rant, i think i've made my point.

[Siiiiick]

i still love em, i just dont think id handle it too well if there was a homosexual priest leading the church...i dont think it says eye for an eye, it says turn the other cheek...

[Ravin]

i think that the homosexual priests should be forced to spank off a batch 6 times a day .... when they wake up, after breakfast before morning mass, before noon mass, at 2:30 mass, and once before bingo, then after evening mass ....
so, they dont get all horned up

see, thing is this:
priests arnt sposed to be sexually involved or active with anyone, right ? they arnt sposed to be in relationships .... or whatever, in the old fashioned sense of it ... right ?

RIGHT ?

so, admitting you are homosexual means that you like the cock, right ? which implies that they have homosexual experiences, which means that they are sexually active, which means that there are gay priests having sexual relations ... right ?

so, why is it that the straight ones cant get laid, but the gay ones, can hob whatever knob they want ?

how is that fair ?

or do the gay ones get to just SAY "im gay, but i'll be celibate from the cock for the rest of my priesthood!" ...

which we all know is totally going to be bullshit, cuz what gay guy passes up free cock ?

how does any of that make sense ?

[Ravin]

*pushes tumbleweed into thread*
oh, what ? gay jokes do fly around here anymore ? or did i actually make a valid point ?
;)

[Siiiiick]

so youre against it?

[Vomit]

Rav: I was this close (<------>) to deleting your post, but I think there was a point in there somewhere.

[Ravin]

im actually serious about that post .. i said it in a kidding manner but think about it

heres my question:
if the "straight" preists have to be celibate,:
01- do teh gay ones have to admit to being gay to teh clergy? & do tehy get special treatment (no late nights with the boys, etc)
02- do the gay ones have to be celibate also ?

[froglett]

right...before i say ANYTHING.

i am NOT homophobic
and
i am NOT religious


in the bible...it says on a number of times that homosexuality is a sin.
as the christian church follow the teachings of the bible
surely they should have the same view.....right or not.


how can they have homosexual preists/vicars whatever...when the book the religion is based on is blatently against it??



it just doesn't make sense

[cheryl s]

yup, what she said. absolutely. which isn't suprising i s'pose given our similar backgrounds. and no i'm not homophobic either.

[thePseud]

the difficulty with discussing a subject such as the one posed in the title, is that it is not a question of concepts or mere philosophical contemplation, but rather an existential problem, i.e. one that is encountered in life rather then mere a priori knowledge

ergo, to get to the heart of the problem, it would be wise to move from an existential, or pragmatic area of debate, to a more theoretical area of reflection.

the key point is actually not whether homosexuality is or is not wrong, the question is whether anything is wrong at all. this brings in the idea of underlying objective moral values.

after deliberating, and coming to the conclusion of whether or not they exist (these metaphysically unique entities), then the compatibility with the dogma and doctrine of the church at large, can be answered

[Raiden]

and don't forget all those molestation cases that come up day after day.


we have sitting duck paedophiles basically and MANY knew what was going on and didn't say shit...fear of rocking the 'boat' as it were.

[haveagood1985]

i dont know why some people are so surprized at all this. theres hypocracy running through all religion i've ever seen, and the catholics are the worst. i have nothing against the every-day joe catholic, but the guys in the vatican or whatever that lead the religion really piss me off.

[Luke]

Well seen as your still here, and are still being very vague, care to elaborate as to why you hate the catholic leaders at the vatican?
ta

[Flobalob]

Well seen as your still here, and are still being very vague, care to elaborate as to why you hate the catholic leaders at the vatican?
ta

Can't speak for Havagood, but I don't like them because they protect the pervert child molester priests.

There is only one kind of person that would protect a child molester.

[LiNDCHMBRS]

I suppose the church can make allowances as long as the priest is sorry for sinning and trying to repent

[katie]

i think it is hypocritical of the church to say that something they have frowned upon for such a long time has suddenly became acceptable- if they are allowing gay priests shouldn't they allow priests to be married or for women to be priests?

[haveagood1985]

Well seen as your still here, and are still being very vague, care to elaborate as to why you hate the catholic leaders at the vatican?
ta

because they're stupid and hypocritical. ok? 'ta'.

[BloodTears]

I suppose the church can make allowances as long as the priest is sorry for sinning and trying to repent

being a homosexual is a sin?

[bamx]

being a homosexual is a sin?

yes they are
in the bible
"old" bible

[BloodTears]

and the bible was written a long time ago... culture, society and the world changes... always has and always will... so does that make the bible right then?

[LiNDCHMBRS]

The basic laws laid down in the Bible will always stand up as a good moral code of living, those basic commandmednt are still the foundation of a well functioning society, maybe the bible isnt as old fashioned as you think. If we neglect these commands society will inevitably break apart

If you look at the Bible, homosexuality is a sin, along with anger and pride and all the other sins. Homosexuality is a result of the fall, in the same way as other sin, and so just because its 'cool' doesnt make it right.

[bamx]

and the bible was written a long time ago... culture, society and the world changes... always has and always will... so does that make the bible right then?

i'm not FOR the bible at ALL
thats just what it says

[haveagood1985]

The basic laws laid down in the Bible will always stand up as a good moral code of living, those basic commandmednt are still the foundation of a well functioning society, maybe the bible isnt as old fashioned as you think. If we neglect these commands society will inevitably break apart

If you look at the Bible, homosexuality is a sin, along with anger and pride and all the other sins. Homosexuality is a result of the fall, in the same way as other sin, and so just because its 'cool' doesnt make it right.

how can human nature be made a sin? anger is so natural. if someone kills your family, are you just s'posed to say "oh dear. what a shame. well, life goes on"? no, you feel angry. and full of hate for the people who did it. y'know, natural feelings. i know thats an extreme example, but thats irrelavent.

[BloodTears]

Homosexuality is not a sin.. it never was and it never will be... christianty and all other religions are invensions... and why? because we needed answers. Where did we come from? why are we here? and blah blah blah we needed a reason to live.. and humans need rules,so some jerks that didn't like homosexuals decided that this was a sin, wrote it down in a book and said that is was gods words... no way... and i don't think god see's right and wrong... if homosexuals want to become priest then let them... who are we to judge?

[bamx]

Homosexuality is not a sin..

according to the BIBLE it is.

[LiNDCHMBRS]

Oh right, cause were a higher moral authority than God so we get to judge what he says as ok or otherwise. Who are we to judge God?

You dont think God sees right and wrong, shit, im glad you know the ways of god in such a complex way that we other mere christians havent yet been enlightened to. I would have thought all the stuff in the bible about not sinning meant there was a difference, shows all i know.

As far as the Bible goes homosexuality is a sin, end of story. Now, I know that saying that instantly implies that im a homophobe, and that therefore im secretly gay myself, yes, all the trendy opinions on homosexuality that make so much sense are worth taking into consideration. What im saying doesnt mean you cant then forgive a person and help them change, but at the end of the day, im a christian and so i follow what is written in the bible, and that is to the effect that homosexuality is a sin.

The reason it seems natural is beacause we are part of a fallen world, anger wouldnt be natural otherwise. It doesnt change the fact that its still a sin.

[haveagood1985]

call me stupid (cos everyone does), but what do you mean by 'fallen world'?

[LiNDCHMBRS]

no, i should have explained. my apologies

By fallen world i meant the world after 'the fall',which is the Christian terminology for the fall of mankind after the garden of eden. This means that the world we experience is subject to sin, evil, corruption, and isnt the perfect world it was at one point. So when we say anger is natural, we only think its natural becasue are part of a fallen world, otherwise we would see that it isnt.

[BloodTears]

old men on cameles said a couple of thousand years ago and we still believe them

[haveagood1985]

this world has never been perfect, never will be, and there will always be anger. i dont go for the garden of eden stuff, the theory of evolution makes far more sense.

[LiNDCHMBRS]

old men on cameles said a couple of thousand years ago and we still believe them

Well, most of our knowledge comes from human testimonies. I could doubt men on camels, i could also doubt that anything in the past happened. The only evidence we have of any historical event is what has come from other people who claimed to experience it, and they are no more reliable sources than claims that Jesus lived and so forth. So if your going to doubt that, you must also doubt every other event that has happened, like the world wars etc.

Scientists and people ive never met said evolution happened. They dont even have experiential evidence. Some say its convenient that God isnt making any appearances nowdays, doing any miracles. Its also rather convenient that we arent evolving nowadays, isnt it- ive never seen anyone transform before my very eyes. So if your going to talk about evidence from the past, you cant reject claims of God and still entertain evolutionary theories

[BloodTears]

i know jesus excisted but there is no proof that he was gods son.. there were many like him down there... he wasn't the only one with healing powers and so on.. and this is fucking science so there is no point in arguing about it

[maffoooo]

Scientists and people ive never met said evolution happened.
Not all sceintists beleive in evolution, in fact many scientists beleive that there must be a higher being who designed everything due to the complexity of things such as DNA/gravitational forces ect ect.

They dont even have experiential evidence.
The phrase "the theory of evolition" comes to mind.

Its also rather convenient that we arent evolving nowadays, isnt it- ive never seen anyone transform before my very eyes.
Are you realy that dense? Research into the subject, you will see that scientists claim that evolution takes millions of years, so it is highly unlikley that someone is going to "transform right before your eyes".

So if your going to talk about evidence from the past, you cant reject claims of God and still entertain evolutionary theories
Yes we can. The bible may be thousands of years old, but so are some scientific papers. Show us some solid evidence that god exists.
Just as evoultion is just a theory, so is god. Many people belive in evolution and the big bang, and many people beleive in god, but neither are anything more than theory.

I beleive in god, i don't follow any specific religion, but i do beleive that there must be something up there. But, for all i know the big bang and evolution could have happened, im not so closed minded that i will just dismiss it.
One theory is that the big bang did happen, but that it was caused by a higher being a "god" as his way of starting creation.

Everyone thinks science and religion are so different, but in fact they have alot in common.

[BloodTears]

i don't know if this has got anything to do with this but didn't einstein say something about the more he studied and found out about the universe the more he believed in god?

did that make any sense at all?

[maffoooo]

Thats true he did, and many scientists today think the same thing.

[BloodTears]

mmm... have to agree with them on some level but what's that got to with homosexual priests? are we a bit off topic?

[maffoooo]

I dunno, but it raises an interesting point; In the eyes of science, and in the eyes of god, homsexuality is wrong.

[BloodTears]

homosexuality isn't wrong in the eyes of science...

[LiNDCHMBRS]

The only problem with our obsession with being so open minded is that its completely undermines what you actually say you believe, i dont care if your open minded, thats not what were discussing, were discussing what you actually believe in.

I didnt make a blanket statement like all scientists beleive in evolution, there has recently been a move in science back towards religion. Still, its an idea that hinges on the types of proof science finds conclusive, so im within reason in saying scientists say evolution happened. lets not continue discussing such a minor point.

I find it interesting that evolution theory is so widely accepted even though its just a theory and science tends to reject that which is not 100% fact. It is because its littered with problems, for example, scientists still have no idea how the mass of chemicals came together to make up things like skin cells, they cant find a link in this most important part of the chain, and it doesnt exactly make for a convincing theory.

Evolution takes place over millions of years just isnt acceptable, people make claims like 'wheres God now', but they are willing to suffiece that their own theory is just as open to such a criticism. Its all very well that this evolution happened in the past and all through history, but i struggle to see it actually in practice, has it just randomly stopped for some reason?

Again, the idea of solid evidence is questionable. Your searching for me to give fact that proves God, but there really isnt any such thing as fact, nothing is considered proven beyond all reasonable doubt. Even things like gravity arent fact, as they dont apply to earth on a micro and macroscale, therofre theyre just the most accepted way things happen. Now, science likes to cover this up neatly by presenting these things as fact, and hence your criticsim of no factual evidence for God. Unless your own ideas have factual proof (which, as ive shown, they dont), then saying i lack facts is making an claim that your own arguments cant stand up to, and so you meerly illustrating a flaw in your own reasoning. Remember that scientific proof(which you need) is based on searching for fact, while proof of God rests in faith.Therefor the non-existance of fact is much more detrimental to scientific ideas like evolution than it is to God.

[maffoooo]

to Bloodtears: Thats not quite what i meant, it may not be moraly wrong, but its scientificaly wrong.
The penis and the vagina were meant to work together, to continue the existence of the human race. The urge to reproduce is our most dominant urge, its why we are alive, to continue the existence of the human race.
Homosexuals cannot produce offspring, therefore go against this basic principle.
So while homosexuality is not moraly wrong, it is wrong nontheless.

To the other person: You go on about how sceince is accepted 100% even though it is not proven, you are wrong, the fact that it is still reffered to as theory and the fact that we are even having this discussion proves that.

There is also the matter of the origins of the particles that made the "big bang" I find it very interesting that you raised this point, as pretty much everyone raises this point. To you i say, if there is a god, how did he get there in the first place.
Both topics are beyond our comprehension.

[BloodTears]

okay this is off topic but i just have to post it. If it's scientificaly wrong then why are there so many animals with homosexual oriantation?

[maffoooo]

Good question, maffoooo thinks he shall have to look into that.

[LiNDCHMBRS]

Woo, 'the other person'!! Charming

The fact that science is theory is just plain against-science, you cant say that things must be 100% proven to be accepted and then give evolution any sort of acceptance. Fact just doesnt exist, so the very grounds of science are non-existant to. If science is meant to set up a model for understanding so that we dont need blind faith, then it has achieved absoluely nothing.

I didnt make any points relating to the big bang at all, i was referring to how evolution started. If we all grew out of a bunch of chemicals, and there doesnt seem to be any link at all between these elements and the structure of human cells, then it puts a pretty big dampener on evolution

[BloodTears]

do that.. but i doubt you'll find too many answers

[maffoooo]

Woo, 'the other person'!! Charming

I didnt make any points relating to the big bang at all, i was referring to how evolution started. If we all grew out of a bunch of chemicals, and there doesnt seem to be any link at all between these elements and the structure of human cells, then it puts a pretty big dampener on evolution

Its the same damn point, there is no conclusive un-flaud evidence that science is correct, only what we have found out *what we beleive in*
The same is true about religion, both subjects have alot to do with faith, and in beleiving something that we don't know 100%.

I was raised in a strict religious family, but to me certain parts of religion didnt make sense, i didnt understand in some, and i didnt beleive others.
Science is the same people find differences, and have difference in opinion.

Imagine for a second that we are both non-religious. I could sit down with you, and we could both read the bible, and more than likley we would have different interpritations of what we read, would you class my opinion of the text wrong just because it wasnt what you interprited it as, or that you didn't beleive that what i though on a subject was true?

[LiNDCHMBRS]

Yeah i know what you mean, and i agree, both come down to faith, but this is massively in the favour of religion. Faith technically shouldnt be the foundation of science, theyre meant to have evidence to acount for what they believe which cant be disproven, evidence derived from the 5 senses, religion on the other hand isnt meant to have such evidence because it relies on the experience of the soul as a source of knowledge.

[maffoooo]

Oh, the 5 senses thing. That entire thing is a myth, science itsntt just about what can be seen, heard, felt, smelt or tasted. Its about everything, i'll use my example of gravity again, that can't be detected with any of the senses, its effects can, but the force itself cannot.

anyways back to the topic.

[LiNDCHMBRS]

yeah, but any evidence you can give of the existance of gravity is derived from the senses, therfore without them it wouldnt exist. Its still showing that sciene takes knowledge from the senses while religious experiences come from the soul, and are ineffable.

[maffoooo]

Yep, anyways.....homosexual priests.

Aren't priests supposed to be celabate? Homosexual or otherwise.

[LiNDCHMBRS]

wow, that was awkward... um, yeah they are meant to be celebate, but ive never really understood why. Is it one of those non-bible traditions like the papalcy?

[Big Mark]

wow, that was awkward... um, yeah they are meant to be celebate, but ive never really understood why. Is it one of those non-bible traditions like the papalcy?Yep. In fact the first pope had a wife, but later on it was decreed that the womens distracted the clergy from God.

[norma jean]

Its all very well that this evolution happened in the past and all through history, but i struggle to see it actually in practice, has it just randomly stopped for some reason?

So why aren't there 200 million year old human skeletons along with all those dinosaurs hmm? because humans ween't around then, at least not in the form they are today. You're right that it doesn't explain how everything started, how the first thing came to "live", but to me it doesn't answer that question any better than "God made man out of a bit of dust he had lying around". I'm not ruling out either possibility, but they're both kinda sketchy to me.

[ACE]

and I havent read all your posts but my thoughts are this:

1. First off I DONT hate gays (I just hate what they do).
2. Soddom and Gommorah, its pretty obvious from that alone, if your religious, that being gay is wrong.
3. And if you think about it really, its unnatural. A man and another man cant reproduce. End of the story.
4. So NO, I dont agree with gay priests. The churches are hypocrits and they disgust me.

[KobrakaiProphet]

actually. From what I was told from a friend who did a report on The Bible and homosexuality.. Soddom and Gommorah never really said anything about homosexuality being wrong.. and that peope just took it out of context. like most people do with the Bible.

"I don't hate gays.. just what they do.."

What's that supposed to mean? Sucking dick? Oh please.

"Natural" is such a subjective word.

You act like the Church being hypocrites is something new..

I mean for Jesus being all "Love one another" but saying Fags burn in hell.. doesn't make sense.

Norma. No, but atleast one can prove Evolution occurred and does still.. Whereas nothin can prove that an omnipotent figure created Man. Evolution *has* been viewed through Humans. Infants these days are being born without Wisdom teeth. clearly it shows that even Man is evolving..

my opinion.. Everyone is equal. So, even gays should have the right to a Marriage, priesthood, etc. I don't think it right that *anyone* should judge another based off of anything, let alone their own lifestyle. So yep, even with all its hypocrisy I think Homosexuals should be allowed to be priests.

[haveagood1985]

for those who question the theory of evolution because humans arent really evolving these days, you need a better reason. human evolution has all but stopped because evolution is driven by competition for things like food, or maybe light in the case of plants and stuff. but we are not in that kind of competition any more. evolution starts with a mutation of some kind. for example, maybe one day long ago an ape-ancestor was born with a big mutation - an aposable thumb. then that ape would have been better able to survive, so it would breed and pass on the thumb gene. eventually the gene for the aposable thumb is in the entire species becaue the apes without them die out, because they cant use tools or throw basic spears or similar. but that only works if there is competition for a resourse. in a time when anyone can go and find pre-killed food in a shop, there is no competition, therefore virtually no evolution. and to put another stop on evolution, anyone today with an obvious mutation, even if its good, is probably less likely to pass on the gene because people today suck and are so prejudiced.

and to those people who see no evidence to support the theory of evolution, take a GCSE in biology. yes, a GCSE course. you dont need to go looking for high level resaerch papers and all that, theres plenty of evidence in simple, basic GCSE biology for christs sake. so dont talk to me about no evidence of evolution.

[maffoooo]

for those who question the theory of evolution because humans arent really evolving these days, you need a better reason. human evolution has all but stopped because evolution is driven by competition for things like food, or maybe light in the case of plants and stuff.

To sum that up on four short words "survival of the fittest" :rolleyes:

[Luke]

Thats lovely haveagood1985, but this thread is about homosexuality within the priesthood.

At the end of the day I think that everyone should be able to be who/what ever they want to be if it makes them happy...if the specific religion denounces homosexuality and the priest wants to be gay then he should stop being a representitive of that particular faith.


er.... :ninja:

[ACE]

actually. From what I was told from a friend who did a report on The Bible and homosexuality.. Soddom and Gommorah never really said anything about homosexuality being wrong.. and that peope just took it out of context. like most people do with the Bible.

"I don't hate gays.. just what they do.."

What's that supposed to mean? Sucking dick? Oh please.

"Natural" is such a subjective word.

You act like the Church being hypocrites is something new..

I mean for Jesus being all "Love one another" but saying Fags burn in hell.. doesn't make sense.

Norma. No, but atleast one can prove Evolution occurred and does still.. Whereas nothin can prove that an omnipotent figure created Man. Evolution *has* been viewed through Humans. Infants these days are being born without Wisdom teeth. clearly it shows that even Man is evolving..

my opinion.. Everyone is equal. So, even gays should have the right to a Marriage, priesthood, etc. I don't think it right that *anyone* should judge another based off of anything, let alone their own lifestyle. So yep, even with all its hypocrisy I think Homosexuals should be allowed to be priests.
let me clarify.
I dont like gay sex?

is that any clearer to you?
first off,
hell ya!
the church are hypocrits
but I dont believe in hell.
if you read the bible and are religious the new testament does say "god hates men who lye with men" or something along the lines of that.

[CHRISlindchmbrs]

Youll need more proof than that if your going to convince people of evolution, remeber that science is meant to deny things that arent fact, kind of hipocritical that it can endorse a theory, especially one as riddled with problems as evolution.

Scientists still have no idea on how this mass of chemicals developed into the human cell, many have spent years trying to work it out, a teacher in my studyed it in university, but came to the conclusion that its completely impossible. Sorry to keep bringing this 'minor' flaw up, but it seems like a pretty big issue. If your reasoning revolves around having 100% proof then you really cant have these theories going around now can you.

And since you quite clearly dont have the undeniable proof you need in the first place, you really cant go around demanding people for 100% proof of God. Whats the point in making a criticism that your own reasoning cant stand up against?

All this talk about the Bible having hipocrisy coming from supporters of the evolution theory? Dont make me laugh

[Gwen]

if you read the bible and are religious the new testament does say "god hates men who lye with men" or something along the lines of that.

"Or something along those lines"....is that your own personal perception?
If you can't quote it literally and correctly, then don't bring it up, cuz then it's no proof, is it?

And since priests are not meant to be sexually active, their sexual preference shouldn't even be debated or questioned, and they most definately shouldn't be judged for it, cuz by doing that the catholic church is totally going against themselves and what they "pretend" to stand for.

[ACE]

"Or something along those lines"....is that your own personal perception?
If you can't quote it literally and correctly, then don't bring it up, cuz then it's no proof, is it?

And since priests are not meant to be sexually active, their sexual preference shouldn't even be debated or questioned, and they most definately shouldn't be judged for it, cuz by doing that the catholic church is totally going against themselves and what they "pretend" to stand for.
OK.
that is a direct quote actually.
depends what version you read is what I meant.
but its basically the same thing.
the bible condemns it is all Im sayin and that church are soOOo wrong.

[maffoooo]

So whats the problem, everyone always goes on about how "religion is gay"

[Flobalob]

Infants these days are being born without Wisdom teeth.

I wondered why there were so many stupid religious people about these days.


clearly it shows that even Man is evolving..

Evolving into what is the question. It seems to me that mankind is only just one step away from primitive cavemen, the majority would sooner believe in what can only be described as total madness. Reason is dead, it's as if it were never born.


The fact that we are all born with an appendix proves we are decended from leaf eating monkeys, the religious will of course deny this, but they always did deny reality, nothing changes.

[Flobalob]

the bible condemns it is all Im sayin and that church are soOOo wrong.


The bible also says " it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven". The question is why then do the churches always want your money ?

Religion is the biggest crock of shit ever invented, and is surely the greatest and saddest lost cause of all time.

[KobrakaiProphet]

I wondered why there were so many stupid religious people about these days.

Evolving into what is the question. It seems to me that mankind is only just one step away from primitive cavemen, the majority would sooner believe in what can only be described as total madness. Reasosn is dead, it's a if it were never born.

The fact that we are all born with an appendix proves we are decended from leaf eating monkeys, the religious will of course deny this, but they always did deny reality, nothing changes.

I would honestly watch the bashing here man. The VERY broad generalizations you've said are, well... garbage.

Having faith in a religion does not automatically make a person ignorant. I'm sure we could go on for days on how many brilliant men[women] believed in a certain religion.

Man's intellience decreasing with time? How do you figure that one? Care to back that up? Sure, education is going out the pooper.. but the fact remains that brilliant people are still churned out, some of which [OMG!] believe in a supreme being of sorts.

The only reason I see being killed here has been by yourself through your very off-base generalizations and assumptions. While your statement may have looked good while you were typing it.. the fact remains that it is just plain bullshit.

I think you'd find to your amazement that the majority of the "religious" as you put it, are mostly fanatics that spit in the face of anything scientific. Most religious people I would assume would atleast acknowledge the idea that people may have evolved from monkeys at some point.

How have the "religious"... "denied reality?"

Just so you're aware, I'm not religious. So.. take what I said with a grain of salt.

Religion is the biggest crock of shit ever invented, and is surely the greatest and saddest lost cause of all time.

Hardly! Religion was good for man back in the day because it was a driving force. It pushed progress whether you choose to believe it or not. It was a common binding principle. Religion gave Man a set of morals to establish a framework for how people should act and in that time frame, man flourished. How is that bad?

Religion has, in the past, caused war and deaths but that's only because of the intolerance and closemindedness that Man has for things. A certain group of people believed in one thing.. and could not accept the fact that another group of people believed in another. So, one decides to "educate" the other group on what to believe in.. and so.. eventually tension mounts and War breaks out.

Why you say? Not because of Religion, but because of the people who supported the Religion. The people who could not accept another group's beliefs as their own and be done with it. Intolerance has been Man's downfall.. Not Religion.

[Lee]

sad thing is people are slating the church and its 'money grabbing' ways without knowing what the church does with the money. they don't broadcast they're doings with the money as they don't feel the need to show off what they're doing. they see it as something they have to do, not something they do to gain respect and publicity.

also the quote about the camel in the eye of the needle was used in shit context with the question 'why are the church always asking for money.

the eye of a needle isn't really an eye of a needle. it's a a low door way in a wall i believe and that saying is about how rich people who dont give anything back to the community won't get into heaven. so it't not saying it's impossible but change would be needed.

so by giving money to the church who in turn will give back to the community/repairs to the church and what not (as the churches have always been relatively decorated as a sign of respect for gods house) then you are not becoming this rich man in said quote.

so if you want to quote biblical references then do it properly.

[haveagood1985]

yes, but in turn, the religious believers dont fully understand the other religions or the atheists.

[maffoooo]

And you have what evidence of this exactly?

Stop making dumbass generalisations, 1985.

[Flobalob]

I would honestly watch the bashing here man. The VERY broad generalizations you've said are, well... garbage. .

Garbage eh ? then present evidence that shows I am wrong.

Having faith in a religion does not automatically make a person ignorant. I'm sure we could go on for days on how many brilliant men[women] believed in a certain religion..

To have religious faith/belief is the height of ignorance. Faith/belief is only possible in the absense of knowledge, in other words it is only possible to believe when you do NOT know, to follow something you do not know is true is an extreemly stupid thing to do, it is a recipie for catastrophy, and if you do not know then what's the point! ?




Man's intellience decreasing with time? How do you figure that one? Care to back that up?.


Did I say that ? please show me where. I do remember saying that one step ahead of cavemen, but nothing about intelligence decreasing with time.


Sure, education is going out the pooper.. but the fact remains that brilliant people are still churned out, some of which [OMG!] believe in a supreme being of sorts..


What has that got to do with religion ? I would not describe myself as an atheist as it happens.


The only reason I see being killed here has been by yourself through your very off-base generalizations and assumptions. While your statement may have looked good while you were typing it.. the fact remains that it is just plain bullshit.


Fine, then show me it is bullshit.



I think you'd find to your amazement that the majority of the "religious" as you put it, are mostly fanatics that spit in the face of anything scientific. Most religious people I would assume would atleast acknowledge the idea that people may have evolved from monkeys at some pointa lie or it



Then they are selectively religious, they choose to believe what suits them at any given time. This is typical of the religious, as I have already shown the churches do not even follow the book that their religion is based on, this shows that they do not believe it is true, and by their example it is obviously bullshit.

How have the "religious"... "denied reality?"..



To base you life around a fantasy is to deny reality.





Hardly! Religion was good for man back in the day because it was a driving force. It pushed progress whether you choose to believe it or not. It was a common binding principle. Religion gave Man a set of morals to establish a framework for how people should act and in that time frame, man flourished. How is that bad?..

All religion has a common ancestor, which is the Way. The Way has been distorted by religous groups for the purpose of power and wealth of their leaders. ( This is why the church of rome did not vote in Jesus as their main man until 325ad, they could make him into anything they wanted 300 +yrs after his death) The Way is not a religion, but a philosophy that makes great sense.



Religion has, in the past, caused war and deaths but that's only because of the intolerance and closemindedness that Man has for things. A certain group of people believed in one thing.. and could not accept the fact that another group of people believed in another. So, one decides to "educate" the other group on what to believe in.. and so.. eventually tension mounts and War breaks out.


"Religion has, in the past, caused war and deaths..." What planet are you living on ? open your bleedin eyes and look at what religion is doing this very day. If any single thing will be responsible for the destruction of mankind it will be mindless religious belief in that which is beyond belief.


Why you say? Not because of Religion, but because of the people who supported the Religion. The people who could not accept another group's beliefs as their own and be done with it. Intolerance has been Man's downfall.. Not Religion.


Religion is that intolerance.

[Flobalob]

yes, but in turn, the religious believers dont fully understand the other religions or the atheists.


I sometimes wonder if the religious understand anything. I once pointed out some of the flaws of christianity to an anglican minister, stressing that it was unreasonable to follow such a thing, his reply was "I don't need reason, I have faith ! " :D

[Flobalob]

sad thing is people are slating the church and its 'money grabbing' ways without knowing what the church does with the money. they don't broadcast they're doings with the money as they don't feel the need to show off what they're doing. they see it as something they have to do, not something they do to gain respect and publicity..

If god is such a supreme being how come he does not know how to manage money ?




also the quote about the camel in the eye of the needle was used in shit context with the question 'why are the church always asking for money..

How ?



the eye of a needle isn't really an eye of a needle. it's a a low door way in a wall i believe and that saying is about how rich people who dont give anything back to the community won't get into heaven. so it't not saying it's impossible but change would be needed.


The needle that the bible refers to is a gate that has upright pillars within that can be easily passed through by people but not by camels. These gates were common place in the walls of fortified towns in middle east in ancient times. Whether it is a sewing needle of a gate needle makes no difference the message is the same, rich people do not go to heaven.


so by giving money to the church who in turn will give back to the community/repairs to the church and what not (as the churches have always been relatively decorated as a sign of respect for gods house) then you are not becoming this rich man in said quote..


Yeah right. :D



so if you want to quote biblical references then do it properly..


I have no need to do otherwise, I am well versed on the bible, more so than any christian that I have ever met.

[BloodTears]

and now back to homosexual priests

[kookie]

If god is such a supreme being how come he does not know how to manage money ?


Maybe, like with the apple, God wanted to give people something to be in control of, so that human beings establish self control?

Just a thought...

[Flobalob]

[QUOTE=maffoooo]The fact is, you only understand other religions and beleifs (atheism is a beleif beleive it or not) if you try to.[QUOTE]

I known it for a fact. I have had discussions with atheists who get as upset and defensive as the religious when they feel their beliefs are under threat.


[QUOTE=maffoooo]You're not going to understand other religions by just sitting there and not doing any research into them, hell i understand christianity, i understand sikhism and their beleifs, i understand most religions, you know why? Because i researched them, i've looked into their beleifs and learned to understand them.[QUOTE]



This is the most sensible bit of advice I have heard on this forum.

[Flobalob]

Maybe, like with the apple, God wanted to give people something to be in control of, so that human beings establish self control?

Just a thought...


Or maybe he just does not exist, just like the thousands of other gods that people have worshipped through the millenia.

[saourise]

It's not an apple, it's a fruit.
While it was just an example, why don't you all just go back to re-reading The Book!
That way you have something to do rather than dragging discussions to this level.

As to the discussion: There are the sins between men judged by a man court, and there are sins between the man and the God judged by god.
Af far as I know, homosexuality is God's issue, so people should stop butting in!

As far people as concerned - other people must not kill, steal, lie and such, if they do they will be punished for this. You can see laws regarding that, without any relation to the bible in countries where religion and faith are separated. So in these countries, according to their laws, gay people aren't shot nor imprisoned.

[haveagood1985]

"To avoid criticism - Say nothing, Do nothing and Be nothing."

but then people call you lazy.

sorry, had to point that out.

[BloodTears]

this is a post about homosexual priests, if you don't have anything to say about the issue don't say anything at all.. fight somewhere else

[maffoooo]

Priests being homosexual is Wrong on more than one level. From both the scientific and biblical standpoints.
The bible condemn homoseuality, making homsexual priests contradictory to their beliefs. But also there is the tradition that priests are celabate, does it make the tradition void just because a priest likes to have sex with men rather then women? I wouldent have though so.
But, although some churches may condemn it, others may not. The bible can and is interpreted differently by people. (hence all the different sects of christianity) While one person may think that "gods law" about homosexuality still applies today, others may think that as times have changed and homosexuality has become more common and accepted that god also will accept it. Even if that is not the case, that is what they beleive. And who are we to disrespect others beliefs just because we find the idea wrong? If it was something political, like bush banning gay marriage then yes i suppose we can disrespect him, but as for what somone beleives religiously, that is down to them. We are entiteled to our opinions, but at the same time, we have to respect the opinions of others.
Seeing as how this is a religious thread "do to others as you would have them do to you"
I think i went off on one, but whatever, my point is there, heh.

[KobrakaiProphet]

Garbage eh ? then present evidence that shows I am wrong.

To have religious faith/belief is the height of ignorance. Faith/belief is only possible in the absense of knowledge, in other words it is only possible to believe when you do NOT know, to follow something you do not know is true is an extreemly stupid thing to do, it is a recipie for catastrophy, and if you do not know then what's the point! ?

I shouldn't have to show you how YOU'RE wrong. You never once showed any evidence that proved you were right to begin with. Cite your own sources if you're going to hand in your homework. For someone who is so anti-faith you seem to have everyone else putting their faith in your knowledge of worldly matters and religion. But so sorry, you have to prove it to us you know what you mean this time.

Uh, chief, that's just how faith is. I'm sure one so perfect as yourself has never done something just off of faith. You do realize that religion isn't the only place where man commits himself without knowledge of something right?


Did I say that ? please show me where. I do remember saying that one step ahead of cavemen, but nothing about intelligence decreasing with time.

So tell me.. since we're obviously not de-evolving exactly what DID you mean? You went on that tangent where you thought Man was becoming morons, so it was only right for a person to think that cavemen were more unintelligent than us.

Let me show something to you..

Reason. (n) :: the capacity of logical, rational and analytical thought.
Intelligence (n) :: the faculty of thought and reason

Do I need to carry that on any further?

What has that got to do with religion ? I would not describe myself as an atheist as it happens.
See above^ directly or not, you brought intelligence into the conversation. I just went off into a tangent to prove my points. [which, by the way.. you never did.] Why are you telling us your religious beliefs or lack thereof again..?

Fine, then show me it is bullshit.
That duty, sir is upto you. Like people of faith have to do, you have to PROVE it to US that you know what you're talking about. Much like they have to prove to the world that a God does exist. You expect them to do so, so we should expect you too as well.

Then they are selectively religious, they choose to believe what suits them at any given time. This is typical of the religious, as I have already shown the churches do not even follow the book that their religion is based on, this shows that they do not believe it is true, and by their example it is obviously bullshit.

And you make generalizations again. Good job! Buzzword for the day.. Typical. what you say is "typical" isn't necessarily truth. Show thy work son.

[quote]To base you life around a fantasy is to deny reality.

Ignorance is bliss. ;) Though I personally favor education.

All religion has a common ancestor, which is the Way. The Way has been distorted by religous groups for the purpose of power and wealth of their leaders. ( This is why the church of rome did not vote in Jesus as their main man until 325ad, they could make him into anything they wanted 300 +yrs after his death) The Way is not a religion, but a philosophy that makes great sense.
I'm sorry.. but.. do you have a point? What exactly did that have to do with my statements?

"Religion has, in the past, caused war and deaths..." What planet are you living on ? open your bleedin eyes and look at what religion is doing this very day. If any single thing will be responsible for the destruction of mankind it will be mindless religious belief in that which is beyond belief.
Oh please. Don't lecture me on the effects of religion on Man. It will not be Man's downfall.

If you have ever read the Abolition of Men, you would know in his book C.S. Lewis proposed the idea that "men without chests" would be the ones who brought about the end of Man. "Men without chests".. is very simplified.. Uneducated men. I think that holds more water than simply saying Religious people would bring about the Apocalypse. Obviously you can't say religious men are unintelligent, so don't try. ;)

[quote][i]Religion is that intolerance.
Negative. It's like a gun.. When in the right hands it can be used for good. But in the wrong.. deaths can result. Don't try and link the two. Man chose be closeminded and intolerant. not religion. In fact.. doesn't the bible teach man to "Love thy neighbor?"

[Vomit]

Priests being homosexual is Wrong on more than one level. From both the scientific and biblical standpoints.

I've been staying away from this thread, but this one really made me scratch my head: what scientific standpoint says that priests being homosexual is wrong? Surely the morality of the matter is entirely subjective?

[saourise]

Psychologically, I suppose. Homosexual men have a different psyche than heterosexual... I don't know how it can be proved that being a homosexual has wrong implications, for there are different types of men who qualify for being priests, and that's why a proof that homosexual priests are going to corrupt the community doesn't exist.
But psychology is the least scientific branch of science, as it deals with things concerning quite intangible things....

[BloodTears]

Priests being homosexual is Wrong on more than one level. From both the scientific and biblical standpoints.

homosexualty is not wrong from a scientific standpoint? we know too little science to know that... there's a reason they're studying sexuality.. no one really knows about anything

[QUOTE]Psychologically, I suppose. Homosexual men have a different psyche than heterosexual...[/QOUTE]

everyone has different psyche... homosexual men aren't really that different from heterosexual men

[maffoooo]

I've been staying away from this thread, but this one really made me scratch my head: what scientific standpoint says that priests being homosexual is wrong? Surely the morality of the matter is entirely subjective?
Not entirely, the scientific standpoint is that homosexuality makes it impossible to pass on ones genes and continue the survival of the human race, therefore undermining our most basic instinct, and the reason that we live.
The Reproductive organs of males were meant to work in conjunction with the sexual organs of the female, men have the sperm, women have the eggs. Thats basic primary school biology. By being homosexual you are going against the natural order of things, in effect helping to destroy the human race by refusing to reproduce.
As for whoever is going to point out that there are cases of homosexuality among animals, well yes you are right there are. It is understood that many species of monkey, during the mating process masturbate, and commit acts of homosexuality, inbetween mating with the opposite sex. So in essence (sp?) they are not infact homosexual, but Bisexual, they are still passing on the genes and contributing to the survival of the species.

Morality is a different story altogether.

[BloodTears]

there's homosexual horses too......

[maffoooo]

I was giving an example rather then just a generalised statement. There are also homosexual bulls, and as far as has yet been researched, its all about stimulus and sex drive. The word "foreplay" springs to mind.

[BloodTears]

i could agree on the fact that being a homosexual is scientificly wrong if it weren't for the fact that homosexuals can reproduce... they can have sex with women (or man if you're a lesbian) even if they're gay or not...

[maffoooo]

Thats an invalid point.
Homosexuals cannot reproduce, if a gay was to have sex with a woman it would be hetrosexual reproduction and not homosexual.

[KobrakaiProphet]

Thats an invalid point.
Homosexuals cannot reproduce, if a gay was to have sex with a woman it would be hetrosexual reproduction and not homosexual.

So what if I was gay for example[I am not by the way] and donated my sperm to a bank and some woman used it.. what then?

by the by.. Can't men have children now..?

[saourise]

by the by.. Can't men have children now..?
Why didn't YOU look it up before posting?

I don't know how many gay men are donating sperm to correct the damage they inflict on humanity :rolleyes:, but it seems you're trying to hard to justify their being, while stating spesifically that you aren't gay (as if it's relevant to the discussion).

In any case, the birth decreased from many other reasons in heterosexuals as well, so nature's course changed quite a bit.

Speaking of reproduction - is it natural for a woman not to reproduce until she's 35? According to natural way women are capable to reproduce much sooner, and by not reproducing do they commit unnatural act? What if a woman doesn't have children at all? How is she better than those gay men who don't reproduce?

[maffoooo]

So what if I was gay for example[I am not by the way] and donated my sperm to a bank and some woman used it.. what then?

Right, im going to try and put this as simply as i can, just so that you understand it.

If a gay man donated sperm, and it was placed in a woman to *make babies*
it would still not be homosexual reproduction, the egg came from a woman and the fertilisation took place in her body, not up some guys ass.
The process of *making babies* is still going on between a man and a woman, so therefore it is still "hetrosexual reproduction"

If a man was to have anal sex with another man, and the other man somehow became pregnant, without some sort of artificial implantation, then that would be homosexual reproduction. But that is physicaly impossible.
HOMOSEXUALS CANNOT REPRODUCE

so, to make it so you can understand it; *two men dont make babies, two women dont make babies, a man and a woman do*

[linkubusprophet]

wow there has been a lot said in this thread..

regarding the big bang versus god's creation theory, do you think there is a way of almost meshing them together so as to say, god created the earth in 7 days, but the 7 days weren't in a 24 hr sense, but elongated periods of time which could accomodate for evolution etc. anyone get my drift?

[maffoooo]

2 peter 2:8
However, let this one fact not be escaping YOUR notice, beloved ones, that one day is with god as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day

[linkubusprophet]

er... relevance? :confused:

[maffoooo]

The 7 days, were in fact a longer period of time, round about 7000 years in our time. From a biblical standpoint.
But even so that doesnt leave the millions of years over wich it is theorised evolution took place.

[saourise]

It is a fact that most of the great scientists believed in God.
Many conventions were held in the 80's where many evolution following scientists were proved that the chance of evolution being at the state that it is in now, (assuming it started from scratch) is so scarse that they all left doubting the randomallity of it all.
Darwin himself, throughout his books, stated that he had no proofs for many things, and that they are merely a speculation which he hoped would be proven, but were not proved till this day.
The greatest of scientists don't stick to the facts that are comfortable for their beliefs, but see the whole picture, and many pieces are missing.

I don't see how a few tenagers can dispute about things out of grasp of many great educated researches who have read many of the facts we will never read, and presume some kind of knowledge about things. Sixth sense?

There are many stories about how the earth was created in it's ready and complete state. Adam was created as a grown up, didn't he? If you were to see him the day he was created. surely you wouldn't think he's 5 minutes old, but about more or less 20 years. Earth was created as a "grown up".
If you're to see a cabin in the middle of the jungle, you would never asume it built itself randomly.
There are so many gentle conditions on which our existance depends; our distance from the sun, the percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere, the exact temperature boundries, the massive connections between different species which allows us to categorizing them. Imagine how many different creatures could've been were it all totally random.

[maffoooo]

Thank you Lydia.
I've been pretty much saying that right the way through this thread.
Lets see if people actualy listen to you.

[haveagood1985]

i see were back to evolution. you cant really deny evolution fully just because there are peices missing (i understand that this works both ways). i dont really see whats missing, but if you think there are holes in the theory then remember that all theorys take time to prove. this one is just taking longer it would seem. and the fact that darwin doubted his own idea isnt proof that its wrong.
now go ahead. insult me for no reason.

[saourise]

People listen? of course not. :)

I don't need to insult you, haveagood1985. Any person who doesn't think anything missing, while all scientists do think pieces are missing, is ignorant enough not to deserve a retort.

I have also a thing to add about homosexual priests (which was kind of ignored the last time):
Get this people:
If there is a God, he doesn't need your help in punishing homosexuals for being sinners.
You are out of his league and have primitive thinking comparring to Him (again - only if He's all that). You are all sinners to some extent, and should know your place. Update your brain with this info.

And those who refuse to believe in God, or whatever, and still suffer from homophobia, should just update themselves too.

[haveagood1985]

this is only a guess, dont go all anal on me for it. but maybe the scientists who see problems with evolution are the ones you mentioned who are also religious. i think that (as i have mentioned) there is conclusive proof in a pointless, basic GCSE biology course. the fossil archive or something - look at fossils and evolutionary changes can be seen as they get more recent. dont tell me your god put them there.

[maffoooo]

There is that chain you mentioned, but there are also several "missing links" in the evolutionary chain. These missing links could mean that all of these "ainchient(sp?) men" are just extinct species that we wiped out. "survival of the fittest"
There are many possibilities, you have to take them all into consideration.

[KobrakaiProphet]

Why didn't YOU look it up before posting?

Hey Saourise, how about.. not patronising me. I told him he had to cite sources when making unbased statements.

I Was not. I was asking a question. Thanks alot for jumping to the attack when it wasn't necessary. ;)

[saourise]

If there is a God, he doesn't need your help in punishing homosexuals for being sinners
Anyone agrees?

[BloodTears]

Anyone agrees?

yupp

[Vomit]

Not entirely, the scientific standpoint is that homosexuality makes it impossible to pass on ones genes and continue the survival of the human race, therefore undermining our most basic instinct, and the reason that we live.
...SNIP...
Morality is a different story altogether.

Certainly homosexuality doesn't encourage the act of reproduction but to say that this is the purpose of a species ("the reason that we live") and that therefore science says homosexuality is wrong is plain fallacy.

Firstly, we don't know why we're here. We don't know why we exist, and we're only a little closer to figuring it out than we once were now that we're leaving behind tribalistic intent (IMO). Yes, we need to reproduce for the survival of the species and we have instincts that drive us to ensure that we do, but it's still not necessarily our purpose.

More importantly is the misuse of the word "wrong" here. Science merely picks up homosexuality as a discrepancy on general behaviour, just as it does for a low sex drive or other abnormality. It does not (and cannot to remain scientific) impart whether this behaviour is "right" or "wrong", merely that it is against current trends. Record, record, record.

[maffoooo]

I agree with the most part of that post.

Everything other than your comment about the purpose.
You are right in saying that the meaning of life is unknown. But that is not what i was getting at, i think perhaps i should have phrased it abit better in the first place.
The meaning of life may not be known, but one of the purposes of our life, is to pass on our genetic information, and continue the survival of the human race.
It may not be the meaning of life, but it is a part of it. If it wasnt we would have no sex drive, no reproductive organs, and no primal urge to reproduce.

[BloodTears]

It may not be the meaning of life, but it is a part of it. If it wasnt we would have no sex drive, no reproductive organs, and no primal urge to reproduce.

homosexuals do have reproductive organs, do have an urge to reproduce and and they do have sex drive

[kookie]

Ok, you two, calm it!

Bloodtears is correct in saying that homosexuals can reproduce.

Maffoooo is correct saying one homosexual person can not have babiez with another, as the TWO organ sections are not present.

There needs to be one man and one woman's "seeds" in order to reproduce.

Now, let's get back to homosexual priests...

[lostgoffik]

all in all does it really matter, we are all born one way or another and we will all die, some believe one thing is rite some believe something else is rite. and who is anyone to judge what is rite and wrong, noone, we can all have our theories and beliefs but at the end of the day it just doesnt matter.

[lostgoffik]

Ok, you two, calm it!

Bloodtears is correct in saying that homosexuals can reproduce.

Maffoooo is correct saying one homosexual person can not have babiez with another, as the TWO organ sections are not present.

There needs to be one man and one woman's "seeds" in order to reproduce.

Now, let's get back to homosexual priests...


erm im sorry kookie but i have to disagree there, they are currently working on technology where by you can infact have a child useing only a skin cell and a female egg, im not sure how the trials are going along but i heare there have been some sucessful cases altho currently no births

[maffoooo]

Ok, you two, calm it!

Bloodtears is correct in saying that homosexuals can reproduce.

Maffoooo is correct saying one homosexual person can not have babiez with another, as the TWO organ sections are not present.

There needs to be one man and one woman's "seeds" in order to reproduce

That is not the point.

The point was that homosexuals cannot reproduce, due to the fact that if they reproduced with a female it would not be homosexual reproduction
If they reproduced with a female, it would be hetrosexual

Do you understand yet.


Also, lotsgoffik, you speak of cloning. As of yet, cloning still required both a sperm and an egg.

[BloodTears]

and besides did anyone stop to consider that this may be a part of evolution or something? the world is getting overpopulated so maybe mother nature decided to do something about it...

i'm really much better at explaining in norwegian.. my english is just too bad

[maffoooo]

and besides did anyone stop to consider that this may be a part of evolution or something? the world is getting overpopulated so maybe mother nature decided to do something about it...

i'm really much better at explaining in norwegian.. my english is just too bad

All squabeling aside, you have just made a very interesting point. I was waiting for someone to say that.

This may well be true, that we are subconciously limiting our growth.
But, how long would this last, if we put on the thinking cap here, if homosexuals can't reproduce, it means that they would die out, and the birth rate would increase all over again.

And on top of that, there are nowere near enough homosexuals to limit the growth of the population significantly.

[kookie]

That is not the point.

The point was that homosexuals cannot reproduce, due to the fact that if they reproduced with a female it would not be homosexual reproduction
If they reproduced with a female, it would be hetrosexual

Do you understand yet.



Yes I understand what you are saying.

I said that homosexuals can reproduce. They can, just not homosexually. it IS heterosexual reproduction, but caused by a homosexual.

Homosexuality is a way of life. It would still be a homosexual person having a baby....??

That is not the point.

The point was that homosexuals cannot reproduce

You keep telling everyone that they are "off" the point.

Need I remind you that this topic is about the involvement of homosexual priests in Church?

[BloodTears]

i've been thinking about writing that fooor a loong time... but i thought it just might be a bit stupid

the thing about evolution and stuff i mean


and kookie just wrote what i meant about homosexuals can reproduce and so on

[maffoooo]

Yes and the topic ended a few pages back as the conversation changed.
People have given their views, and conversed about them.

And yes i do keep telling people they are missing the point, because basicly they are.

Everyone reads "what they want to see" the don't actualy read the text, they read past it and completly miss the points that are made.

[haveagood1985]

yes, everyone does do that. includidng you. you've missed plenty of points that have had to be shown more clearly to you, as has everyone.

also, dont take this wrong, its meant as a basic unprovocative question which i just want an answer to, not another long bitch-off contest: your sig - isnt "don't" technically one word? i may be wrong, thats why i ask.

[maffoooo]

Anyways back on topic,

Yes I understand what you are saying.

I said that homosexuals can reproduce. They can, just not homosexually. it IS heterosexual reproduction, but caused by a homosexual.

Homosexuality is a way of life. It would still be a homosexual person having a baby....??

You seem to understand it abit better than everyone else. Yes it would be a homsexual having the baby, but that does'nt make it homosexual reproduction. The baby would not have been conceived by two men, or two women. It would still have been produced through hetrosexual reproduction by a man and a women. My point, to simplyfy it down as far as i can, was that it is impossible for homosexuals to have children as homosexuals. Two men cannot conceive a baby together, and two women cannot conceive a baby together.

To put it simply, homosexuals can reproduce, but by hetrosexual means, they cannot reproduce by homosexual means.

Do you understand the statement "homosexuals can't reproduce" yet?

and 85, In future pm me, i already told you that im not going to cause anymore theads to go off topic.

[Vomit]

I agree with the most part of that post.

Everything other than your comment about the purpose.
You are right in saying that the meaning of life is unknown. But that is not what i was getting at, i think perhaps i should have phrased it abit better in the first place.
The meaning of life may not be known, but one of the purposes of our life, is to pass on our genetic information, and continue the survival of the human race.
It may not be the meaning of life, but it is a part of it. If it wasnt we would have no sex drive, no reproductive organs, and no primal urge to reproduce.

I see what you're getting at and I agree. I think we're more arguing about semantics here than anything else. Reproduction is a biological imperative for sure. I don't think it's necessarily intrinsic to meaning of life, and I'm not convinced that it's our "purpose".

But yeah, most species NEED to reproduce. Like I said, this is just semantics.

Let's put things back into the context of the original thread with an open question for everyone: Just because someone is gay, do they have to have overwhelming sexual desire? Is it not possible for a gay priest to remain celibate, despite imperative base urges?

[maffoooo]

I think that they could resist the urges, *most* priests manage.
But that raises the question, if priests are celabate in the first place why would their sexual orientation matter? Gay or straight, they still have to remain celabate, so why all the fuss?

[Gwen]

But that raises the question, if priests are celabate in the first place why would their sexual orientation matter? Gay or straight, they still have to remain celabate, so why all the fuss?

Yeah, that's what i meant too. I don't get this thread to be honest...

[Vomit]

Yeah, that's what i meant too. I don't get this thread to be honest...

The thing is they do/can remain celibate, but are still called evil and frowned upon.

[darren_s]

because they are evil? In the eyes of their faith they are anyway.

it kinda shows the hypocracy of religion to me. Homosexuality was such a wrong thing, according to the faith and the bible etc many many years ago. but now that times they are a-changing, it's suddenly not such a bad thing and it's all "live and let live" etc etc.

to me it makes a bit of a mockery of the religion.

ITS BAD! EVIL! UNCLEAN!

what.. other people are doing it?

ITS STILL BAD! STILL EVIL! STILL UNCLEAN!

what.. there's LOTS of people doing it?

you mean... we're alienating thousands of people that would give us their money?

HAY GUYS COME BACK! I'M GAY! LOOK! PINK ROBES! I'M FREE! OOH MATRON!

see what I mean? Religion is all about power. Putting the fear of god into people, quite literally. If peopel stopped going to church and avoided the whole religion thing, the religious leaders lose their power and influence, and effectively lose everything they've built up over the centuries.

So that's why homosexuality is no-longer quite the big deal it was. The church has to retain appeal to the masses, to appear cool, right, just and fair. It changes the rules it sticks to to maintain its popularity and thus its power and hold over people.

[haveagood1985]

thst is EXACTLY right. its all about the powere these days.

[Big Mark]

I went and looked up the Bible reference (Leviticus 20) that is most often used to condone gay-bashing. It does indeed say that men shagging men is an abonimation and that they should be put to death, along with wizards and people who eat unclean animals (anyone had bacon recently?). Lev 21 also says that the disabled are not to approach the altar and that interracial marriage is wrong. There's more in there.

So, according to the Bible, my eating of pork and wearing of polyester-and-cotton clothes render me as much a sinner as a homosexual. Yet I don't get half as much hatin' as they do. Why?

As an aside: it is impossible to disprove the existance of God (stirctly, a God-like power), because as God he could hide himself from your pathetic attempts to discover Him; however it is possible for Him to prove Himself beyond any doubt, as all He has to do is manifest helmself (the Second Coming, a Simpsons-esque finger from the sky, etc etc) and say "I exist". If He does exist, he hasn't done anything like that for a long time.

[haveagood1985]

that's a good point about the other sins, highlights that the bible is largely outdated now. the basic rules, 10 commandements and all, still stand. but some is just ridiculous.

but also, in the same way it is imposible for us to prove that he does exist, its also imposible for US, humans, mere mortals, to prove that he does.

[Big Mark]

that's a good point about the other sins, highlights that the bible is largely outdated now. the basic rules, 10 commandements and all, still stand. but some is just ridiculous.I've tried to follow the rule of "treat other people as you'd like them to treat you, which is nicely" since I've been old enough to think about such things. Apparently, I'm going to hell for that.

[haveagood1985]

I've tried to follow the rule of "treat other people as you'd like them to treat you, which is nicely" since I've been old enough to think about such things. Apparently, I'm going to hell for that.
what do you mean 'going to hell for that'. surely youre doing the right thing there. unless i've missed another sarcastic comment.

[Big Mark]

what do you mean 'going to hell for that'. surely youre doing the right thing there. unless i've missed another sarcastic comment.My eating of the UNCLEAN PIG and wearing of the SINFUL MIXED FABRIC CLOTHES was what I was alluding to...

[haveagood1985]

yeah, youre right, that was very bad of you. pure evil. be damned to hell for all eternity and all that.

[saourise]

Mixed fabric is about wool (anymal product) and cotton (plant product) mixed, not polyester and cotton.

[TheLostSoul]

they made sure it was in all the papers and the news though didn't they, whats worse a gay priest or a straight priest abusing kids getting young girls pregnant then making them have abortions and keeping it all hushed up, its not the gay preists that are doing that sort of shit, its a fucking joke, a gay preist, o no, end of the world, these religious types need to relise its a different world to when religion was first created. And doesn't the bible say somewhere that your not s'pose to judge, catholics and christains it applies to innit? your not exactly perfect yourself if you go round beating people up because of their religion, race or sexuality, its fucking pathetic!
and your not meant to lie, thats in the commandments, so they're all going to hell anyway for lying, if hell exsists of course.

[maffoooo]

The 10 commandments were only meant to serve untill the coming of the messiah.
Once jesus came around and the new testiment was writen the 10 commandments became invalidated and new rules were set.

[TheLostSoul]

just shows how much attention i pay in R.E...theres gonna be something i dont agree with in every religion so i'm better without one, one example being the 'traditional' way the bible is still written in (I think) 'Anyone can divorce his wife' mmm..anyone, thats not anyone thats only males! i'll stick with the old cliche of 'Rock is my religion'

(LOL at maffoooooo's avatar and signature)

On the subject of homosexuality...theres this lad a school who is apparently bisexual and everyones being so fucking mean to him. At first i thought it was just bullshit but it is true, he came out with it one day and i think that shows alot of bravery, he was probably sick of feeling like he was lying to himself or feeling ashamed of himself. I dont blame him, the majority of people are so narrow minded. Its his life if he wants to live it that way, let it be, its not up to anyone else, everyone was like 'no ones safe' for fucks sake, just because hes come out with it now doesnt mean hes gonna be any different..ok yeh he is different but he's not gonna go feeling everyone up all of a sudden, if anything he's probably a really nice guy, and wouldn't do that, its mostly the straight lads that feel people (girls obviously) up! (luckily i'm but ugly so that's never happened with me or they know i'd do 'em in (beat 'em up) if they did) It's the same with these preists, if they've done their job well so far and been gay all the while then what difference does it make just because they've decided to come out with it!

[Damdam]

I know someone who's bisexual and they're afraid of letting it out in case they get mocked. At first i thought she was lying but she was so protective about it that i thought it could only be true. It's a shame that people get abuse for being true to themselves.

[Big Mark]

Mixed fabric is about wool (anymal product) and cotton (plant product) mixed, not polyester and cotton.Polyester is made from plastcs, which come from oil, which is composed of decayed animal and plant matter, so because of its origins it is sinful. Are you wearing any?

When did "mixed" start referring to diference at the biological kingdomlevel as opposed to "not the same" anyway?

[saourise]

Bible.