Christianity ruins families.

[rah]

1. Yes smoking is bad for you. It's a fact that I'm sure 99% of people can agree with. I smoked for almost 40 years and quit 2 years ago.

2. Having protected sex with guys is bad is not an established fact. Having unprotected sex is probably not a good idea.

These two things can not be compared.

When I was younger, I was a Catholic and was considerably homophobic. I was quite intolerant. But then I actually met and got to know some gay people. One became a really good friend. I learned that gays are just like any other group. There are good ones and bad ones.

To not see this because GOD tells you they're bad, and use that to deny them basic liberties is wrong. There should be no debate to that.

[Robert]

Another ostrich.


Are there any non-religious nuts that feel this way? Do you have to believe in imaginary beings in order to "get" Ben?

It's always important to 'get' your opponent.
It's always important to understand the source of the arguments of the other.
That's the base of mutual tolerance and respect. And it's also the base of any sane discussion.

I actually get both sides of the argument here, and I agree with the 'gay' people, eventhough I do understand Ben. Does that make me a nut?

I understand where fascists muslim terrorists come from, I understand their reasoning. I completely disagree with them and condemn all their actions. But we will never be able to end muslim fascist terrorism if we won't be able to understand them first.

And if you want to change Ben's opinion, and of those who agree with Ben, then you MUST first understand them. Same with Ben, if he wants to change your mind, especially the minds of gays, he must understand them first. He must understand first how it is to be gay and to be condemned by others. How it is that the core of your being is being questioned by people based on believes you don't share. He must understand how it is to have this true love for people of the same gender, and being told that it's a sin anyway.

As long as you guys don't bother to understand each other, then every debate is pointless and ends in an unrational brainless yell-fest.
And of course you can then make things even more simplistic by saying things as I quote you above.

But for the record, there are very smart scientists who even understand the behavior of monkeys. They understand where monkeys come from, why they do what they do. If even people who are 1000 times as smart as you are try to understand monkeys with whom they're not even debating, then you should at least try to understand just another human being, without thinking that such a thing would be for nutcases only.

[Robert]

1. Yes smoking is bad for you. It's a fact that I'm sure 99% of people can agree with. I smoked for almost 40 years and quit 2 years ago.

2. Having protected sex with guys is bad is not an established fact. Having unprotected sex is probably not a good idea.

These two things can not be compared.

When I was younger, I was a Catholic and was considerably homophobic. I was quite intolerant. But then I actually met and got to know some gay people. One became a really good friend. I learned that gays are just like any other group. There are good ones and bad ones.

To not see this because GOD tells you they're bad, and use that to deny them basic liberties is wrong. There should be no debate to that.

Thanks

[dannubis]

Rah As I pointed out, the discussion Ben was steering towards was flawed to begin with and quite frankly an insult to all homosexual people out there...

one could have put it differently

"Let's say smoking is bad for you. And everywhere jews live there are nuclei of problems."

Which one would you find appaling and why would you want to even debate that statement ?

[Robert]

And now finally after x posts of rants and preachings () I'm going to answer posts people directed at me. Thanks or your patience

See, instead of interpreting your scriptures as the word of God you seem to think they were created by fallible humans and therefore should be taken within the context of the culture in which they were written. I don't see why Muslims can't make the same change in thinking and decide that context should be taken into account when interpreting Muhammad's actions. For example, instead of thinking it's okay to marry a six year old because Muhammad did it, they could think that Muhammad did it because he lived in a different time when people didn't know it was wrong.

People can change, and religions can change.
But not all people will make the same change and not all religions will make the same change.
There must be a base for this change.

The christians were able to make this change because the Bible gives reasons to make this change. The entire reformation is based on the interpretation biblical texts.
And texts can indeed be interpretated differently, but not every interpretation is possible. An interpretation must be valid for people to follow it in big numbers.

But even the schism between protestants and catholics is not based on Biblical interpretation! It's based on the value of tradition. Protestants do not value traditions wile catholics do. So not even the biggest change in christianity is not based on biblical interpretation but on the interpretation of tradition.

Now Islam could make such a change as well, since the Islam has the Hadji. The tradition of the life of Muhammed. This is very very important for most (all?) muslims. ie. the sharia-thinking is mostly based ont he Hadji.
I can see that a reformation will be based on abandoning the Hadji.

So I can see many changes to be applied in the Islam.
But the problem is that the combination of state and mosque is not a Hadji thing but a Quran thing.

Catholics and Protestants do not disagree on the biblical status of Jesus or the value of Jesus. No change in Islam will change the value of Muhammed, as depicted in the Quran.
Islam is in it's core a political religion. It's started by someone who was in charge of a state.
Parts of the Quran are about how to run a state/group.

Also take into consideration that the Quran is believed to be as holy as Allah, and the Quran itself can therefore not be interpretated. Compare that to the status of the Bible, which is not as holy as God. The status of the Quran equals the status of Jesus for christians. (Jesus = the word)
Then one can only conclude that Islam may either cease to be, or continue to be about the political ideal of an Islam state. Because that's what the Quran is about.

Believing that Islam can make the same change as Christianity did is based on wishful thinking, not on a rational understanding of Islam or christianity.

I agree with gribbler, in the end any more complex system of ideas is open to interpretation. Just see how 'Jihad' is interpreted differently by different (groups of) Muslims. If that is possible I don't see why any other (modern) interpretations would be per se impossible.

Much is open to interpretation. But not all is open to interpretation. And interpretation has it's limits. One can never interpretate from the Quran that Muhammed is not Allah's prophet.
And one can also never interpretate from the Quran that it is possible to have a seperation of church and state. You touch the core of the religion and the person of Muhammed then.

Your claim is based on wishful thinking, not on any theological knowledge of Islam.

[rah]

And when I was younger, I grew up in the vanilla villages outside of Chicago. Our high school had one black student out of 2400. (he was adopted by a white couple)
So needless to say I didn't really know any blacks growing up, so I was fearful of them based on bad portrayals on the news from the south side of Chicago.

When I got to college I actually got to know some blacks and again a couple of them became good friends. And I realized that my intolerance from my youth was again, A PRODUCT OF IGNORANCE.

So I was determined that I would not prejudge any group of people. Or judge based on what others told me. Especially if it was a being that you had to take on faith. This doesn't mean that I don't believe in a being that is greater than us, it just means that I have to make determinations myself. And I would judge individuals.

Yes there are groups that I've decided I don't like most of their memebers, but it's after actually meeting them and seeing for myself that I didn't like any of those that I met.

So Ben, don't say you have a problem granting basic liberties to Gays because god says they're evil, say it because you've met them, got to know them and still don't believe they deserve equal treatment. Then at least we can see that you've given it some thought instead of just blindly following.

[BeBMan]

Much is open to interpretation. But not all is open to interpretation. And interpretation has it's limits. One can never interpretate from the Quran that Muhammed is not Allah's prophet.
And one can also never interpretate from the Quran that it is possible to have a seperation of church and state. You touch the core of the religion and the person of Muhammed then.

Your claim is based on wishful thinking, not on any theological knowledge of Islam.

What an absurd strawman.

[Robert]

Rah As I pointed out, the discussion Ben was steering towards was flawed to begin with and quite frankly an insult to all homosexual people out there...

one could have put it differently

"Let's say smoking is bad for you. And everywhere jews live there are nuclei of problems."

Which one would you find appaling and why would you want to even debate that statement ?

Taboo is something for the 80's of the last century.
I hope that we can now say that unprotected polygame gay-sex is potentially more dangerous then unprotected polygame hetero-sex. Or perhaps better phrased: anal sex (both gay and hetero) will potentially transfer sexual diseases, especially HIV, easier then vaginal sex or oral sex. (I'm not a medical expert, but I have read here in The Netherlands, maybe the most gay-tolerant country in he world, in a liberal magazine (Elsevier), that this is the case. anal sex apparently causes easier or more small wounds because of the nature of the anus compared to the vagina. If I'm wrong, please let me know.)

Anyway, taking that as a starting point, then it's safe to say that (unprotected, etc.) gay sex (where anal sex is more often (though defenitely not always!) practised) is more dangerous then hetero sex.

So what? Is that a reason to ban it?
No. Driving a car is more dangerous then walking. Do we ban it? No.
Eating fat burgers is also more dangerous then eating other stuff. Do we ban it? No. Not even smoking is banned.
People are allowed to make decisions that are more or less dangerous. Fortuntately. In fact all my actions are more or less dangerous.

Living makes you die.

But please, let us all be able to discuss those things without raising the "taboo" marker. People from africa are stronger, people from Asia are smarter. People from Europe/America are in between in both cases. In the 80's it was not allowed to say that. Please let us now live in the 21th century.

And if it's wrong, then state it with facts. Show me the arguments and I will drop my position immediately. I have only accepted this positions because people showed me arguments. It's not as if I want gay sex to be more dangerous or japanese people to be smarted. In fact I don't care since I'm neither Japanese nor gay. Show me the facts and I will believe you. But making it a taboo? Nah.

[Robert]

What an absurd strawman.

I don't see a strawman. explain.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But even the schism between protestants and catholics is not based on Biblical interpretation! It's based on the value of tradition. Protestants do not value traditions wile catholics do. So not even the biggest change in christianity is not based on biblical interpretation but on the interpretation of tradition.

One needs to read Martin Luther's objections against the Catholic Church again. I mean Sole Fide is far different from the Catholic belief of salvation by faith and good works.

And let's not forget the massive difference in every believer having access to the Bible (through translations into local languages, etc) compared to simply the members of the Church.

To say that's merely tradition is an absolutely ridiculous charge.

[Ming]

Éventhough I disagree with the RCC condom rule (a lot), their point is consistent and valid.

The ONE thing you can say about the Catholics' views/teachings on contraception is that they are TOTALLY INCONSISTENT and just silly.

Their major point is that sex shouldn't be "just for fun"... and that it should be to bring children into the world... go forth and multiply and all that jazz... so no pills or condoms. OK, so far so good.
HOWEVER, they do allow the Rythm Method and teach it as part of "family planning". HUH!
If you are using this method, then YOU ARE HAVING SEX FOR FUN AND NOT CHILDREN! Sure, they claim it's so people can "plan" their families, but you can do the same with condoms and pills. Now granted, some catholics disagree with the Rythm Method being allowed... and at least they are being consistent in their faith.... BUT THE CHURCH ALLOWS IT, and actually teaches it. So they teach a method of unprotected sex, while banning a protected version which accomplishes the EXACT SAME THING.


And Robert... I'm simply using the points that Ben has used to prove how silly his arguments are.
His big claim is that the gay life style is unhealthy and that's why he disapproves... and why we shouldn't support a gay life style by allowing them to get married.

Yet... he is on record for saying Abortion is killing babies... He's also on record as saying that mothers who have abortions also have more health problems than those that don't. Yet catholics lead the way on abortions in this country. He can try to use precentages all he wants, but the facts are simple and can NOT be disputed. Catholics have more abortions than any other religious group or non religious group in this country... KILLING MORE INNOCENT BABIES A YEAR THAN ANYBODY ELSE. So, using his own arguments/logic, he should be against catholics as well. And not just those that have abortions, BUT ALL CATHOLICS, since he is against ALL GAYS, not just those that do not practice safe sex.

It's that simple... he's simply a hypocrit.

There isn't a SINGLE LEGITIMATE ARGUMENT on why the Rythm Method is allowed and other forms of birth control are not. I tried finding a good argument, and really couldn't.

So the RC's views on contraception are inconsistent and loony tunes at best.

[giblets]

Believing that Islam can make the same change as Christianity did is based on wishful thinking, not on a rational understanding of Islam or christianity.

Much is open to interpretation. But not all is open to interpretation. And interpretation has it's limits. One can never interpretate from the Quran that Muhammed is not Allah's prophet.
And one can also never interpretate from the Quran that it is possible to have a seperation of church and state. You touch the core of the religion and the person of Muhammed then.

Your claim is based on wishful thinking, not on any theological knowledge of Islam.

Explain to me the existence of secular governments in countries where most people are muslims. Apparently the 97% of Turkey's population that identifies as Muslim doesn't seem to think Islam is necessarily a political movement.

[Robert]

So Ben, don't say you have a problem granting basic liberties to Gays because god says they're evil, say it because you've met them, got to know them and still don't believe they deserve equal treatment. Then at least we can see that you've given it some thought instead of just blindly following.

Ben just has a different starting point then you do.
You say: base your opinion on groups of people on your own experience. Ben says: "I base it on what (I believe) god says to me."

Both are valid, imho.
I tell my son that unknown men with candies are dangerous. I hope you will never tell him that he must experience them first before he can judge.

This indeed means that Ben compares himself to God as a child compares himself to his father. (which is a valid christian value).
It's also not weird to trust others for what we believe. We believe scientists for things we can never experience ourselves. We trust that what our teachers tell us is true. We trust that muslims fanatics are dangerous, even if we never met one. (I never did). So it's not basicaly stupid to trust the word of someone else over you own experience.)

And of course experience has not the last word. Theoretically I can meet two very nice crusaders, and base on my own experience that crusaders are nice guys.

For the record, I agree with you here, rah. But not based on your arguments in principal. It's not fundamentally wrong to trust someone elses opinion, especially if you consider the wisdom, knowledge and experience of that other superior to your own.

The main question is: is Ben right that God asks him to fight this crusade against gays. I think not. The Bible may say things to gays that could be interpretated by these gays in a certain way. Nowhere in the New Testament has a message been sent to heteroes that they should give this or that message to gays, especially not in the form Ben does.

When my son tells my daughter that she is not allowed to do this or that, then I correct him by saying: "We are her parents, not you."
To Ben I would say: "God is their god, not you."
Ben: you're a hetero, deal with your own hetero problems. The Bible clearly says that we should not judge each other. God judges us. Your crusade against gays is therefore imho a violation of God's message to you.

[SlowwHand]

Originally Posted by Robert Plomp
But even the schism between protestants and catholics is not based on Biblical interpretation! It's based on the value of tradition. Protestants do not value traditions wile catholics do. So not even the biggest change in christianity is not based on biblical interpretation but on the interpretation of tradition.

Yes indeed, this is ridiculous.

[Robert]

One needs to read Martin Luther's objections against the Catholic Church again. I mean Sole Fide is far different from the Catholic belief of salvation by faith and good works.

And let's not forget the massive difference in every believer having access to the Bible (through translations into local languages, etc) compared to simply the members of the Church.

To say that's merely tradition is an absolutely ridiculous charge.

I think you're wrong.
The RCC says that there's no faith without works. With in fact the protestants also say. But let's ask Ben: Ben, are catholics saved by faith or by works?

Anyway, the bottom line is that the biggest difference between protestants and catholics is the value of the tradition. The protestants do not accept the doctrines made by the church.

I am not stating that all differences are based on tradition. Of course not. But the main doctrine difference is sola scriptura.