Who Will Go To Heaven?

[Joz]

Originally posted by wonderwench
I've read it. You are saying we should use our judgement to understand the meaning - not make a literal interpretation based upon the language and mores of a past society.

Well, then, that method applies to the entire Bible.

I'm sorry but if you read the whole book of Timothy, there is no way you could come to that conclusion.

Timothy 6:3-5 says: If someone does not accept the clear words of our Lord & teaches things contrary to the principles as laid down in the gospel he's either ignorant, self-centered or deluded. Such people love to argue about meanings of words & end up creating jealousy, dissension,& evil suspicions.......Don't associate with such people any more than you have to or you'll soon pick up the same attitude they have.

 

[Joz]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
again hair doesnt involve life and death. sexual immorality does.

Thank you.

 

[SinisterMotives]

Originally posted by musicman
Perhaps I can save a step by responding to Sinister & WW at the same time.

I think YOU'RE missing the point. "If you bombard labratory rats with enough hormones you can alter some of their sexual traits" is scientific evidence that sexual preference is determined genetically?

It's strong evidence that prenatal hormones affect sexuality. What the article indicates is that hormones have a direct effect on brain structure that could account for sexual orientation. The article doesn't specify that the rats were "bombarded" with overwhelming amounts of hormones, nor should we assume that scientists would draw an inference from the effects of huge amounts of hormones. It seems more likely that the amount of hormones to which the rats were exposed was analogous to the real-world situation they were modelling in the experiments.

 

[Avatar4321]

How can you be so sure? That passage instructs women to dress modestly. If a woman makes herself too attractive, then is she encouraging someone to lust after her or rape her?

Why on earth would you ask that? How on earth does a woman encourage someone to rape her? thats just sick and wrong.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by wonderwench
How can you be so sure? That passage instructs women to dress modestly. If a woman makes herself too attractive, then is she encouraging someone to lust after her or rape her?

One of the most extreme example of this is the full length chadour found in some of the more radical Islamic societies. The premise is that a woman who dresses immodestly is asking for trouble, and that the man is justified in giving her trouble in the form of sexual assault. This absolves the man of any responsibility for his actions because the woman was "provocatively" dressed.

It is nothing more than a marginalization of women and relegating them to a submissive role in society. Is is about male dominance and the objectification of women as nothing more than vessels for the man's semen. It is abomination.

 

[musicman]

Originally posted by SinisterMotives
It's strong evidence that prenatal hormones affect sexuality. What the article indicates is that hormones have a direct effect on brain structure that could account for sexual orientation.....It seems.... likely that the amount of hormones to which the rats were exposed was analogous to the real-world situation they were modelling in the experiments.

I don't know why on earth we should assume that. Scientists aren't above "loading" test results, any more than are, say, PBS polltakers.

But, more to the point, saying that hormonal fluctuations could possibly alter sexual traits is a far cry from saying they determine sexual orientation. A man with girlish features is not necessarily homosexual.

And, I say again, the use of the term, "orientation" is improper here. It makes an assumption for which there is no proof.

 

[Joz]

Originally posted by wonderwench
How can you be so sure? That passage instructs women to dress modestly. If a woman makes herself too attractive, then is she encouraging someone to lust after her or rape her?

That arguement isn't going to hold water. One of Ted Bundy's victims who happened to get away was chosen for the fact that she had on red shoes. Shame on her.

 

[SinisterMotives]

Originally posted by musicman
I don't know why on earth we should assume that. Scientists aren't above "loading" test results, any more than are, say, PBS polltakers.

We don't have any reason to assume otherwise either. It's a safe bet that most scientists are more interested in learning the truth than in loading results to achieve some non-scientific end. If that sort of behavior was rampant, science would seldom produce any real knowledge or useable results - and thus it would be harder to get funding for research than it already is.

Originally posted by musicman
And, I say again, the use of the term, "orientation" is improper here. It makes an assumption for which there is no proof.

The term "preference" is the less proper of the two terms because it not only makes an assumption for which there is no proof (that people choose to be gay), it irrationally implies that gay people would willingly choose a lifestyle that invites ostracism, violent assault, and discrimination. That asumption just doesn't make any sense.

The flaw in your reasoning is that, given a choice between two assumptions, you choose the one that ascribes the least likely motive to the individuals involved.

 

[Avatar4321]

it irrationally implies that gay people would willingly choose a lifestyle that invites ostracism, violent assault, and discrimination. That asumption just doesn't make any sense.

People choose to follow religions that invite ostracism, violent assault, and discrimination. Heck ive been mobbed for my religious beliefs. And i choose a religious lifestyle because ive thought it out in my mind and felt the Spirit testify to the truth found in it. I think truth outway any risk of physical assault. That might not be logical to some people who rank self preservation higher than truth, but it is to me.

Thats why i dont think its necessarily irrational to imply gays would willingly choose a lifestyle that involves those things. Perhaps they want to be unique. Perhaps they simply just like how they feel with members of the same sex and to them its worth more to do that than to preserve themselves. (Although I think i could probably formulate some good arguments that on how homosexuality itself destroys self preservation, but thats a side issue)

Youd be surprised how many people in this world choose illogical things. There are lots of miserable people who are that way because they choose to be.

 

[SinisterMotives]

I won't argue with you that people choose their misery. However, when someone makes a lifestyle choice just to be different, or out of sexual curiosity, or whatever the case may be, they eventually get bored with it and drop it after the novelty wears off. I don't think it likely someone would put up with all the negative treatment they receive from society for the rest of their lives to stay in a lifestyle that no longer offers any benefits if it was simply a choice.

 

[musicman]

Sorry, had to leave for a few minutes.

I didn't say that loading scientific test results was rampant. I merely pointed out that we need not assume that scientists are above it-particularly when you factor funding into the equation.

Not that any of that matters anyway, since, in the context of this discussion, the aforementioned scientific tests proved nothing. The sexual orientation of the rats did not change.

As to motives: I do not understand why anyone would choose to be gay. Why do people choose to engage in any deviant behavior, knowing the consequences? The point is, their motives are not my problem, nor are they society's.

I'm afraid there is very little help for my flawed reasoning, since it springs from a few very fundamental assumptions:
1. God is all -wise and all -loving.
2. God has said that homosexuality is an abomination.

Ergo,
Homosexuality is a choice.

 

[wonderwench]

Considering the ostracism and rejection that many gays face, I doubt that most would choose to be gay if it were merely a lifestyle choice.

One of my sisters is a lesbian. She has been very active in fundraising for legal issues for gays and lesbians. She co-chaired a large event a few years ago; my parents went with her as her dates. They were two of a very few parents in attendance.

My sister was very proud to have our Mom and Dad with her. Many of her friends came up to introduce themselves and tell them that they wished their parents would accept them. It is quite rare that a gay or lesbian is able to be open and have their family accept them and their partners. The pain they go through due to this friction with their families is quite dreadful. To think they would voluntarily endure it is to not understand what it means to be virtually disowned.

 

[SinisterMotives]

Originally posted by musicman
I'm afraid there is very little help for my flawed reasoning, since it springs from a few very fundamental assumptions:
1. God is all -wise and all -loving.
2. God has said that homosexuality is an abomination.

Ergo,
Homosexuality is a choice.

So it comes back to this: the law of a Republic which offers equal rights and protection to all its citizens should make exceptions to those principles for some people simply because some other people assume this or that ancient text to be the literal word of God. Is that what you're saying?

 

[Joz]

Originally posted by SinisterMotives
I won't argue with you that people choose their misery. However, when someone makes a lifestyle choice just to be different, or out of sexual curiosity, or whatever the case may be, they eventually get bored with it and drop it after the novelty wears off. I don't think it likely someone would put up with all the negative treatment they receive from society for the rest of their lives to stay in a lifestyle that no longer offers any benefits if it was simply a choice.

I stated earlier that we make choices because of outside stimuli. Very few of us make choices that are truly our own. We are influenced by parents, peers, society, etc, yet we think it's our choice. And actually sometimes it is. We are able to rise above those influences and make a rational choice.

I hate statisics BUT....did you know that about 60% of people marry their spouse because they're like by their friends/parents.
Did you know that impulse buying is done because a certain item, whatever triggers something from our past; a feeling or memory. Yet we think we did a good thing.

I still don't believe anyone who is gay woke up with the statement, " today I'm going do be a homosexual". I do believe it is a choice conscious or not.

 

[wonderwench]

Does this mean that if your family and friends liked someone of your same gender, that you would engage in a homosexual relationship?

 

[musicman]

Originally posted by SinisterMotives
So it comes back to this: the law of a Republic which offers equal rights and protection to all its citizens should make exceptions to those principles for some people simply because some other people assume this or that ancient text to be the literal word of God. Is that what you're saying?

Yeah, pretty much.

 

[wonderwench]

That is a violation of the concept of the separation of Church and State.

 

[SinisterMotives]

Originally posted by musicman
Yeah, pretty much.

How arrogant can you get? I suppose you're next going to say that you're more qualified than I am to determine what's best for me. All I can say is, thank God for the separation of church and state, and thank God the Constitution protects us all from that kind of elitist bigotry.

 

[Avatar4321]

SM said:

So it comes back to this: the law of a Republic which offers equal rights and protection to all its citizens should make exceptions to those principles for some people simply because some other people assume this or that ancient text to be the literal word of God. Is that what you're saying?

Then MM Replied:

Yeah, pretty much.

However, this isnt the case at all. There is already equal rights and protection for all US citizens. Gays and lesbians can marry any nonrelated member of the opposite sex of legal age just like anyone else. They just cant marry members of the same sex, much like straight people cant marry members of the same sex. we already have equal protection and equal rights.

And even if they did deserve to have the new right of marrying someone of the same sex, you dont go to courts to change laws and you sure as hell dont let mayors break the law to do this. Its the legislature that is to make the laws, not the judicial or executive branches of any area of government. By undermining the laws and Constitution of the land you are undermining the freedom of the land. And if you undermine the Constitution of the land and let the minority dictate the laws of the land to the majority by ignoring the checks of power in the system, what is to stop another minority from coming along and not only taking the so called gay marriage rights away but to systematicly kill all gay people? If you ruin the governments power to enforce the law there is nothing to. Which is why this issue is so vital.

One of the founders stated that this Constitution was for a moral people. The Constitution cant govern an immoral people because they wont respect the laws.

 

[musicman]

Originally posted by SinisterMotives
How arrogant can you get? I suppose you're next going to say that you're more qualified than I am to determine what's best for me. All I can say is, thank God for the separation of church and state, and thank God the Constitution protects us all from that kind of elitist bigotry.

I was just being facetious. My God, we're emotional, aren't we?

Sorry, Sinister, but you won't find the phrase, "seperation of church and state" anywhere in the Constitution. There are references to "man being endowed by his Creator" , and other bigoted bs like that. The urgent task of the founders was to protect religion from the state, not the other way around.

Where on earth did you get, "I'm going to say what's best for you?" Do whatever you want. What do I care?

I don't care if a person is an atheist, a homosexual, or what. I only wish that atheists and homosexuals would stop trying to ram their agenda down America's throat (ala Newdow and the gay marriage crowd). As Avatar was saying, the real issue here is an out of control, activist judiciary, violating the seperation of powers and circumventing the will of the American people.