Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

71 (27.7%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

114 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (23.8%)

Total Members Voted: 251

[smjjames]

Interesting that Tunisia, despite being a Muslim country, doesn't fall into any of those categories.

Nah it's blue, shariah has no legal influence

Wierd that the space between Algeria and Libya that is Tunisia is blank rather than blue.

[Loud Whispers]

Actually, the Bible says that the actual act of homosexual intercourse is a sin, not simply being gay. I don't remember who but I remember reading one Christian article that chaste gays are actually more pious than most Christians.

Hence why the whole argument over whether homosexuality was innate arose in the first place.

I still don't entirely agree even with that. If we are all made equal in God's eyes and sex is in fact pleasurable, I don't think God would deny one boon of life to a specific group He created, assuming that we are in fact created homosexual and it's not a choice (which I do believe).

How many situations can you think of where hedonism ends well?
Taking pleasure in an act is a basic bitch argument for morality if you pardon the bluntness, it's easy to take pleasure in doing evil things. Without such thinking we wouldn't have maximum edgy

Wierd that the space between Algeria and Libya that is Tunisia is blank rather than blue.

What's weird about it?

[smjjames]

Wierd that the space between Algeria and Libya that is Tunisia is blank rather than blue.

What's weird about it?

Because you're saying it's colored in with blue when it isn't colored in with anything. I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek at you or something.

If it is what you say, then it's just an error on the part of whoever made the map.

[wierd]

Can you kids get a room or something? Arguing about the color of the drapes gets tedious aright?

[smjjames]

I dropped the issue with the last post

[Loud Whispers]

Because you're saying it's colored in with blue when it isn't colored in with anything. I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek at you or something.
If it is what you say, then it's just an error on the part of whoever made the map.

That's what I was doing too

Can you kids get a room or something? Arguing about the color of the drapes gets tedious aright?

This isn't arguing, though everything on the internet gets read in a more hostile tone
No inflections
Maybe it's like a Rorschach test where some people see things as jokes or others as attacks
Like ur mum

[wierd]

Because you're saying it's colored in with blue when it isn't colored in with anything. I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek at you or something.
If it is what you say, then it's just an error on the part of whoever made the map.

That's what I was doing too

Can you kids get a room or something? Arguing about the color of the drapes gets tedious aright?

This isn't arguing, though everything on the internet gets read in a more hostile tone
No inflections
Maybe it's like a Rorschach test where some people see things as jokes or others as attacks
Like ur mum

My mum has macular degeneration you insensitive bastard! (lol-- But no, she really does.)

[Icefire2314]

I still don't entirely agree even with that. If we are all made equal in God's eyes and sex is in fact pleasurable, I don't think God would deny one boon of life to a specific group He created, assuming that we are in fact created homosexual and it's not a choice (which I do believe).

How many situations can you think of where hedonism ends well?
Taking pleasure in an act is a basic bitch argument for morality if you pardon the bluntness, it's easy to take pleasure in doing evil things. Without such thinking we wouldn't have maximum edgy

I don't entirely agree. Heterosexual intercourse is also pleasurable even if done exactly as prescribed by the Church, and it is the same pleasure you get from doing it in the ways the Church is against. If it is the pleasure is the sin, then God created us wherein one sins during sex.

But it is not the pleasure which is the sin in this case, it is the act that it is done between a homosexual couple than a heterosexual couple, which brings me back to my original argument. If homosexuality is innate then it can't be a sin. If it is the act of same-sex intercourse, I don't believe God could consider that sin for the reasons I explained previously.

[wierd]

Research topic of the hour:

Original Sin.

Simply because something is "natural", is not defense against it being sin.  In short, under the doctrine of original sin, humans have a nature that drives or compels them to sin.  This may, for instance, take form as homosexuality, or as being an adulterous rake.

Or just your garden variety liar.

It's all sin, and we are all compelled to do it, each in our own way. 

[Icefire2314]

Research topic of the hour:

Original Sin.

Simply because something is "natural", is not defense against it being sin.  In short, under the doctrine of original sin, humans have a nature that drives or compels them to sin.  This may, for instance, take form as homosexuality, or as being an adulterous rake.

Or just your garden variety liar.

It's all sin, and we are all compelled to do it, each in our own way.

Humans do have a nature driving them towards sin, but animals don't. Why then is homosexuality (including intercourse) observed in animals?

[wierd]

I dont have a good biblical doctrine to point to there. (I am playing devil's advocate, I am agnostic-- just more familiar with christian dogma than most.)

One of the more dogmatic views I have seen tendered, is that animals do not get resurrected or have any promise of eternal life, but are still doomed to die a mortal death-- meaning that while they do appear to sin, their punishment is already delivered through nature.

Humans are intended to be resurrected for a higher purpose, and adhering to the sinful natures of the flesh is contrary to this directive. The holy spirit is intended to provide an alternative nature for these people to enjoy, which moves them away from worldly desires and towards spiritual desires, which naturally moves them away from sin.

[Loud Whispers]

I don't entirely agree. Heterosexual intercourse is also pleasurable even if done exactly as prescribed by the Church, and it is the same pleasure you get from doing it in the ways the Church is against. If it is the pleasure is the sin, then God created us wherein one sins during sex.

The difference is between making love and fucking, not pleasurable and banal

But it is not the pleasure which is the sin in this case, it is the act that it is done between a homosexual couple than a heterosexual couple, which brings me back to my original argument. If homosexuality is innate then it can't be a sin. If it is the act of same-sex intercourse, I don't believe God could consider that sin for the reasons I explained previously.

We know what God has commanded and what is forbidden; it is the straight path and is the only way in which man can be safe and at peace, protecting his honour, his mind and his health, in accordance with the natural disposition with which God has created man. Something innate is not free from being innately sinful, just as someone being born innately with a penchance for violence or addiction is.
Some filthy modernist papal heretics have tried to attack Christianity and its rulings; they have denounced divorce and plural marriage and permitted alcohol. Look at the state of our societies to see the result - the state of misery which our societies have reached.
When we accepted divorce, murder took its place. When we rejected plural marriage, men started to take mistresses instead. When we allowed alcohol, all kinds of shameful and immoral actions became widespread.
Gays and lesbians both go against the natural order which God has created in mankind – and also in animals – whereby the male is inclined towards the female, and vice versa.
Whoever goes against that goes against the natural disposition of mankind.
The spread of homosexuality has caused man diseases which neither the east nor the west can deny exist because of them. Even if the only result of this perversion was AIDS – which attacks the immune system in humans – that would be enough.
It also causes the breakup of the family and leads people to give up their work and study because they are preoccupied with these perversions.

Lol jk that's not me, that's just Shaykh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid paraphrased to make his arguments sound Christian
How would you counter cheeki Shaykh's arguments?

Both of them – fornication and homosexuality – involve immorality that goes against the wisdom of Allaah’s creation and commandment. For homosexuality involves innumerable evil and harms, and the one to whom it is done would be better off being killed than having this done to him, because after that he will become so evil and so corrupt that there can be no hope of his being reformed, and all good is lost for him, and he will no longer feel any shame before Allaah or before His creation. The semen of the one who did that to him will act as a poison on his body and soul. The scholars differed as to whether the one to whom it is done will ever enter Paradise. There are two opinions which I heard Shaykh al-Islam (may Allaah have mercy on him) narrate.”

Top kek
He's too breeki

[origamiscienceguy]

Research topic of the hour:

Original Sin.

Simply because something is "natural", is not defense against it being sin.  In short, under the doctrine of original sin, humans have a nature that drives or compels them to sin.  This may, for instance, take form as homosexuality, or as being an adulterous rake.

Or just your garden variety liar.

It's all sin, and we are all compelled to do it, each in our own way.

Humans do have a nature driving them towards sin, but animals don't. Why then is homosexuality (including intercourse) observed in animals?

I don't think that any of them have ever tried to have intercourse though. We really can't know what animals are thinking, they might b playing or something. (note: I am in no way an expert)

[wierd]

On the contrary. Many studies have been made on Giraffes. 

With rather (alarmingly?) high statistical regularity, the formation of same-sex sexual pairings greatly exceeds random probabilities, and behaviors at breaking these pairings up strongly indicate that the animals experience anxiety and distress at the separation.

http://www.learnanimals.com/giraffe/





(That does not even begin to cover the territory of Bonobos......)

[Frumple]

I don't think that any of them have ever tried to have intercourse though. We really can't know what animals are thinking, they might b playing or something. (note: I am in no way an expert)

... what? No, homosexual sex (male and female, for what it's worth) is observed in animals, with all the particulars involved, to avoid being explicit about it. They ain't playin', they're screwin'. Or both, in some cases, but generally it's the latter. Unless you've got a really odd definition of intercourse, it's definitely something animals have gotten up to with same sex members of their species (and sometimes other species, too, for what that's worth).

It's fairly irrelevant, as animals naturally do a lot of things that are considered to be sin (and is ethically abhorrent besides, not that I class homosexual relations in that category) when done by humans, but it's certainly a thing that happens.

As to IF... keep it up, younglin'. You're going to be mangling the religion you're trying to live with, to get it to work for you on the subject in question, but I've said before and I'll say again, there ain't nothin' wrong with that. If God is, in fact, good, you'll be alright. If God ain't good, it ain't worth worship anyway, save for brute survival in the face of a threat, and that's not exactly the best of reasons to ruin your life over.