Research on Belief in God

[The Hitch]

If homosexuality is a sin why did god make some people homosexual

And isn't it enough consolation for you believing that these people will burn in hell for eternity because they were born different? Why you got to go ruining their lives on earth too?

 

[red_flanders]

Why can't I pray in school. That is discrimination just the same.

Well I assume you're not in school but I get the general point. You can pray in school, the justices merely said that government officials had no business composing a prayer for students to recite, and later that school-sponsored Bible reading and recitation of the Lord's Prayer unconstitutional.

Pray away. And I have no problem with it. Also worth knowing that I've spent years of my life in the Lutheran church. I'm not coming at this with antagonism for religious belief, I simply don't buy the claims of discrimination and victimization from the majority religion. I think majorities generally over-react to any curtailing of their previously held rights when the light of day is shined on how unfairly they're treating minorities.

 

[The Hitch]

You do realize that with your definition of discrimination everyone (or at least 90% of people) discriminates.

So you believe shop owners should be allowed to refuse people based on the colour of their skin too, or just if their gay?

 

[Jspear]

It's not my definition, it's the courts'.

Can you clarify how 90% of people refuse business products or services to homosexuals based on their religious beliefs? That can't be what you mean, but that's the discussion point so I don't follow.

You're correct, that isn't what I meant. I was pointing out that by your definition discrimination takes place all the time all around us and really isn't a problem then. If not doing something for someone else is deemed discrimination than I have no problem with discriminating (only when defined this way.)

 

[Hugh Januss]

Christians are being discriminated against in the same way that white American males are being discriminated against.

 

[Jspear]

So you believe shop owners should be allowed to refuse people based on the colour of their skin too, or just if their gay?

Skin color and homosexuality are two completely different things. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think being gay is genetic.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Now what has that got to do with God and/or religion? Feel free to open a thread where you can discuss such topics... but please not here.

Easy tiger, the discussion has turned to discrimination based on religious principles. Get it?

 

[Jspear]

Well I assume you're not in school but I get the general point. You can pray in school, the justices merely said that government officials had no business composing a prayer for students to recite, and later that school-sponsored Bible reading and recitation of the Lord's Prayer unconstitutional.

Pray away. And I have no problem with it. Also worth knowing that I've spent years of my life in the Lutheran church. I'm not coming at this with antagonism for religious belief, I simply don't buy the claims of discrimination and victimization from the majority religion. I think majorities generally over-react to any curtailing of their previously held rights when the light of day is shined on how unfairly they're treating minorities.

Christianity that closely follows the bible isn't a majority religion. America is extremely secular and it's only getting worse. I don't mind this, the Bible tells Christians that they will be hated, persecuted, ect. I'm not asking for sympathy or anything. Just pointing out a reality.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Skin color and homosexuality are two completely different things. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think being gay is genetic.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...finally-unlocked-puzzle-of-why-people-are-gay

 

[The Hitch]

Skin color and homosexuality are two completely different things. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think being gay is genetic.

How the **** would you know, you don't even believe in evolution. And if discrimination becomes kosher if it's not genetic, that means sexism is ok?

 

[Jspear]

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...finally-unlocked-puzzle-of-why-people-are-gay

Thanks. From reading this article it seems to me like they're still looking but haven't yet found rock solid evidence. Words such as "suggests" "seems" ect. The science community is certainly not unanimous on this issue. Another question I have is what about those who were gay but then went "straight?" Or what about people who are bisexual or individuals who are attracted to animals?? Is there a gene for all these sort of "orientations?"

 

[red_flanders]

You're correct, that isn't what I meant. I was pointing out that by your definition discrimination takes place all the time all around us and really isn't a problem then. If not doing something for someone else is deemed discrimination than I have no problem with discriminating (only when defined this way.)

If you're speaking of the general definition I supplied earlier, it's true that it takes place all the time, but we were then speaking specifically about discrimination against homosexuals by Christians who take the view that their discrimination should be allowed.

I disagree emphatically that all or 90% of people discriminate all the time, and I certainly don't think it's OK. I also think we are all guilty of it at one point or another, but a great many people work hard to examine their behavior and act in a way which is fair or just. I'm surprised to hear you have no problem with it.

 

[red_flanders]

Christianity that closely follows the bible isn't a majority religion. America is extremely secular and it's only getting worse. I don't mind this, the Bible tells Christians that they will be hated, persecuted, ect. I'm not asking for sympathy or anything. Just pointing out a reality.

Every sect of Christianity thinks they follow the bible closely. It's not like they're sitting around thinking, "Hey, I know we're not doing it as accurately as those guys over there, but we're going to do it this way anyway."

There are many churches who do not believe as you do which also feel they are accurately following the teachings of Christ and the bible.

The Bible is speaking of Christians in Roman times, and was accurate. People were being crucified and fed to the lions. To create some kind of modern day parallel to that kind of persecution is playing a victim card to lengths which boggle the mind.

People disagreeing with you and courts ruling against your behavior does not equal "persecution".

 

[red_flanders]

Skin color and homosexuality are two completely different things. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think being gay is genetic.

How is it different than being straight? Have you ever discussed it with a gay person? I have many, many times and to a man (or woman) they laugh at the notion that they could do anything about it. Instead they often wish they weren't gay because of the discrimination (real in this case) and abuse they face on a daily basis, not only from strangers but from friends and family.

Who would choose such a life?

The simple fact is that people call it a lifestyle choice so they can continue to criticize gays for the way they are and excuse it by citing the bible. But this view stands up to no scientific or reasoned examination. You want to believe it. That doesn't make it true.

As for skin color, there is a long, long history of people using the bible to justify slavery among other (actual) persecution of people of color.

These are difficult topics, but it's great to examine them in detail.

 

[red_flanders]

Thanks. From reading this article it seems to me like they're still looking but haven't yet found rock solid evidence. Words such as "suggests" "seems" ect.

It looks pretty solid to me. Scientists always qualify findings with that kind of language because science can always be disproved or improved upon. That is the strength of it, not a weakness.

Do you have any contradictory evidence?

The science community is certainly not unanimous on this issue.

Not sure "unanimous" is the standard for accepting a premise. Compelling or overwhelming evidence would be for me. Honestly, would it matter to you if they were unanimous? I ask because it appears your opinions are formed from reading the bible, not listening to science, at least on points where they offer different conclusions.

Another question I have is what about those who were gay but then went "straight?" Or what about people who are bisexual or individuals who are attracted to animals?? Is there a gene for all these sort of "orientations?"

There is extreme societal pressure to conform to the hetero norm. This drive all kinds of painful behavior. Conversion therapy has been widely and soundly debunked. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-gay-conversion-therapy-claims-are-fraud/

You're equating homosexuality to bestiality? Why not murder or all kinds of other horrible behavior? These are different things, to be treated differently.

 

[Netserk]

I just looked at the quotes redflanders gave off Jspear. And it clearly stated that Jspear would not do wedding cakes, but ofc would in other cases. That is crystal clear. So how can redflanders say that Jspear discriminates homosexuals? Its a lie, and he shall know it. But he cant since he is always biased (meaning he owns the final truth, those who say otherwise are trolling). Thats it. No more, no less.

BTW: Redflanders started the fire long ago. Now its time to hit back when he posts against his own rules he made for me. Reminds me of preaching water, but drinking wine. Cant stand such hypos.

What redflanders quoted:


His response:


Finally him being completely off topic; the first post by him:


He didnt quote anything to have his post in context. So to me it looked like he talked about discrimination "out of the blue". His mistake not to quote the context. He sits in the glass house, thus shall lead as perfect poster.

When Jspear writes "Hence my example of not making them a wedding cake" it would have done you good to read his posts before that to see what he meant by that.

Actually you would be surprised. There are lots of places in liberal America where I am not welcomed at all because of my beliefs (aka discrimination.) But I agree with you that discrimination isn't right.

It is a tricky subject though. You have Christians who believe it is wrong to bake a cake for a gay couple that are getting married. Should that Christian be forced to go against his/her conscience? Should he/she lose their business license? Plenty of Christian business men and woman have lost their jobs because of gay individuals that have no tolerance for the beliefs of Christians. This to is intolerant behavior on their part. Personally I think both sides should be able to agree to a compromise. You're gay and you walk into my shop. I in a loving and civil manner could explain why I can't and I could then give a list of other shops in the area that would serve them. That's just an example. IMO there are plenty of ways where both groups need to learn how to respectively disagree and get along in society. Both "sides" need to get better with this.

In his example he is a shop owner.

I think the right thing would be for you to apologize to red_flanders.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Plenty of Christian business men and woman have lost their jobs because of gay individuals that have no tolerance for the beliefs of Christians.

Where is it exactly that the gay rights movement wields this much power?

 

[Jspear]

If you're speaking of the general definition I supplied earlier, it's true that it takes place all the time, but we were then speaking specifically about discrimination against homosexuals by Christians who take the view that their discrimination should be allowed.

I disagree emphatically that all or 90% of people discriminate all the time, and I certainly don't think it's OK. I also think we are all guilty of it at one point or another, but a great many people work hard to examine their behavior and act in a way which is fair or just. I'm surprised to hear you have no problem with it.

I said I have no problem with it if all discrimination is is not doing something for someone else.

Every sect of Christianity thinks they follow the bible closely. It's not like they're sitting around thinking, "Hey, I know we're not doing it as accurately as those guys over there, but we're going to do it this way anyway."

There are many churches who do not believe as you do which also feel they are accurately following the teachings of Christ and the bible.

The Bible is speaking of Christians in Roman times, and was accurate. People were being crucified and fed to the lions. To create some kind of modern day parallel to that kind of persecution is playing a victim card to lengths which boggle the mind.

People disagreeing with you and courts ruling against your behavior does not equal "persecution".

In the USA plenty of churches teach that we shouldn't take the bible literally and that we should doubt certain parts of it. That isn't following the Bible as closely as possible.
Persecution doesn't have to be physical and I wasn't saying I personally have suffered from physical persecution (although friends of mine have - it does exist). Persecution can be harassment, ill treatment, ect. I wasn't trying to equate anything I've experienced with what 1st century Christians went through. I was simply pointing out that Christianity isn't a majority in the USA feeling like it must oppress minorities.

It looks pretty solid to me. Scientists always qualify findings with that kind of language because science can always be disproved or improved upon. That is the strength of it, not a weakness.

Do you have any contradictory evidence?

Just a question. So there is a possibility that being gay might not be genetic? But I have to embrace that statement (that it is genetic) now even if it isn't true? Doesn't make sense to me.

Not sure "unanimous" is the standard for accepting a premise. Compelling or overwhelming evidence would be for me. Honestly, would it matter to you if they were unanimous? I ask because it appears your opinions are formed from reading the bible, not listening to science, at least on points where they offer different conclusions.



There is extreme societal pressure to conform to the hetero norm. This drive all kinds of painful behavior. Conversion therapy has been widely and soundly debunked. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-gay-conversion-therapy-claims-are-fraud/

You're equating homosexuality to bestiality? Why not murder or all kinds of other horrible behavior? These are different things, to be treated differently.

That's just it though. They are hardly different in that people are already starting to want "equality" in other area's of sexuality. For some incest is "natural", for others bestiality is. Where does it end? Where do we draw the line? Right now it is the gay agenda, but believe me after this has completely been accepted by society there will be something else that we must all accept as natural and normal. If you accept homosexuality as normal, by the same standard of logic and reasoning you have to accept incest or polygamy.

 

[Jspear]

Where is it exactly that the gay rights movement wields this much power?

California is a great place to look.

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

How is it different than being straight? Have you ever discussed it with a gay person? I have many, many times and to a man (or woman) they laugh at the notion that they could do anything about it. Instead they often wish they weren't gay because of the discrimination (real in this case) and abuse they face on a daily basis, not only from strangers but from friends and family.

Of course being black and being gay are two completely different things.

For the first one it's perfectly obvious that it's genetic, for the second one we don't really know what causes it.

Contrary to popular belief it isn't proven at all that homosexuality is genetic. It's not as if a scientist ever found a gay gene. Furthermore studies with monozygotic twins show that there are plenty of monozygotic twins where only one of the twins is gay. So this means that there are people who have gotten the exact same genes, but still develop a different sexuality. If homosexuality would be completely genetic like race this would at the very least have to be extremely uncommon, which it isn't. Can you imagine monozygotic twins where one of them is black and the other white?

Look, I don't have a clue what causes homosexuality. I'm not saying it's a choice or anything. What's definitely a choice however, is whether you engage in homosexual activity or not, whether you marry someone from the same gender or not. There's a world of difference between condemning a race and between condemning homosexual acts. Believing a certain race is inferior is something completely different from believing a certain type of behaviour is immoral, whether or not people are biologically predisposed to show such behaviour.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Originally Posted by red_flanders View Post
It looks pretty solid to me. Scientists always qualify findings with that kind of language because science can always be disproved or improved upon. That is the strength of it, not a weakness.

Do you have any contradictory evidence?

Just a question. So there is a possibility that being gay might not be genetic? But I have to embrace that statement (that it is genetic) now even if it isn't true? Doesn't make sense to me.

So your answer is no, no evidence? Just "I don't want to believe the evidence to the contrary"?
How do you stand on the question of human contribution to climate change? Just out of curiosity.

 

[Hugh Januss]

California is a great place to look.

Well I am in California and I don't see it, that's why I asked.

 

[Netserk]

What's wrong with polygamy?

Incest is wrong because it is rape. There isn't (real) consent. Homosexuals can have sex with each other with consent. There is no victim with that. If a father rapes his daughter, it is quite easy to see that there is a victim.

 

[red_flanders]

Just a question. So there is a possibility that being gay might not be genetic? But I have to embrace that statement (that it is genetic) now even if it isn't true? Doesn't make sense to me.

Again, do you have any evidence that it's not? That gay sexuality is different than straight sexuality? Do you have evidence that either are genetic? That either are not? Are you just holding out for the remote possibility that it may not be? Why don't you ask some gay people about it?

You don't "have to embrace" anything. I'm simply pointing out the facts in the situation, which seem to be in conflict with your beliefs. I hope that's OK. I hope that's not "persecution".

That's just it though. They are hardly different in that people are already starting to want "equality" in other area's of sexuality. For some incest is "natural", for others bestiality is. Where does it end? Where do we draw the line? Right now it is the gay agenda, but believe me after this has completely been accepted by society there will be something else that we must all accept as natural and normal. If you accept homosexuality as normal, by the same standard of logic and reasoning you have to accept incest or polygamy.

Come on, you can't be seriously comparing homosexuality to bestiality and suggesting it's some slippery slope from one to the other. That's just absolutely farcical. Polygamy? That's an institution, not an orientation. Are you seriously suggesting that the next step is to allow incest? I want to be polite here but this is just nonsense.

These things are unrelated. I would not be surprised if you get some blowback from people in California or other places if you're offering these widely debunked and ridiculous arguments.

It's sad that your beliefs lead you to such warped views of other people.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Easy tiger, the discussion has turned to discrimination based on religious principles. Get it?

When a lurker (like me) sees the first post of a page unrelated to a quote talking about discrimination... well, it looks perfectly off topic. I explained that. May you have not read that.