h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Nerd42, you and I would have to disagree about a great deal (for instance, I am not American, but would be Democrat if I was) but I have to agree with when you say "But seriously, on the one hand a so-called "gay Christian" is a practicioner of a belief system (homosexuality isn't just a practice, as it incorporates a belief system to morally justify the practice) that contradicts the other belief system. (Christianity - which is an abolutist belief system and thus incompatible with contradictory belief systems)

It is like saying one is both an insect and a mammal at the same time."

That's called bi-partisanship, my friend.

"Ste: I did explain why. FISHES CAN'T HAVE MONKEY EGGS! LOL!!"

And thus you neatly confirm everything I said. Wow.


Where does it say you have to take the bible literally?

Ste

Della, doesn't it concern you ever-so-slightly that you share a lot of opinions and beliefs with the US fundamentalist Christians that you claim to despise so much?

Ste

Yes, it does, Ste, because I don't want to be thought to be of one mind with the like of Pat Robertson! However, there are some issues on which I just have to do a Martin Luther...

It stands to reason really, some things are basics, and others - political views can be thought of, and some do think of them as 'add-ons', although it still baffles me as to how a Christian can support war, or the death penalty, it's inconsistent and by and large, catholics do try to at least be consistent regarding these 'life' issues, the seamless garment as Sister Helen Préjean says.Have you read any of her books?

<<(homosexuality isn't just a practice, as it incorporates a belief system to morally justify the practice)>>

The idea that there is a "homosexual belief system" is absurd. Even if all homosexuals believed that "homesexuality is not immoral" (which isn't necessarily the case), this would hardly constitute a complete belief system, and I can't see any other *necessary* common denominators.

Noggin

I have to agree with Noggin, well I say have to, Im not being forced like the Catholic church uses coercion on its preists but I agree because the facts Ive observed in the real world make me think this way.

Homosexuality as performed by some organisms capable of sex such a lions, dogs and humans must be a inborn imperative. Unless there are queer core liontamers and dog trainers going out there to teach lesbianics and homosexualism to chimps and large cats.

It amuses me when christians exhort me with the bigG's message of monogamy as exhibited by swans or emporer penguins. I immediately counter with with the bigG's equally obvious messages of free love exhibited by snakes, canabalism following mating displayed by spiders and polygamy extoled by walruses.



As to the Catholic church it has a long history of using physical punishment upon people women children and the elderly included. If preists were "perfectly free" to reject papal bulls they would not lose their homes livelyhood and status within the church for dissenting against the Pope but the fact is they would. So even wihtou using physical force the Pope is exerting pressure on Presits to deliver the message he wants. If his arument were right (and its not) he'd be able to state it and the intelligence of the Preists coupled with their guidance by good would cause them to fall in liine immediately but he cant and no Pope has ever been abel to.



Nerd I like you you're a real christian in my books you believe all the other tyes of christianity are wrong. Even the Roman Catholic church from which your own branch grew. Brilliant.


one love

Do "real Christians" take the book of Mormon as scripture?

As an recovering christian myself I think Im qualified to recognise "real" christianity.

1) Blind faith or as its known to others "not thinking".

Essentially you should accept things without questioning there validty. Including but not limited to evvery word of the bible. Even if you dont accept every word of the bible to be literally true you have to accept its the bigG's message to you.

Now if you accept that the bigG continued his revelation beyond the old testament then why stop there and exclude the latter day saints? You need to accept other convoluted theological ideas such as ranking of angels and saints or how the bigG wants us to use or not use new technologies and far more importantly how "facts" in the bible suddenly become "allegory" shen science shows the aformentioned facts to be anything but factual.


2) Intransigence or not believeing anyone else can think.

If someone disagrees with you they are simply wrong possibly more likely deceived by or even working directly for the devil to spread evil lies or undermine the status of your branch of the church. On no account should you even consider their argument because the lord has already revealed the truth and to even think about what they are saying entertains the possibility that you and your church might be wrong.


3) In tollerance people should not be allowed to be different becuse different is wrong.

Although you cant expect or force everyone to change (there are laws against that now) everyone *should* come round to your way of thinking. However Rome wasnt built in a day and as a christian you should do the bigG's work and help them to see his light. There are three ways of approaching this:

i) MEEK. speaking to those who are seeking.

ii) PERSONAL PREJUDICE. gays, teenage mums, prostitutes, drug users

iii) SCATTER GUN. anyone not quick enough to get away when they see you coming

That's it you can add in pagan traditions if you want and change the angle of the alter or words to the songs just as long as you keep the basics.

one love

I think real Christians are easy to spot too. They're the ones who follow Christ's teachings by loving their fellow human beings. That especially includes those on the fringes of society who are shunned by the rest. Hating, or even not liking, a group of people because of what they are, what they believe in is about as antithetical to Christianity as you can get. Anyone claiming themselves as Christian whilst doing this should either take a long, hard look in the mirror, or call themselves something different as to not sully the name of decent people all over the world.

Ste

Nerd and Della

"on the one hand a so-called "gay Christian" is a practicioner of a belief system (homosexuality isn't just a practice, as it incorporates a belief system to morally justify the practice) that contradicts the other belief system. (Christianity - which is an abolutist belief system and thus incompatible with contradictory belief systems)"

Even if we assume you're defenition of homosexuality as correct, this still isn't an argument that gay christians can't exist.
To use an analogy; it is possible to live in America and believe in Democracy (that the majority view is correct). It is also possible to oppose the death penalty. There appears a contradiction between the belief in the death penalty (from the majority's will) and the belief against it (personal opinion). Does this mean that no American who believes in Democracy opposes the death penalty?

blub-blub

"I think real Christians are easy to spot too. They're the ones who follow Christ's teachings by loving their fellow human beings. That especially includes those on the fringes of society who are shunned by the rest. Hating, or even not liking, a group of people because of what they are, what they believe in is about as antithetical to Christianity as you can get. Anyone claiming themselves as Christian whilst doing this should either take a long, hard look in the mirror, or call themselves something different as to not sully the name of decent people all over the world."

So you're saying they should take one part of the Bible literally but not the other?

And thanks 'blickybadger' for saying that some people cite emperor penguins as a pinnacle of monogomy. Made my day.

Ste, I know exactly where you are coming from.

I feel exactly the same way about football.

Is it a game played for sheer love of the game and physical enjoyment by millions of men women, boys and girls all over the world or a multibillion pound industry focused on a few thousand highly paid superstars.

The reality is its both.

The same goes for both our definitions of christians.

So you can foolow the advice of someone from either camp and stil be tols you're not a "real" christian by someone from another branch of christianity.

Which is why I left the church.

one love

"Is it a game played for sheer love of the game and physical enjoyment by millions of men women, boys and girls all over the world or a multibillion pound industry focused on a few thousand highly paid superstars."
I was kind of talking about homosexuality in the latter sense - I was talking about the almost-universal position of openly gay individuals. I think perhaps my problem is not with my definition of a homosexual but with my definition of a Christian - I meant a *genuine* Christian - which is a matter of sincerity and not something you can measure if it exists but can conclude does not exist based on actions taken by the individual.

Saying "gay Christian" seemt to me to be just like saying one is a "Satan-worshiping Christian" meaning "A Christian who worships Satan." Worshipping Satan would be something that is incompatible with Christianity - just like homosexuality.

blickybadger, you continue to lump all Christians together with the Catholic church for some unknown reason. Why not lump all Christians and Jews together? After all, Christianity is an offshoot of Judiasm. The answer is because they're different religions - just like Protestantism, Catholicism and my religion, which did not come out of either of those, Latter-Day Saintism are different religions.

Ste, I would like to clarify my position in case anybody's not understanding me, OK? Just some "closing remarks" you might say, as I see you have already done for yourself. These aren't arguments and aren't in response to your comments ... these are just me stating my position.

My belief in the Genesis record is a part of my religion. I do not claim that I have any scientific basis to believe that God created the Earth in seven days. I just say that I personally believe that.

My disbelief in evolutionary theory is based on my lack of faith in the assumptions being made in it's premise. Because of that, of course it's conclusions seem absurd to me - as absurd as the existance of God seems to be to you.

So, I believe that from a scientific standpoint, agnosticism is the way to go. I think that you can't "prove" beyond reasonable doubt that something did or did not happen billions and billions of years ago. I don't think that archeology can really go that far back with a degree of certainty that I am comfortable basing my conclusions on. (and I hope the people at ICR heard that, LOL)

I believe the big questions of the origins of Life, the Universe and Everything are contraversal, both among scientists and the general public, and that I have already proven this reguardless of whether you people decide to examine my proof or not. I think if it weren't contraversial, we would never have had this discussion.

I think that public education ought to take an NPOV (neutral point of view like on Wikipedia) position on all contraversial matters, presenting students with all side's arguments and letting them make up their own minds as all good citizens of a free country should do.
Nerd42

There are a lot of christians who are gay who would disagree with you there and like most christians interpret various parts of the bible to prove that god approves of homosexuality just like others can show that god disapproves of it by interpreting other parts of the bible to that conclusion.

The bible and scripture can be interpreted to mean what ever you want it to mean if you cheery pick the right passages.

Just liike Nostrodamus's predictions can be aligned with events.

Fair enough Nerd

Some points:
- The assumptions needed for evolutionary biology are the same as for all of science (discussed previously).

- Science cannot prove anything because it uses inductive reasoning (discussed previously).

- The probability that we have got evolution totally wrong is vanishingly miniscule. This miniscule chance is where you reside because of your faith (again, fair enough - but not a scientific standpoint). This is what Dawkins calls "the argument from incredulity".

- Evolution is not scientifically contraversial. It's bog-standard.

- Anti-evolution people kick up a fuss because they don't want evolution taught in schools. Their reason? That questions of evolution kick up a fuss. Absurd.

Cheers
Ste

I've already explained where I disagree with you so let's not go there again but I must point out that your statement in reguard to other people's positions is inaccurate. I *do* want evolution taught in schools - I just don't want it taught as DOGMA that DOMINATES all other ideas.

I know about the existance of so-called "gay christians" and of their selective manipulation of scripture. As I've said, it depends on your definition of "Christian" - if your definition of "Christian" includes anyone who claims to be "Christian" then "gay christians" would definately be included. If your definition of "Christian" means an actual follower of Christ, then in my opinion, "gay christians" would not be included.
Nerd42

Correct me if I'm wrong, Nerd, but am I right in thinking that the lds but alot of stress on the importence of the family?

If so then isn't it possible for a homosexual couple to provide a family. Even if they can't generate new life they could still increase the quality of life of adopted children by providing a stable, loving home.
A person who died single would also be a sinner in the eyes of the lds as they have not created a family at all.
Equally, a childless couple would have broken the guidelines of the lds.
Would the infertile be classed as sinners? Is it a sin to choose to become infertile, or to use contraception?

I ask mainly out of curiousity, as I'm afraid I don't have extensive experience of the lds, and would be glad of a first-hand account.

blub-blub

"I've already explained where I disagree with you so let's not go there again but I must point out that your statement in reguard to other people's positions is inaccurate. I *do* want evolution taught in schools - I just don't want it taught as DOGMA that DOMINATES all other ideas."

I was describing the "teach the contraversy" creationist argument. There is none. *In science* there is only one explanation of how stuff evolves: Evolutionary theory. Therefore science classes should only teach this when describing how life evolves. Easy, huh?

You may say this is dogma or whatever, it doesn't matter. The fact remains that evolutionary theory is so successful, simple and intuitive that it is the sole theory to explain the current diversity of life. Now, there's different flavours of evolutionary theory that different scientists put forward but all of them are within the framework of science, not religion, and more specifically within the framework of evolutionary biology. If something else came along that was more convincing than evolutionary theory and a huge paradigm shift happened then fair enough. Creationism in any guise is not going to do that. It is a joke. Literally.

Ste