Gods image.

[The Flying Tench]

Yet another question for Emma. I'm still cautious on the gay adoption thing, but I've been interested in your comments about anti-gay attitudes being a result of western modernism, with more tolerant attitudes in Japan and elsewhere.

 

But that still raises the question of how you evaluate it morally. You clearly want to defend gay rights, partly on grounds (I think) of supporting the outsider. But in Rome relationships between a man and a boy were seen as an excellent thing, as I understand it. Would you support that also? You feel it is wrong to tell heterosexuals, as well as gays, that sex should be limited to marriage - but does that mean that there are no limits? Should all pornography be allowed? And what about sex with animals?

 

So how do you arrive at your viewpoint as to what is right? I know you have said that you see morality as something that evolves. Is it simply that we should accept the norms of our current society, in that that is where evolution of ethics has taken us, or do you have some underlying principles that guide you in your views?

[chesters1]

sex with animals is perfectly legal in a northern country (near norway) so long as no harm comes to the animal ,pornography is difficult though perhaps everything bar child porn is perfectly reasonable and with adults why not ?

the law is strange its legal for consenting adults to have female buggery if their not married but illegal if they are (not that i'm inclined but plenty do and so much its a form of contraception in some places).

pornography is in the eye of the beholder ,i havt a problem with it i hardened to most of it visibly when i was 15 now it doesn't bother me nor have i a hard drive full of it ,i can take it or leave it ,the mary whitehouses probably made it more alluring than showing it ,the tv has none compared to the 70's as far as i can see.

not actually sure what pornography is ,mostly "dirty pictures" in most minds but it was first used concerning writing ,is the bible pornographic its describes some pretty horrific things within its covers ,it corrupts ,incites and twists things just as much as women can be in the pages of a dirty mag!

the bible maybe reveared as the good book but looking between the lines its a pretty bad book concerning the treatment of humans and ofcourse the continual attrocities committed in its name through history ,obscene levels of human misory infliction and ofcourse obscene is part of what pornography is described as ,thank goodness its pictures are far and few!!

 

killing 42 kids for calling someone baldy is a little harsh in anyones book

 

"250 killed for complaining and then bringing incense when told to.

14 700 killed for complaining about the 250 who were killed. " damn that good books harsh.

 

 

JS 10:10-27 With the help of the Lord, Joshua utterly destroys the Gibeonites.

 

JS 10:28 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly destroys the people of Makkedah.

 

JS 10:30 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly destroys the Libnahites.

 

JS 10:32-33 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly destroys the people of Lachish.

 

JS 10:34-35 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly destroys the Eglonites.

 

JS 10:36-37 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly destroys the Hebronites.

 

JS 10:38-39 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly destroys the Debirites.

 

what the bible entertains ethnic cleansing i can list hundreds and yet the church bases its "goodness" on this filth and the not so nice guy in charge! ok it maybe a bit of the old testament but why wasnt this burnt and a nice fresh book made?

Edited October 22, 2008 by chesters1

[mr motorola]

There is very little in life which is NOT to do with culture, for example how the British attitude towards fishing varies when compared to other countries cultures. Despite legislation our culture is still prohibitive and restricting in it's attitudes towards same sex relationships when compared with other quite different societies like traditional Japanese, Polynesian, Siberian and many Native American groups who didn't exhibit the same type of insecurities as ours does.

 

As Snakey seems to have pointed out (I havn't followed the link yet), same sex behaviour occurs in other species, and humans dont choose to be gay, in the same way as we choose our job, cars, hobbies etc, they just 'are', therefore by definition it is 'natural'.

 

Gay insecurities keep getting mentioned, I belive overstated. Look at the way this thread has developed. I'm not sure how 'gay' came into it in the first place, perhaps I mentioned it in response to christian attitudes. We have talked about it alot, someone has accused me of 'ramming my opinions down their throat, which was a predictable response which is almost a cliché and is meaningless and irritating. However my posts have simply been responses questions posed by others. I would have stopped way back, and it leaves me wondering who is the more insecure?

So.........(Monty Python's Life of Brian playing in the background) , If it's not a personal question.........are YOU gay?

[corydoras]

Can you clarify what you mean by 'shouting them down'...

Secondly, I'm puzzled to hear there are christians in USA who won't take their children to the doc. ...

 

Third, the group we do have a few of in UK are the creationists. I don't see them as a huge problem in the way you do. Actually, many people (not just christians) disbelieve in evolution just because they can't see how it works, so it's not surprising some church people share these views. I see creationists as a problem as they put some scientific types off christianity - but I would have thought you might think that is a good thing! Having said that, many of the people who are put off haven't heard it from creationists. I was talking to someone with a PhD in, I think, biochemistry a year or two back and she said 'You see, it is hard for me to believe, I am a scientist.' I asked her what she meant - and it turned out she thought that to be a christian you had to believe in a literal Adam and Eve. No creationist had got at her, it was just that her last contact with the church had been Sunday School at, I would guess, about 7 years old.

 

I think that one or two people in my congregation are creationists, and naturally I need to treat them with respect because the have read books and come to those conclusions. But, as I have said, I will be preaching a sermon in a few weeks on the topic, and will have discussion afterwards, and will do my best to convince them of theistic evolution. If I tried to 'shout them down' as you suggest I don't think it would convince them any more than if they tried that tactic on me!

 

"Shouting them down" wasn't the right phrase to use. Making your fellow Christians aware of the situation is more what I meant. You could do some 6 minute sermons and upload them onto YouTube as video responses to their vitriolic messages there perhaps. Be prepared for some vitriolic, hateful comments if you do.

 

Secondly go and read this link and you will begin to understand why I get so upset at this neglect. It is not as rare as you think. I can post many similar pages in different states, in different Churches. They are not all Jehovahs' Witnesses.

 

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/deadbabies.htm

 

I find this little boys tale especially moving.

A little boy's ordeal

 

Of all the Oregon City cases, the ordeal of 4-year-old Alex Dale Morris stands out.

 

The boy first complained of fever and congestion on Feb. 28, 1989. He was anointed with holy oil while church members laid their hands on him in an attempt to heal him through the spirit of the Lord. They prayed for 46 days.

 

On April 14,1989, acting on an anonymous tip to state child welfare workers, an Oregon City policeman visited Alex's home. The officer noticed the boy was sick, but the child appeared well cared for and told the officer he was "all right."

 

Alex Morris died 29 hours after that visit. An autopsy revealed an infection had filled one side of his chest with pus. Basic antibiotic treatment would have saved him, said Dr. Larry Lewman, Oregon medical examiner.

 

"It was a horrible thing," Lewman said. "The kid was getting sicker and sicker for days and days. At times, the child would have been overwhelmed with fever and pain.

 

"In this day and age, kids don't get this stuff."

 

I'll come back to you on the creationism and evolution debate in the morning after I have slept.

Edited October 23, 2008 by corydoras

[DavyR]

I find this little boys tail especially moving.

 

Cory, I think you ought to correct that as soon as possible to "tale", in order to avoid potential misunderstandings...

[DavyR]

I think that one or two people in my congregation are creationists, and naturally I need to treat them with respect because the have read books and come to those conclusions.

 

John, I know one or two people who have read the books of Erich Von Daniken and firmly believe that "God was an astronaut". Would you respect their beliefs too? I have a lot of respect for books, but many of them do contain what might be euphemistically called "woolly thinking".

[corydoras]

Cory, I think you ought to correct that as soon as possible to "tale", in order to avoid potential misunderstandings...

Whew!, Thanks Davy

[chesters1]

John, I know one or two people who have read the books of Erich Von Daniken and firmly believe that "God was an astronaut". Would you respect their beliefs too? I have a lot of respect for books, but many of them do contain what might be euphemistically called "woolly thinking".

i think all of them did

there was on televised set of loons that harnessed prayer power in what looked like a wooden box on a tripod ,i would love to have smashed it to pieces infront of them to get their reaction

Edited October 23, 2008 by chesters1

[Alan Stubbs]

Its true straights dont have to make the same soft of display, they have no need to because our culture is so heterosexist [/i

 

If people accept that sex for procreation is the norm, then by default our culture is bound to be heterosexist. Therefore, any public display of a homosexual nature is pure exhibitionism of the 'look at me, I'm here!' variety, and frankly, who gives a damn? Just get on with it and don't impinge upon other people's lives unless invited.

 

This isn't a homophobic viewpoint at all, it's simply a request for people to show each other the same respect as they demand for themselves.

[Emma two]

Yet another question for Emma. I'm still cautious on the gay adoption thing, but I've been interested in your comments about anti-gay attitudes being a result of western modernism, with more tolerant attitudes in Japan and elsewhere.

 

But that still raises the question of how you evaluate it morally. You clearly want to defend gay rights, partly on grounds (I think) of supporting the outsider. But in Rome relationships between a man and a boy were seen as an excellent thing, as I understand it. Would you support that also? You feel it is wrong to tell heterosexuals, as well as gays, that sex should be limited to marriage - but does that mean that there are no limits? Should all pornography be allowed? And what about sex with animals?

 

So how do you arrive at your viewpoint as to what is right? I know you have said that you see morality as something that evolves. Is it simply that we should accept the norms of our current society, in that that is where evolution of ethics has taken us, or do you have some underlying principles that guide you in your views?

 

I started writing my (detailed) response over 2 hours ago...and have suddenly lost the lot! perhape you think that was intervention by the invisible man in the sky?

 

i will re write it, but need to get on with some other things right now.