Reading Philosophy

I just thought that it'll be better to hand orphans to normal couples, unless the child himself is big enough to accept/agree with it...then go ahead.

By assuming heterosexual couples as 'normal', you've already failed. homosexual couples are as 'normal' as anybody else - DO you know any homosexual folks? DO YOU? Personally, I mean, in your circle of friends - not from TV, newspaper, etc.! If not, I neither think nor understand why or where of you got the nerves judging about something that you dont know, didnt have made experiences, etc! X-(

But back to your thesis that it would be better for the child to:

1. grow up with heterosexual couples and
2. let him/her decide, if she/he wants to live that way

so, about #1:

Either you're living in a world full of fantasies and dreams (ie. not in reailty) or you still havent got over the fact that there are waaay less so-called standard families consisting of two heterosexual parents (ie. man and woman) and their child(ren). this really is the ideal situation, which wont work in about 50% - 60% of all the cases we got with 'normal' couples. In Germany, about 50% of all so-called families consist of a single, either divorced or never married parent, looking after one or more children, either having a friend, or if divorced, maybe letting the child/ren visit their other parent each weekend / once in a month / during holiydays / or even never, because this person doesnt want to have to do anything with his/her children!

To this discussion I can also add some personal experiences I made lately when I was visiting my sister (she's living in Bielefeld since 09/2003, taking part on the OSK school project), which was when we were in a discussion and came to exactly this topic - one of her friends was there, too, and told her one of his homosexual friends (a 'dyke' aka lesbian) said she would like to let them (my sister and him) grow up their children.

First, we (me and my sister) didnt understand what he meant exactly, but then, after he explained it to us, it was right clear: living in a flat-sharing community with one or more couples, where everybody could take out some time to look after the growing up children. A quite nice solution to this problem I think - as a lesbian, you still could get pregnant, give birth do your child and still have some male friends who could help the child in being something like a uncle to them. And with gay couples, they could do the same - if they were allowed to adopt children, it wouldnt make any difference, as there still would be some female people who could be equal to an aunt - a psychological parent / attachment figure for them.

As you can see, of course I do see the problem of the missing other part of parentship, but it aint that big - there are waaaay other big trouble in world which will let children stumble in their growing up, personal development and environment then just this - also, think of all the poor children who have to grow up with both parents, but where the mother eg. is an alcoholic, and the father is just a big fat asshole beating his children to cripples or even to death!

And about #2:

Mice idea, but you could say this nearly about ANYTHING - me, I didnt have the chance to choose if I would like to be a vegetarian, but when I started to eat meat when I started attending school, my parents didnt say anything against it ...
Sure, I still say, its bad they didnt give me the chance to choose between whether I would like to eat meat or be a vegetarian, but thats just life ;)

And if you would give a child the chance to do anything he/she wants, you soon get in troubles, too, as the child doesnt know where the borders of some action are, and maybe even commits a crime while not knowing it actually IS a crime! You might even know how this way of education / upbringing is called - it's the so-called 'Anti-authoritarian upbringing' model, which was formed by people in the 60s and 70s of the last (20th) century, as their parents did invoke a totalitarian / authoritarian upbringing model to rise their children.

cu, w0lf.

beards are cool. every villain has one!

This post was edited by ginsterbusch on Mar 11, 2004.

You are lying:

“Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them” (Genesis 19:5).

My Bible says:
"Where are the men which came in to the thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them?"

And shall we remember that it was two "ANGELS" who were with Lot. Lot, the Righteous, knew they were angels, while noone else did, not even his family--they just had to trust that his hallucination was accurate. And in the end of this story, the moral here, is that even Lot's family wasn't just enough.

Quoting quite alot of old testament. Let me pose to you the same standard that I asked of Wizz. Is the Old Testament the Old covenent, and the New Testament the "new covenant", remdering the "old covenant" no longer relevant?

Aklright:
Romans 1:18-23 talks about righteousness and the "wrath of god revealed from heaven against all ungodlieness and un righteousness of men who hold the truth in unrighteousness..."
Again, this is a bullshit red herring that has nothing to do with the iniquity of "faggotry" being a sin in the bible.

Corinthians 6:9-10,

(Cor 1 or 2?) 1 Cor. 6:9-10 lists fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effimenate, abusers of themselves, thieves, revilers, extortioners as those who shall not inherit the "kingdom of god." (A) faggots aren't listed, (B)they sound alot more fun than most of the Christians I've met, present company included; and (c) quite honestly, if your ilk will be found in the "Kingdom of Heaven," quite honestly, I'll take my chances with the idolaters, and effeminate.

Leviticus 18:22

Oh, this is fucking choice. Let's go a little deeper, shall we? Talk about selective reading! First off, he's talking to Moses. He's giving Mo the rules and laws for the poeple that he just led into the desert. Apparently, the :"chosen ones" were acting a little "funky" and "kinky", so "god" has to tell Mo to tell his peeps that they shouldn't uncover their mothers or father's nakedness. Don't pull off your sister's dress, or her underware, and the like. Don't uncover your mnother-in-law, or your father in law. Heck, don't uncover your little baby girl, whether she was born at night, or abroad.
So, 18-22 says something like this: Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time. Also thou shalt not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness. Moreover, thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbor's wife, to defile thyself with her. And thou shalt not letany of thy seed pass through the fire of Molech, neither shallprofane the name of god, i am lord. Thou shalt not lie with mankind as withwomankind: it is an abomination.
Lev. 18:18-23 states: Neither shalt

And I'm still trying to find the point in these quotes, and this bullshit rhetoric, way off the mark of the alleged "sin" of faggotry, aside the masterbatory, self-aggrandising blather of a typical Christian trying to thump and stump his religion into those who could really care less.

Once Fred Neitszche declared God is Dead, f*ck became the most important word in the English languag

This post was edited by zen on Mar 15, 2004.

Please... Before you say something like

You are lying:

make sure, he is. Because he quoted correctly, just from a different translation.

'Repent, Harlequin!' said the Ticktockman. 'Get stuffed!' the Harlequin replied, sneering.

If that's so, then the translation should be given.
And you'll pardon me, but I'm not willing to allow him the weasel tactic of a "good faith" mistake.

More to the point, it's my understanding that the inplication and intention of that passage, which has long been disputed, was never that "we want to have sex with them." Rather that they rightly didn't trust Lot and his shady "angels," so they wanted to "get to know them"--in the same respect that you'd want to "know" a stranger coming on to your property.

Once Fred Neitszche declared God is Dead, f*ck became the most important word in the English languag

Please... Before you say something like

You are lying:

make sure, he is. Because he quoted correctly, just from a different translation.

Maybe "you seem to make up things I cant find in MY text out of the bible" would then be better?

cu, w0lf.

beards are cool. every villain has one!

GB, my esteemed friend and colleague. I appreciate your comments, as always. I thank you for your input. When I care to be, I'm most capable of being diplomatic.

When I care to, I'm willing, and able, to be non-argumentative.

When I care to~

Once Fred Neitszche declared God is Dead, f*ck became the most important word in the English languag

Sorry, this is so far afield the topic of respecting the rights of people-who-happen-to-be-homosexual-in-their-sexual-orientation, that I might as well coment.

You absolutely can't argue on grounds of one verse of the Bible, especially from the Old Testament. You can probably find a quote to back anything there (the more closed-minded your position the likelier). So please, argue in the spirit of the Bible (seen as a whole) if you want, but don't quote single verses.

what does this mean? Please explain: Argue in the spirit of the bible? Seen as a whole?
Is that the spirit of "Love" perhaps? the "spirit" of moderate values? Or is it the Holy Spirit, where one talks to an invisible spook being (a neutered entity) to get guidance in addition to glossalalia?

Unfortunately, the ilk of that statement is typical to the unreasoned apologist, revisionist devices used by, well yes, Christians, when their Book is taken seriously too. You can't have this both ways. IF, again, IF this is truly the word of God, then those words MUST be taken literally. If it's not the words or god, then one needs a "spiritual" interpreter to get the "spirit of the bible."

Look, this is very simple. This is no "spirit of the Bible" unless it's the holy spirit. The bible is comprised of an Old Testament, and a New Testament. They are two separate things, entirely. One is the old covenant, as it was explained to me. Due to the vicarious atonement doctrine set forth in the Book, the Old testament became null and void.

With all of this said, I'll agree that this is YOUR opinion. As such, this is one person arguing over how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

Once Fred Neitszche declared God is Dead, f*ck became the most important word in the English languag

IF, again, IF this is truly the word of God, then those words MUST be taken literally.

We might have a difference what "the word of god" means. I mean, one cannot reasonably believe the whole bible is literally something god "said" (whatever that should mean). The bible has been written down by a multitude of people, the texts have been chosen among a larger amount of available texts, they have been altered, they have been translated...
Is it unreasonable to view the bible as a text that generally formulates god's "teachings", but that cannot been taken literally down to every word? A text that, while generally valid, might have even been subject to "politically" motivated changes?

If you ask me personally, I don't see the bible as the word of god, as I don't believe in god. Yet I generally accept it as a source of ethics. I can't accept verses like those quoted above, but that doesn't render the whole book useless.

Look, this is very simple. This is no "spirit of the Bible" unless it's the holy spirit.

Sorry, I don't follow you here. Perhaps "spirit" is the wrong term, we might face a language problem here. I meant "spirit" like "general tenor" (e.g. "love your neigbour as yourself").

The bible is comprised of an Old Testament, and a New Testament. They are two separate things, entirely. One is the old covenant, as it was explained to me. Due to the vicarious atonement doctrine set forth in the Book, the Old testament became null and void.

A catholic probably wouldn't agree. Catholic theologists even go to great lengths to show that both the new and old testament can coexist.

'Repent, Harlequin!' said the Ticktockman. 'Get stuffed!' the Harlequin replied, sneering.

Unless you're a catholic, I don't care what their viewpoint is.

Are you saying, (A) that the Old Testament is or is not the "old covenent;" and (B) therefore we are or are not any longer under it's dispensation?

You'll recall that the books of Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Judges, etc. were the very strict and stringent requirements for dietary laws, scapegoats and sacrificing, marriage, dowry and a whole complex litany of societal mores and folkways of 4,000-5,000 years ago. It talks about animal sacrificing, and tithing, and all of these myriad of laws and rules that the Essenes, and early Jews were held to. Not doing any work on the Sabbath day, was another list. These lists are mercilessly long and convoluted.

Exodus is full of the "movement" of god, and the "spirit" of God moving on the Pharoe, and softening, and then HARDENING pharoe's heard. It says that God HARDENED pharoes heart, and thusly, etc., etc. (with the help of the Holy Spirit) Passover became a holiday millenia later. Exodus is full of the 40 years that were spent in the desert. Full of lists of sins that came out of that, and the resultant 10 commandments. AT NO POINT in those ten commandments does it say that faggotry is a sin.

Again, in none of those ten commandments is faggotry listed as a sin.

It is in those myriad of laws, and supplications written by the Essene and similar cults that have come to be, literally, taken as gospel to this day. Quite clearly, the books of the old testament, are quite different, and stem from a much different, ANCIENT culture, which was, in fact ancient be the time that this character, Jesus, came on to the scene.

Those seeking to trip him up, as I'm sure you'll recall, asked jesus all kinds of questions about the laws and regulations of his day, as observed by the hypocrates, and saducees, and publicans. They ask him if it's ok to pull a ram/sheep out of a ditch in it should fall in on the sabbath. Essentially, he tells them that you do what you have to. They ask Jesus what they should give as a tithe, and to the government (i.e. Rome)--in keeping with that tradition of its day. So what does he tell them?

Give unto Ceasar what is his, Give unto god what is God's. He doesn't law down more laws, and regulations for the people to follow. Remember the charming little bit of his overturning the tables of the money changes, and salesmen in the temple. He screams at them: "Not in my father's house" ...or something to the effect. The ruling caste of that day, the religious elite who were using those rules and dispensations as a means of strangling the people, were a "den of vipers, and a generation of iniquity" to Jesus.

Clearly this fabled notion of taking the Bible as a "unified" book, and treating it with an amorphous "general tenor," is fallacious. For mercy of time and space, I give just a few examples. However, I'll be glad to dispute these fine points on some other post. It's merely the premise which you're basing your planck upon that's faulty.

There is no way that I can agree to anything of the sort as taking the bible in any "spirit" or "general tenor." It defies reason, and common sense.

If you mean that one should read this book, couched in terms of "love thy neighbor," then all the "smite thy neighbors" (i.e. pagans and heathens who believe differently from you) simply get thrown out the window. (Simply by logical extension, I find it difficult to see how I can "love" and "smite" my neighbor at the same time.)

By that logic, IF (and I do not concede such), it may say that faggotry is a "sin," then "love thy neighbor" as a doctrine, or set of standards needs apply. And in this case, love they neighbor means granting them the same rights as you'd afford the practicing Jew, or Buddhist.

But the problem here is that due to the coming of Jesus, and the religion based on his name, he practiced and preached "turn the other cheek." This, to me, seems to idealize the doctrine of "love thy neighbor." Basically, take care of your own problems, and cast out the beam in your own eye before looking to the mote in your brother's.

Once Fred Neitszche declared God is Dead, f*ck became the most important word in the English languag

I'm rather puzzled. I can't really put my fingers on where we actually disagree, (apart from maybe a theological "subtlety" that is basically beyond me). I assume you misread me somewhere along the lines, I might have failed to put my thoughts into the right words. My reply, the one you quoted, was itself a reply to ecthelion33, who I strongly disagree with. Well, let me just answer your questions. Bear with me if I get them wrong. *confused*

Unless you're a catholic, I don't care what their viewpoint is.

I was a catholic, which is why I know a bit about their viewpoint. And as it is a very well-spread denomination, I would think their viewpoint does matter, although we might not share it.
It was, by the way, just the catholic church's closed-mindedness (gay-bashing among it) that made me "quit".

Are you saying, (A) that the Old Testament is or is not the "old covenent;" and (B) therefore we are or are not any longer under it's dispensation?

I don't get (A). I thought "old convenant" was just another term for "old testament".
As for (B): I'm an atheist, I don't believe in god, the bible is just a (albeit very influential) book. In the strict sense, it has no jurisdiction whatsoever to me. Yet, the bible is the base for western ethics, I agree with western ethics and therefore I *generally* accept the bible as a source for ethics. I believe that the idea of not-hitting-that-guy-over-there-because-you-like-his-wife (or boyfriend :-)) is very good indeed. That's all. I'm not familiar with the old testament in great detail. For all I know it might be crap, I just assumed it wasn't.

Again, in none of those ten commandments is faggotry listed as a sin.

Exactly. And more: I suspect that one cannot base any arguement against homosexuality on the bible without abusing it in the process (e.g. ignoring what I thought to be the "general tenor"). That was my whole point.

Frustrating as it might be ;-) I believe to completely agree with everything you've written.

'Repent, Harlequin!' said the Ticktockman. 'Get stuffed!' the Harlequin replied, sneering.