Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Curious, to see if Christianity is the only one against it.

In my religion, we don't restrict how people love each other.

My religion thinks it is a very good thing. But htey souldn't have children.

All the Abrahamic Religions (Judism, Christianity, and Islam) are against homosexuality by scripture, however, there are members of those religions that aren't against it.

And why?

Originally posted by Alliance
And why?
Are you talking to me?

Yes.

Because the world is overpopulated already.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Because the world is overpopulated already.


Your point is that the world is overpopulated, so people who can't have children without effort shouldn't have kids? Not only is that not a problem, but it's irrelevent.


I've never met a gay man that accidentally got pregnant, much less a gay woman.

Straight people need to stop breeding. Not only would that be much more effective on the population issue, but there would be less gay people too.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Because the world is overpopulated already.

So no one should have children?

Originally posted by Alliance
So no one should have children?
I think very few people should have children. those who have the genetic, moral, personal, and intelligent capacity to create the best possible human.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I think very few people should have children. those who have the genetic, moral, personal, and intelligent capacity to create the best possible human.

You've not read too many books or seen very many episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation, have you?

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
You've not read too many books or seen very many episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation, have you?
Read plenty of books... haven't seen many star trek episodes.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Read plenty of books... haven't seen many star trek episodes.

it was just a joke, no need for panty twisting.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I think very few people should have children. those who have the genetic, moral, personal, and intelligent capacity to create the best possible human.

Sounds like someone has a bad case of eugenics.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I think very few people should have children. those who have the genetic, moral, personal, and intelligent capacity to create the best possible human.
Hitler would love you...

Great, great. The ol' "Reductio ad Hitlerum". I marvel at your debating skill.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Great, great. The ol' "Reductio ad Hitlerum". I marvel at your debating skill.

Okay... Who would be the authority on genetic approval for procreation.

Originally posted by Alliance
Sounds like someone has a bad case of eugenics. I'm going to play Devil's advocate (metaphorically) and say eugenics is not always unethical.

Nukes aren't always deadly.




Define unethical.

Originally posted by Bardiel13
All the Abrahamic Religions (Judism, Christianity, and Islam) are against homosexuality by scripture, however, there are members of those religions that aren't against it.

I am jewish and my religion like you said is against gays because of the bible.That should give a hint on why it is wrong.jm

The negative connotation of the term eugenics is largely due to it's association with Nazi Germany's actions. I'm thinking more along the lines of preimplantation genetic screening for recognized disease. Huntington's, myotonic dystrophy, cystic fibrosis.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I'm thinking more along the lines of preimplantation genetic screening for recognized disease. Huntington's, myotonic dystrophy, cystic fibrosis.

Sounds expensive.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
The negative connotation of the term eugenics is largely due to it's association with Nazi Germany's actions. I'm thinking more along the lines of preimplantation genetic screening for recognized disease. Huntington's, myotonic dystrophy, cystic fibrosis.

Nazis employed negative eugenics, (the elimination of "lesser" factions). THis is in stark contrast to positive eugenics, which encourages breeding of "superior" individuals.

Neither one really had any rationale.

Screening is different. YOu know the child's diseases ahead of time and you cna treat them upon birth (PKU etc). It only becomes eugenics is you encourage the creation or elimination of individuals based on their inherent genetic characteristics.

Preimplantation genetic screening can often lead to the decistion to terminate pregnancy.

Yes, and that is an eugenic issue. One that will likely only become more prevalent in future years.

Eugenenics is not a bad thing. One just has to know how to use it. Which may sound hypocritical...

Eugenics is controled Evolution. It isn't unethical if you don't make it so.

Originally posted by King Kandy
My religion thinks it is a very good thing. But htey souldn't have children.

Homosexuals cannot have thier own children. You're claim is irrelevant.



Originally posted by King Kandy
Because the world is overpopulated already.

1) Homosexuality helps limit the population

2) So then the children who have no parents should be adopted by homosexuals who can't have kids. Would you rather let the children die off ?

Letting lab-coats and the goverment dictate evolution through eugenics would be a disaster. You can't put parameters on life, it's doomed to fail.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
I am jewish and my religion like you said is against gays because of the bible.That should give a hint on why it is wrong.jm

It's only wrong according to your religion, which is contains no factual basis whatsoever.

And don't you read the Torah ? Why do you read the whole Bible, when the Old Testament is the only text that intentionally applies to the Jews ?

Hoe many gay marriage threads do we need?

Originally posted by Alliance
Hoe many gay marriage threads do we need?

That's why we turned this one into a eugenics thread.

oh....silly me.

Originally posted by Jim Reaper
Letting lab-coats and the goverment dictate evolution through eugenics would be a disaster. You can't put parameters on life, it's doomed to fail.
Easiest thing in the world. It worked for breeding dogs. It'll work for breeding men.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Easiest thing in the world. It worked for breeding dogs. It'll work for breeding men.

A dog has the luxury of being indifferent. This is not a concept the majority would stand behind... It's for elitist. You can't control everything, let evolution take its course. Life will find a way regardless, you can't restrict it.

Humanity stopped letting evolution take its course with the invention of medicine.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Humanity stopped letting evolution take its course with the invention of medicine.

I don't dispute the method, but "free will" is a factor that won't be denied. The power of creation won't be denied by anyone, regardless of their IQ or genetics.

Originally posted by Jim Reaper
I don't dispute the method, but "free will" is a factor that won't be denied. The power of creation won't be denied by anyone, regardless of their IQ or genetics.
Current humanity is wiping itself out, And it is to indifferent to do anything about it. The only hope is to change humanity itself.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Current humanity is wiping itself out, And it is to indifferent to do anything about it. The only hope is to change humanity itself.

It's a radical concept. It's basically genocide, and not the answer IMO.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Easiest thing in the world. It worked for breeding dogs. It'll work for breeding men.

Believe me it didn't work for dogs. And the Irish Setter is living proof of that. It was bred for its fur and I think its brain activity might have suffered. My aunt had one and it jumped off a fifty foot sea wall three times.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Humanity stopped letting evolution take its course with the invention of medicine.


You don't think War interfered with Natural Evolution long before ?

No.

The only thing that interferred with human's natural evolition was our ability to deliberately change our environment.

Originally posted by Alliance
No.

The only thing that interferred with human's natural evolition was our ability to deliberately change our environment.
Technoligy is the anti-evolution force.

It worked for dogs. The only reason dogs are no longer wolves is that we bred them for tameness.

Originally posted by Alliance

What's so funny?

Originally posted by Jim Reaper
Life will find a way regardless, you can't restrict it. Originally posted by Jim Reaper
You can't put parameters on life, it's doomed to fail. Too much Jurassic Park, eh?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Technoligy is the anti-evolution force.

It worked for dogs. The only reason dogs are no longer wolves is that we bred them for tameness. Was it man, or did the wolves control this? The more tame wolves drifted near the humans, showed a tame attitude and were allowed to eat scraps, the more wild ones in the group died due to lack of food, natural evolution led to tame dogs because a tame dog was more suitable for proximity to man than a wild one was. Now variations on the tame dog were often controlled by man, thus the genetic problems in pure bred animals. Eugenics only has scientific problems if the population used is too small and lacking in genetic diversity. Given a larger population such is irrelevant as long as you allow the unfit breeders to breed amongst themselves and from time to time adequate specimens are added to the desired population to broaden the gene pool some.

I am not pro eugenics, but such is practiced today. We place criminals in prison, extending the sentence dependant on the crime, we are in effect limiting the possibility that these individuals are reproducing. We nearly unanimously avoid procreating with those we find unattractive physically and behaviorally, and discourage our acquaintances from procreating with such individuals as well. It is a mild form, but it exists.

Yeah. The most successful organisms today are those attached to humans - wheat, barley, dogs, cats, domesticated animals etc. . . . . scary thought for me.

Originally posted by Regret
I am not pro eugenics, but such is practiced today. We place criminals in prison, extending the sentence dependant on the crime, we are in effect limiting the possibility that these individuals are reproducing. We nearly unanimously avoid procreating with those we find unattractive physically and behaviorally, and discourage our acquaintances from procreating with such individuals as well. It is a mild form, but it exists.

However, things like sexual preference are not eugenics. ALL species have sex selected characteristics. Eugenics is outside of nature. I would argue that sexual attraction is as much as genetic construct as an imprinted one.

Eugenics is applied on a more societal level. Capital punishment is eugenics, but imprisonment doesn't stop or encourage anyone from procreating in the long run.

I see your point, but I think you give to too mcuh weight.

Originally posted by Alliance
However, things like sexual preference are not eugenics. ALL species have sex selected characteristics. Eugenics is outside of nature. I would argue that sexual attraction is as much as genetic construct as an imprinted one.

Eugenics is applied on a more societal level. Capital punishment is eugenics, but imprisonment doesn't stop or encourage anyone from procreating in the long run.

I see your point, but I think you give to too mcuh weight. According to Francis Galton, the functional psychologist who coined the phrase, eugenics is merely to encouragement birth of the more eminent or fit individual and the discouragement birth of the unfit, my description does fit this. It is often used to refer to an extreme in this concept, but the definition is fairly universal in nature. Galton was a rather interesting individual regardless of his eugenic streak. Eugenics is merely a more extreme end of the curve in perception of acceptable qualities in a proper mate, and other's mates. Imprisonment does limit the possibility of that individual's probability of reproduction, and the social ramifications do typically discourage the likelihood of future reproduction. I am not speaking solely to a person's individual preferences, I am also referring to the approval and disapproval of other individual's choices in possible mates. When you dislike your friend's girlfriend, if you let him know and thus you are discouraging the reproduction of that woman's traits. Any action encouraging or discouraging mating between two individuals other than oneself is a severely mild form of eugenics.

Originally posted by Regret
Too much Jurassic Park, eh?

Yeah...

Originally posted by Regret
According to Francis Galton, the functional psychologist who coined the phrase, eugenics is merely to encouragement birth of the more eminent or fit individual and the discouragement birth of the unfit, my description does fit this. It is often used to refer to an extreme in this concept, but the definition is fairly universal in nature. Galton was a rather interesting individual regardless of his eugenic streak. Eugenics is merely a more extreme end of the curve in perception of acceptable qualities in a proper mate, and other's mates. Imprisonment does limit the possibility of that individual's probability of reproduction, and the social ramifications do typically discourage the likelihood of future reproduction. I am not speaking solely to a person's individual preferences, I am also referring to the approval and disapproval of other individual's choices in possible mates. When you dislike your friend's girlfriend, if you let him know and thus you are discouraging the reproduction of that woman's traits. Any action encouraging or discouraging mating between two individuals other than oneself is a severely mild form of eugenics.
Very informative. I hold the position that Eugenics is simply a way to get a certain result out of Evolution.

Technoligy blocks evolution, but Eugenics can circumvent this.

Originally posted by Regret
According to Francis Galton, the functional psychologist who coined the phrase, eugenics is merely to encouragement birth of the more eminent or fit individual and the discouragement birth of the unfit, my description does fit this. It is often used to refer to an extreme in this concept, but the definition is fairly universal in nature. Galton was a rather interesting individual regardless of his eugenic streak. Eugenics is merely a more extreme end of the curve in perception of acceptable qualities in a proper mate, and other's mates. Imprisonment does limit the possibility of that individual's probability of reproduction, and the social ramifications do typically discourage the likelihood of future reproduction. I am not speaking solely to a person's individual preferences, I am also referring to the approval and disapproval of other individual's choices in possible mates. When you dislike your friend's girlfriend, if you let him know and thus you are discouraging the reproduction of that woman's traits. Any action encouraging or discouraging mating between two individuals other than oneself is a severely mild form of eugenics.

Then define the line between evolution and eugenics.

Originally posted by Alliance
Then define the line between evolution and eugenics.
Evolution is when the process happens naturally, Eugenics is when the species that's evolving calls the shots.

Originally posted by Regret
Any action encouraging or discouraging mating between two individuals other than oneself is a severely mild form of eugenics.

I understand, and it makes sense, but I am not convinced.

I grew up being taught that being Gay was not only disgusting, but wrong, "evil", and made you somehow less of a person....

I was never given any encouragement or positive regard for Gay people by any one of my influences...

Yet, I'm pretty Gay today, aren't I ?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I understand, and it makes sense, but I am not convinced.

I grew up being taught that being Gay was not only disgusting, but wrong, "evil", and made you somehow less of a person....

I was never given any encouragement or positive regard for Gay people by any one of my influences...

Yet, I'm pretty Gay today, aren't I ?
Then it didn't work. Mild forms don't always work. The more mild something is, the less effective it is, generally.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Then it didn't work. Mild forms don't always work. The more mild something is, the less effective it is, generally.

Mild, eh ?



Does this sound mild to you?


1) Having your parents comment how disgusting Gay people are

2) Having your freinds comment how disgusting Gay people are

3) Having your Church comment how evil Gay people are

4) Being beaten up repeatedly because I "acted" Gay

5) Having freinds abandon you after finding out my sexuality

6) Having my parents constantly try to get me to "look" and "act" more like a "real man"


Now....imagine all this occuring for 18 years......



Tell me that is STILL MILD


I am getting FED UP with this common Ignorance.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen

6) Having my parents constantly try to get me to "look" and "act" more like a "real man"

Real men naturally like the company of other real men. Nothing like a sweaty game of football before returning to the steamy showers for some real men bonding.

The comedians have it right.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Mild, eh ?



Does this sound mild to you?


1) Having your parents comment how disgusting Gay people are

2) Having your freinds comment how disgusting Gay people are

3) Having your Church comment how evil Gay people are

4) Being beaten up repeatedly because I "acted" Gay

5) Having freinds abandon you after finding out my sexuality

6) Having my parents constantly try to get me to "look" and "act" more like a "real man"


Now....imagine all this occuring for 18 years......



Tell me that is STILL MILD


I am getting FED UP with this common Ignorance.
This is mild. The "Un-Mild" form is more like the holocaust.


...Very mild in comparrison.

Originally posted by King Kandy
This is mild. The "Un-Mild" form is more like the holocaust.


...Very mild in comparrison.
I'm not so sure of that. Rejection by one's family and friends is so much more personal and hurtful. The Holocaust was more painful maybe, but it was more confusing and impersonal. Rejection is one of the greatest evils in this world. I personally find physical pain dismissible when compared to deep emotional and spiritual pain. Please, don't be ignorant of that.

Its all a matter of perception. Physical pain is much easier to block out, but it can easily take over your higher thinking capabilities.

You honestly think one person being estranged from his connections to be worse then the mass genocides?

Originally posted by Alliance
Its all a matter of perception. Physical pain is much easier to block out, but it can easily take over your higher thinking capabilities.
Somewhat. But pain is fleeting. It comes and goes.
Originally posted by King Kandy
You honestly think one person being estranged from his connections to be worse then the mass genocides?
I think one person would be better off exposed to the horrors of Holocaust than being rejected by his family and friends.
I have many ideas on the psychological effects of the Holocaust and how many of them may have been worse, but such effects were not the necessarily the Nazi's main intent. Rejection is intentional. I don't want to argue which is worse, but it is important to understand that the conditions Urizen posted are not mild and definitely not very mild.

Originally posted by King Kandy
You honestly think one person being estranged from his connections to be worse then the mass genocides?

In some cases. You can speak to a psychologist and they will give you figures about the number of people they deal with in a bad way due to childhood matters - including that estranging, but at the same time you can see many victims of the Holocaust overcome it, grew from it, even used it as a source of strength to set about seeing it would never happen again.

The impact on the individual varies, but remarkably it is the little, personal things that get stuck and, like grit in a oyster, build up into a pearl of... well, unpleasantness.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Somewhat. But pain is fleeting. It comes and goes.

I think that can just as easily applie to emotional and mental pain.

Whoever decided to bring up the holocaust is only slightly more ridiculous than all the people who are arguing about it.

http://www.bordergatewayprotocol.net/jon/humor/images/lollercaust.gif

Originally posted by Alliance
http://www.bordergatewayprotocol.net/jon/humor/images/lollercaust.gif

Are those people being killed by "lol"'s? Laughing themeslves to death it seems.

Though to be honest I dislike "leet" grammar, so lets use eugenics on thos people who lol and ROFL and HAXOR and the rest.

1334 is amusing. It has its uses, but is basically a bunch of useless nerd trying to be cyberpunk.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
In some cases. You can speak to a psychologist and they will give you figures about the number of people they deal with in a bad way due to childhood matters - including that estranging, but at the same time you can see many victims of the Holocaust overcome it, grew from it, even used it as a source of strength to set about seeing it would never happen again.

The impact on the individual varies, but remarkably it is the little, personal things that get stuck and, like grit in a oyster, build up into a pearl of... well, unpleasantness.
You are right. Bitterness is often a result. I deal with family issues of resentment all the time. Childhood rejection is way to common for the amount of pain it causes.
Originally posted by Alliance
I think that can just as easily applie to emotional and mental pain.
Sometimes. But emotional pain has such more subconscious influence and is more likely to linger and turn into bitterness and resentment.

If its a subconscious influence, how are you perceiving its effects? (not personally, but as a general observation)

Originally posted by Alliance
If its a subconscious influence, how are you perceiving its effects? (not personally, but as a general observation)
Others can see changes in people. I have seen many people discover things about other people and therefore avoid them without even knowing that they are doing it. Some people grow apart because of emotional sufferring despite that fact that they have forgiven each other. Forgive and forget is a true rarity in real life which is not necessarily a bad thing, but sometimes it prevents healing.

That still doesn't indicate a subconsicous influence.

I thought forgiveness was one of THE central pillars of Christianity. The words of Christ have been perverted indeed if it is not anymore.

Yes it does.

Yes, forgiveness is central to Christianity. I don't remember saying otherwise.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Yes it does.

How?

Originally posted by Nellinator
Yes, forgiveness is central to Christianity. I don't remember saying otherwise.

I'm tired and I guess I just misinterpreted our statement. My intepretation does not make sense to me now.

Originally posted by Alliance
How?

I'm tired and I guess I just misinterpreted our statement. My intepretation does not make sense to me now.

You might find that subconscious effects are shown most often in behavior, not in speech and thought. Behavior is often effected by underlying feelings and thoughts that are often not rational (ie. blind hatred). They often start out as conscious feelings (ie. after a fight) and then disappear from conscious thought (ie. speech), but the effects of these feelings remain because the problems have not been resolved.

Originally posted by Alliance
1334 is amusing. It has its uses, but is basically a bunch of useless nerd trying to be cyberpunk.

And few things are worse then bad Cyberpunk.

Maybe I am just bitter about the way people talk on Counter Strike while I type full sentances with actual grammar on my side (ok, when I do play, which isn't often, I don't talk much.) Though the "All your bases are belong to us" made me laugh.

Originally posted by Alliance
No.

The only thing that interferred with human's natural evolition was our ability to deliberately change our environment.

Environment is always changed through WAR.

Originally posted by King Kandy
This is mild. The "Un-Mild" form is more like the holocaust.


...Very mild in comparrison.

So you think I should get sent to a concentration camp to make me straight ?

It might work...kinda extreme...but it may work. I am sure most Christians would have no problem with that solution.

Judaism and homosexuality
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/05/jerusalem.gaypride.ap/index.html?eref=rss_world

Jews can also be gay? This is a definite sign of the "End Times"... What's next, gay Christians!? Oh wait...

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
So you think I should get sent to a concentration camp to make me straight ?

It might work...kinda extreme...but it may work. I am sure most Christians would have no problem with that solution.
I would definitely have a problem with it.

Originally posted by Nellinator
I would definitely have a problem with it.

Why? Scared of sharing a room with Urizen in the camp?

Originally posted by Robtard
Why? Scared of sharing a room with Urizen in the camp?
Why would I be?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
So you think I should get sent to a concentration camp to make me straight ?

It might work...kinda extreme...but it may work. I am sure most Christians would have no problem with that solution.
Thanks. That really was funny. Lightened the mood. But really, most Christians would probably have a lot of problems with that... They're not Nazis.

Originally posted by King Kandy
... They're not Nazis.

They just play them on TV.

Yeah. Fundamentalists just use the same tactics as a historical joke.

The same tactics, at a lower level.

It often seems like its not a lower level. Hitler didn't immediately implement he policies of industrialized murder.

Hitler blamed gays, Jews, gypsies, and other for the problems of Germany, not that different from gays, liberals, and intellectuals blamed by the Christian radicals.

Both groups sought the elimination of these groups and practiced hate against them, using IDEOLOGY to desire a new system of government.

Both were obsessive about your recruiting, about blinding children with their ideology from a young age.

Both are very nationalist, with Christian fundamentlaists, claimin the US is a Christian nation and that Christian mythology and doctrine should form the basis of law, even circumventing the Constitution.

Luckily, the US is not in the crisis Germany was in 1933. We have a strong resistance to conservative Christian idoelogues. There are a LOT of similarites, but currently, the fundamentlaists are not as extreme as the Third Reich. However, "God's army" is a new step towards that direction.

Oh, please. The Religious right has been using those tactics for 200 years, and they've NEVER gone to industrialized murder.

They've certainly gone to war. And please note that whilst Religion was in total control, there was never any industrializations.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Oh, please. The Religious right has been using those tactics for 200 years, and they've NEVER gone to industrialized murder.

In the past 200 years there is no record of mass murder on the part of the Christian Churches. Atleast not directly.

However, throughout history there are records of mass murder being a direct act from Christian Foundation:

- Salem Witch Trials

- Near Native American Genocide

- Spanish Inquistion

- Crusades

Originally posted by Nellinator
I would definitely have a problem with it.

Okay. That was an unfair claim I made, and it is not what I literally meant. I know you would be one of the first people to oppose that.

I was talking about people like Shirley Phelps Roper, and perhaps even people like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Ann Coulter.

I am sure that secretly they will gain some kind of pleasure out of my total destruction.

Seeing as how Jerry Falwell equated "Gay Pride" with "Murderer's Pride"

There are certainly christians who would enjoy it. But I don't think nearly as many as you originaly implied.

You know, I haven't heard Ann Coulter's obnoxious voice during this election. Maybe she burst into flames.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
You know, I haven't heard Ann Coulter's obnoxious voice during this election. Maybe she burst into flames.

My god. The last thing is wanted to see was Ann Coulter. I'm now leaving this thread. Thanks for ruining my afternoon.

What a moron.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Okay. That was an unfair claim I made, and it is not what I literally meant. I know you would be one of the first people to oppose that.

I was talking about people like Shirley Phelps Roper, and perhaps even people like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Ann Coulter.

I am sure that secretly they will gain some kind of pleasure out of my total destruction.

Seeing as how Jerry Falwell equated "Gay Pride" with "Murderer's Pride"
Phelps Roger would probably throw gas on the fire to burn your homosexual existence from the world faster... I wonder if she has ever thought about why she believes what she believes. I wonder she does not realize that Jesus would never support the idiotic things she does.

Originally posted by Alliance
My god. The last thing is wanted to see was Ann Coulter. I'm now leaving this thread. Thanks for ruining my afternoon.

Every time I see her face it seems to lend more and more support to certain peoples claims that there are malevolent lizard people masquerading as semi-humans.

Ann Coulter is proof there is no God.

Holy balls, she needs some serious work done. I guess I owe my friend an apology about him saying she looked like a night hag.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Holy balls, she needs some serious work done. I guess I owe my friend an apology about him saying she looked like a night hag.

I'd say "worse then" a night hag.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Phelps Roger would probably throw gas on the fire to burn your homosexual existence from the world faster... I wonder if she has ever thought about why she believes what she believes. I wonder she does not realize that Jesus would never support the idiotic things she does.


You're probably right. She's be cleansing this world of my "abomination" of an existance


Unfortunately, Jesus might not approve of what many many many Christians preach.

I also beleive that Jesus would not approve of much of what is written in the Bible...like he already stated he was against the "Eye for an Eye" theory of justice.

What many Christians fail to realize is that Jesus wasn't fulfilling the Old Testament...he was, quite in fact, reforming it. He was trying to teach Love and Unity in a time where savagry was highly common.

Much of what he teaches parallels along the lines of Buddhism..obviously, the difference being Buddha did not beleive in a soul, but in Transmigration while Jesus beleived in a God and a Heaven.....

I do not see why people find it so hard that an Athiest or Agnostic, or EVEN A CHRISTIAN, can admire, respect, and follow Christ without necessarily beleiving his claim to divinity.

Jesus Christ was a very smart and great man..like others in History. Why is it so wrong to see him that way ? Why is it necessary that we all beleive his absolute infallibility, especially when there is no proof of such claim.

I would argue that Jesus did fulfill a lot of things. The new covenant, the passover lamb, a descendant of David, the right time, etc. By fulfilling the Law Jesus was able to make it better.

However, your point stands. Jesus rocks. Ghandi respected Jesus so much that he once said he would become a Christian if he ever found a Christian that followed Christ... Once again showing why I hate hypocrisy so much.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Every time I see her face it seems to lend more and more support to certain peoples claims that there are malevolent lizard people masquerading as semi-humans.

Ann Coulter is proof there is no God.

I disagree. Thats a long leap. However, Ann Coulter might be proof of hell on earth.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Every time I see her face it seems to lend more and more support to certain peoples claims that there are malevolent lizard people masquerading as semi-humans.

Ann Coulter is proof there is no God.
She's proof god is malevolent.

Not really. Its just as possible that she is a creation if the Christian devil as the Christian god. Assuming you buy into the mythology of course.

Originally posted by Alliance
Not really. Its just as possible that she is a creation if the Christian devil as the Christian god. Assuming you buy into the mythology of course.

But then again Christians enjoy saying Satan has no power beyond influence - so she must be his student (or, alternativly, some form of demon in human form.)

meh..maybe she's the anti-christ

Originally posted by Alliance
meh..maybe she's the Antichrist

A pretty sucky one though - the Antichrist is meant to be charismatic.

Yeah.

What I always loved about the Left Behind series is that the Anti-Christ becomes Secretary General of the UN. Think there is a little bit of Christian politics in there?

If Gay Marriage is legal, what about Gay Divorce?

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
A pretty sucky one though - the Antichrist is meant to be charismatic.
She's the Anti-Antichrist.

Originally posted by King Kandy
She's the Anti-Antichrist. antidisestablishmentarianism.

No.