How Gay are you?

Yep. I agree.

(There's a first time for everything. )

WHAT?!?!?!?!?!?!

Yeah, and you'll notice that I do think some people are born with a predisposition. It's still a choice, however. I'm born with a predisposition to stuff my face with food...I'm not going to blame anyone but myself when I do, though. Stuffing my face is still something I CHOOSE to do.

Do you have a choice in how tall you will be, or the color of your eyes, or the coarseness of your hair? Of course not. A person has a choice whether or not to have sex but homosexuals have no more a choice in who they're attracted to as heterosexuals do. There are heterosexuals who abstain from sex but they're still heterosexuals. You're trying to compare actions with who you are. A very bad comparison.

Science is based on that, but science is not, forgive the pun, an exact science. Every 100 years we can look back, and think "Boy, I can't believe we used to believe that! How absurd." Every single one of us will die believing something false that is widely accepted because of scientific experiments.

Religion isn't exact anything but myth and fairy tale. Science uses methodology based on observeable and measureable fact. Science is always moving forward with improved instruments and technologies, proving and disproving more each day while religion stands on the status quo, thumping the bible until "religious facts" are disproven by science and discarded by society. I actually find it quite funny that you would point out science history because it's religion more than anything else on the face of the earth that has attempted to control science for the sake of maintaining ignorance in order to keep control of the masses. Religion has historically been afraid of science and it's still afraid of it.

Can't be serious? Are YOU? Are you somehow implying that there's a lifestyle of guide to life that does not require faith? Balderdash, my friend. If you place all of your trust in modern science, you're putting a lot of FAITH into it, because odds alone say some of it is going to flat out wrong, and still more is going to be flawed, and thus, improved some time after your death, and therefore will lead to different conclusions.

I really don't know what the heck you're talking about here. I place trust in what can be proven and observed. Do I have faith when some science journal says some planet 50 billion light years away has life on it, well that's pretty low on my faith meter but when that same science journal says I could die of a heart attack if my cholesterol is high, yeah, I have faith in that pretty much. I have faith that the world will keep spinning, the sun isn't the center of the universe, and that the world isn't flat like religion would have had us all believe at one time. I don't need to have faith in omnipotent beings in order to live my life happily and know certain things about my world. Whether or not my "knowing" these certain things about my world is sufficient for you is not really my concern because I'm not pushing my beliefs on the world in the way that your religion does.

You obviously didn't stop to think about what you were saying for very long. If there is NO God, what is right and wrong? They're opinions. There is no absolute right and wrong. Rape isn't wrong...you just probably think it is. There's no TRUE right and wrong. That's a fact...and that's what I said. 5 x 5 = 25? Prove it. You can't. Without some God, or some Being that gives things absolute truths, and absolute meanings and purposes, everything is chaos...everything is subjective, and nothing has any true meaning...we only have popular definitions, and popular opinion...nothing more. This is the most basic of logical conclusions.

This is really where the arrogance of Christianity comes to play. After all, the American Indian never knew right from wrong until Christians showed up with their God and taught the savages about Jesus. The poor uncivilized bastards. Why don't you step out of your present day life and think about the history of the world. Do you seriously mean to tell me that your God and few thousand year old religion is needed for societies to tell right from wrong. You don't think a society of citizens could make up a list of norms/laws to keep an orderly society without your God? I guess that would be news to thousands of civilizations that came before Christianity, not to mention the religions like Buddhism that don't believe in a God. You would do well to refrain from claiming absolutes if you're only basis to substantiate them is that God said so or it's in the Bible. I'm not 6 years old and I don't fall for the "because I said so" gag anymore.

Ha. The religious? What, you mean people who say they're doing God's work? If you're going to hold me accountable for a bunch of misguided Christians, then I'm going to hold you accountable for a bunch of misguided atheists. That list would be a hell of a long list of crimes, as well. The validity of a belief should not be measured mostly by whether or not some of it's followers have done horrible things...if you handled things that way, no belief would be appropriate...no belief of any kind. When you have millions (or billions, in the case of Christianity) who believe something, some of them are going to be nutbags. It amazes me how people will just blurt something without substance out because it sounds good.

Uh, you are the one proclaiming that your God gives you the meaning of what is absolute right and wrong. Religion has done some horrible things? That's the understatement of all time. You want some substance? Ever heard of the Inquisition? The Crusades? How about the Holocaust? That's a pretty dirty, substantive list.

And if someone never has sex with a man, they can still be called a homosexual? Where's your line drawn? What if they hug one? Kiss one? How far does it have to go? The fact of the matter is that you, like everyone else, is clueless when it comes to genetic dispositions and what constitutes what. Yet another reason not to put all your faith in science: because we're not as smart as some people think we are. We've got a hell of a lot to learn.

Do you think celibate monks are "unaware" of their sexuality? Please man... just because you don't engage in sex doesn't mean you don't know what sex you're attracted to. You seem to want to quibble with the definition of sexualities. Were you without a sexuality until you had sex? Of course not.

Maybe they're scared that he'd find the gene. There's no need to dance around it. I'm not going to let you try and hold me accountable for other screwjobs...not unless you're willing to let me do the same to you (I don't think you'd like that).

I hold every religion accountable for what it does. My particular beliefs aren't supported or actively up held by organized groups, secular governments, tax free churches, or the religious right. If you want to hold me accountable for my beliefs, I got no problem with that. Everyone is accountable for what they believe.

Are you kidding me? So, when I say that there's no evidence either way, and I don't think they're born that way, I'm putting all my faith in my religion...but when they come to the opposite conclusion under the same circumstances, you have no ill words? Very consistent. Other than being gay and talking from the being gay doesn't tell you jack about what role your genes play in it. Humans can't perceive things like that about themselves so easily. Most people do not know whether they have a hot temper because of genes or upbringing for sure. That's not a notable advantage at all.

They have first hand knowledge of their sexuality, what do you have other than your bible? Nothing. It's not whether gays know whether or not genes play a role in their sexuality, it's whether or not they are "qualified" to speak from experience when they say they have had homosexual tendencies as far back as they could remember which would suggest that they were born that way.

Never forget this much: you put faith in external things as much, if not more, than I do. Your faith is in man...or in science, or in yourself alone. Mine, while in many places, lies mostly in The Bible, and Jesus Christ. This world came about one way or another...and science has not been able to explain it. We simply cannot explain how something came from nothing.

Nah, I have faith in the order of the universe, cause and effect, and what I can observe and measure. You think I have faith because I believe the sun will rise tomorrow and I'll tell you it's been rising every day for a few billion years so it's not exactly faith but rather as close to fact as you can get that causes me to believe it will rise tomorrow.

Let me ask you two questions (please, just Timing here):

1) Do you believe in evolution? Macro evolution, specifically.

Sure I believe in evolution but I don't think we have all the pieces of the puzzle yet. One day maybe...

2) What would you think if we sent a team to Jupiter tomorrow, and found a red block made of stone, smooth and square, just sitting there? Honestly.

I know nothing about Jupiter so I would probably walk right by it. lol If it were a red block made of stone, smooth, square, with latin inscriptions then that might peak my interest.

Well this takes too damn long to write all this stuff but good discussion. When they find the gay gene I'll come back and tell ya I told ya so!

Later

That paragraph is nothing but rhetoric, so there's no point in my addressing it...you're simply saying "I think they don't have a choice."

You're not thinking clearly...religion? Meaning what? Meaning HUMANS who try to follow God, and constantly fail? You have no logical reason to hold me to what other supposed followers do, anymore than I have the right to hold you accountable for the sins of others with your set of beliefs.

Science is always moving forward, and always correcting itself...which means that it's always making mistakes that it has to fix. Right now you and I believe things, because of science, that are not true. That's a simple fact...and it will always be a simple fact. Science is about a lot of things, and one of them is trial and error. I am NOT some fool who thinks science is evil, but I am not going to place my faith in it, knowing full well that it's just going to reform again in 100 years. Not a good thing to place much faith in.

There you go again. Are you incapable of differentiating between idiots and normal, peaceful religious people? No, of course not...because if you don't lump it all together, your argument is significantly weaker...so you have to resort to that. That's a shame. By the way, organized religion did not LEAD the "the world is flat" campaign. They were simply one of the many, many groups that agreed with it. A lot of people did.

Wow, I was sure you'd pay attention, but apparently not. If you want to preach about science and observation, I suggest you look into logic as well.

It's this simple: if there is no higher power at all...no life force, no Jesus, no God of any sort...just matter, and nothing that takes responsibility for creating it, then right and wrong ARE MYTHS. They are not real things...they are basically defined by popular opinion...and nothing more. This is something you cannot get around...it is a highly simple logical conclusion that I KNOW you can understand if you just bother to.

If there is no God, then who can say that rape is wrong? No one. I can just say "No it isn't." And what can you say? It's all opinion, after-all. But if we have a "boss," someone who sets the rules, absolutes are then possible. So no, I didn't say people can't make up their own rules of right and wrong...but they won't be anything more than opinions. I'm more than happy to argue with you, but argue HONESTLY...which means no jumping to outrageous conclucions (things I never said) and then dismissing them.

This, I think, says a lot about you. Were you by any chance raised in a Christian home? I will not refrain from claiming absolutes, because I believe in The Bible. My point is that someone with no belief in any higher power has no claim to absolutes at all...by definition, they cannot have them, and all those horrible things you like to yell at idiots of the past for, become not wrong...just something you THINK is wrong.

Yes, The Bible tells us what is right and wrong. Did you read my post, or what? Give me one logical reason as to why I, or The Bible, should be held responsible for people doing things in it's name that it does not teach. Just one. What if I go kill someone in your name, and someone got angry at YOU for it? That's what you're essentially doing here. For someone who speaks of science, you're not making much sense.

I asked you questions...apparently you weren't interested in answering them. Sexuality? How the heck are you supposed to measure something like that? This is all murky stuff, and yet you think you've got it all nailed down? Forgive me if I'm skeptical.

See, that's not what you're doing. You're essentially talking trash about a "religion" -- it's not even a tangible thing. It is not a person, or a building, or even God. That's ALL you can attack...The Bible does not suggest such horrible things (like I said, look into the murders of the secular world sometimes, if you want to go on about that), God does not suggest that we burn witches as the stake...if you want to talk about them, talk about those people. And if you want to talk about those people, do elsewhere, because it has nothing to do with the teachings of Christianity, or me.

You're not listening. Even if they had a tendency early on, it could easily be just that: a tendency. That doesn't mean that they must succumb to it.

Um, this particular belief is not really contingent on The Bible...regardless of The Bible, I think homosexuality is unnatural. Again, you're making some assumptions here.

Hey, I believe it too...but when you choose not to believe in a God, you are putting your faith in something else. And yes, it is FAITH.

I'm being serious: what would you think of it? What you logically conclude upon seeing it, assuming you were one of the people on the planet? I'm serious about this: smooth red stone, nearly perfectly square. We'll say 10 feet by 10 feet...just sitting there. What would you think about that?

Christianity in itself does not "push or pressure" others or beat/guilt/terrorize/soothe them into submission. However - much has been done in it's stead or by people who practice it - as with most religions - to do just that. so no, i don't blame the religion. no, i don't blame christians. i trust a christian such as yourself much more, however, and am much more willing to listen to you, than I am a rabid bible thumper. it's all in the delivery. if you sit down rationally with me and tell me how you disagree without saying I am less of a person or clueless as a person because I disagree, then, I can let things that feel "pressure-like" slide and recognize you aren't out to change me or force things on me but simply wish to lead me down your lane of logic and IF I understand - you and I are happy. if I AGREE - of course you're happier and assuming I am converted then of course I'd be happy to have been converted. though I doubt that I'd agree. and i'm sure you feel similarly about the views I spout.

onward ...

It's this simple: if there is no higher power at all...no life force, no Jesus, no God of any sort...just matter, and nothing that takes responsibility for creating it, then right and wrong ARE MYTHS. They are not real things...they are basically defined by popular opinion...and nothing more. This is something you cannot get around...it is a highly simple logical conclusion that I KNOW you can understand if you just bother to.

If there is no God, then who can say that rape is wrong? No one. I can just say "No it isn't." And what can you say? It's all opinion, after-all. But if we have a "boss," someone who sets the rules, absolutes are then possible. So no, I didn't say people can't make up their own rules of right and wrong...but they won't be anything more than opinions. I'm more than happy to argue with you, but argue HONESTLY...which means no jumping to outrageous conclucions (things I never said) and then dismissing them.

though i disagree with timing on the nature of religion and agree with Chris on the fallibility of "absolute science" (or rather, flexibility), i do disagree with you, Chris, regarding the nature of morality (right and wrong).

before "God" Hammarabi or some such in Ancient China created 100 rules or such, did he not? and his subjects followed those rules and were punished for misbehaving. there can indeed be a big "Boss" (man upstairs) and there can be HUMAN bosses who make rules. Thing of Ancient Pre-Christian Egypt. North Africa. Multiple gods ... not one. There was indeed a hierarchy, as with greek gods BUT - the personalities of the gods were manlike, childish, selfish, vain, and entirely fallible.

also, in a more democratic society (though it is more man's nature to have a leader and several followers), rules can be agreed upon. think lord of the flies. i havent' even read this book so i won't talk like i know all about it but the premise - people abandoned on an island. they've got to come up with a system. it is not impossible to do so and it is GUARANTEED that IF anarchy is not the path followed, ORDER will be established in some form or another.

order is a nature of man. man is an animal who may find difficulty in establishing that, BUT - being LIKE GOD, man sets into effect his OWN rules. God need not have personally taught this to him or established a morality for mankind to create one of HIS OWN. it is has only turned out that God was there, wrote up a set fo rules, dictated some text, and created a religion with which to guide his children that INCLUDED a morality for them to follow that HE preferred. Now, like i personally believe, there isn't exactly a complete, untampered with text but regardless - some humans were told, here - here's a set of rules it's good for you to follow. there's a mighty god who'll get mad if you don't. he says it's good for you and you'll be rewarded if you follow and most particularly if you believe. so - here's all you need to believe. teach it to your children and spread it with the world. here's how to live your life - good luck, and much happiness. if you ever get lost, check the book.

you speak of opinions. indeed, individual opinion is nothing but opinion. however, unlike animals, humans have a rational mind that can take MASS opinion and link ideas. this is not something God alone does. now, link those ideas to our human emotion. when we are slapped for no good reason we will feel WRONGED. and most people in the world standing by will say - hey, that man was wrong to slap somebody! that's a bad thing! and so is losing your wife to childbirth, catching the pox, murdering for money, or beating your children. they knew it then before God appeared to establish himself and they knew it after. people en masse can most certainly agree when something's wrong and when that happens - it's not an opinion, it is agreed upon to be WRONG. that's how societal morality is born and maintained.

hence all the religions that DON'T have a main god with their own rules. i really argue egyptian and greek/roman religion aren't of the "god" norm and obviously we get a LOT of our current judicial and ethical systems from them - people with gods who fornicated with virgins, kidnapped wives, murdered people they didn't like and smacked around other gods when they felt like it. and irony is that god did indeed behave in quite similar ways but cuz he's god he has the right to get pissed, smote cities, and send us burning down to hell afterwe die. but i do believe he's different and I do believe he has that right 1) cuz he made us and can do what he wants with us and 2) he has the capacity to love and to my knowledge has developed that part of himself more thoroughly than any other. in some weird way, though I know he's "perfect" in one sense - all powerful, all knowing, can't die, etc etc ... he still feels emotion. that's a very tricky thing. he feels love. pain. loss. sorrow. joy. wrath. so in that sense, i know he's imperfect. but he loves me. and i love him anyway, most particularly because of that. he could disown me and all the others who mistreat his ideal and who harm one another. he's a parent, doing what he can and what he chooses. he's probably darn sick of us all sometimes but then again i'm sure he sees things every day that remind him why he made us and why he loves us and why he'll continue to do so.

he gave us an inherent ability to create, like himself. an ability to learn, grow, know, change, share and exchange ideas. with those capabilities alone were are absolutely able to know "right from wrong" as close to fact as you can get (relatable to how close to fact you can get with a book for if you can be uncertain, Chris, as a Christian about things, so can those who DON'T follow the religion). It is not myth, it is an agreed reality. JUST LIKE the Christian God. Recall that science insists God's a myth. You speak from "fact" and a book, etc, etc, but tell us how there must be faith in science. Well. There is also "faith" in God as I'm sure you'll agree and if you find he is NOT myth - believe he is NOT myth then the same goes for a morality is agreed upon WITHOUT God. Perhaps another form of religion ... I really feel there's a universality to human experience. I speak of a "religion" that we ALL have with or without our added religions - Christianity, Buddhism, muslim, etc. It is as flexible as those other religions can be, for if you notice, there are several denominations of Christianity, and various versions of how people practice other religions according to what they personally believe. that doesn't discount the "ideal" version of that religion ... just like how people might choose to believe in/practice morality doesn't discount whatever the "true" morality is.

I think there's a misunderstanding here. I am not at all saying that people cannot create rules, or order, or their own definitions of right and wrong without God. I'm saying that it's all a ruse...that right and wrong are nothing more than opinions, rather than facts, without some higher power. Think about that for a moment: is anyone here ready to tell me that they believe that rape/murder of an innocent person is wrong only as an opinion? I'm sorry, but such things are TRULY wrong...they're not just wrong because most people think they are. They'd be wrong no matter how few people thought so.

A couple of years ago, I swear, it was trendy to be anything BUT a Christian. Anything of an Eastern influence was so popular. I think now, with a spiritual president and with all the scary things going on, people are meditating more on spiritual things. I don't have a problem getting along with anybody, as long as they're not into Satan worshiping or something. One of my closest friends is a mormon. I have friends who don't believe in anything. My sisters don't either...they pretty much go with whatever is current, reading books on different religeons and whatnot. I have just as much respect for that, as I do for my Christian friends. At least they're searching. Some of the people who go to my church are worse off than my sisters, who are still looking for a faith, because they claim to be Christian, but they aren't active in it.
I tell people who ask, that I believe in God, I believe in his Son and the price he paid; but I will never be religeous. I'm a work in progress. I don't have all the answers and I sin and repent on a daily basis. I am above no one, and I won't ever act like I am. Sometimes people in my church point the finger, and try to point out my faults( and i have a lot...)and tell me I don't "act like a Christian". As if there was some cookie cutter version of what a believer is supposed to be. Yeah, I watch R rated movies, celebrate Holloween, believe in Pro-Choice, and Flirt, and act sexy sometimes...but those things are between me and you-know-who...those are issues that belong to me and Him and I'm not about to let anyone cast judgement on me, and I won't do it to anyone else. Who the hell is to say that homosexuals are living in sin and if they don't repent, are going to hell? Not me. That's dangerous stuff, judgement. I won't play a part in tearing anyone down and lifting myself to a place that isn't reserved for me. I'm not holy, or pretend to know what is. Neither should anyone else.

Okay...tear me apart now....whew. That felt like a confession.

Well, I'm not going to tear you apart, for several reasons:

1) Save for the thing about not knowing how to be Holy (I think The Bible tells us how for the most part), but it's not necessarily a sin to watch R-rated movies or want to feel sexy.

2) I'm way too tired to argue about abortion right now...otherwise I would. I've got arguments on God, Reagan, and homosexuality going...so I'd be a fool to start up another one.

3) You're mostly right: there is no cookie-cutter...or, at least, there ought not to be. I swear more than I'll bet most of the people in my church do, for example. I don't pretend it's okay, but it doesn't make me any less of a believer. I hope that some of the less religious people out there realize that very few of us actually fit that "Ned Flanders" personification.

The abortion thing goes back to my seriousness of judgement. I think that making it illeagal will cause more problems than there are with it being legal. It would be the wrong choice for me, but I'm not gonna stand here and say the same for some other woman. I'm not her, I don't know her situation...pro-lifers always want to say," Well there's women out there using it for birth control. That's wrong. The woman getting one for medical reasons, that's okay I guess." Hello!? Judgement. Again. I'm not making choices for anyone but me.

Stop, stop, you foul temptress! I hath not room for another debate!

sades sades sades!! i totally agree!! ditto on the atheist AND believing friends. ditto on seeing it anti-trendy to be Christian. ditto on not being "religious." ditto on it being between me and "you know who" and ditto to the "cookie-cutter" version!

chris:

I think there's a misunderstanding here. I am not at all saying that people cannot create rules, or order, or their own definitions of right and wrong without God. I'm saying that it's all a ruse...that right and wrong are nothing more than opinions, rather than facts, without some higher power. Think about that for a moment: is anyone here ready to tell me that they believe that rape/murder of an innocent person is wrong only as an opinion? I'm sorry, but such things are TRULY wrong...they're not just wrong because most people think they are. They'd be wrong no matter how few people thought so.

and they'd be wrong REGARDLESS of whether "some higher power" or that higher power's rules said so.

the meaning for wrong and right does not COME from "some higher power." it can. but without the higher power "right and wrong" is not a ruse.

so listen. if YOU, as a christian, say, - killing is wrong. that means you're right and wrong has meaning and you have a right to use that morality and your morality has meaning BECAUSE it comes from a god/religion/higher power.

but what my understanding was, and now, when you say things like "ruse" and "myth" is that those WITHOUT religion or a higher power - their right/wrong judgements have no meaning, because it doesn't come from a source like yours.

and i'm saying no source is NEEDED. right and wrong IS. regardless of how someone of religion or not chooses to define it.

YOURS is an opinion regardless of whether or not you've got a book or religion to guide you to that conclusion. MINE is not a ruse just cuz I have no such book or religion. If MINE is a ruse, then SO is yours for if MINE is an opinion, then SO is yours.

i say BOTH are opinions. any interpretation of morality. which doesn't support your argument - if i read it correctly - that those who don't practice faith in some higher power must therefore have merely "myth" and "ruse" while those who DO have what - fact? it isn't. it's still an opinion no matter how much certainty you have. that certainty, as you argued before - is based on faith.

Well, you could argue that they're all opinions...but that's getting past my actual point, which is that when you believe in some Higher Power, you can make the argument that that Power sets the rules of right and wrong. If you have nothing at all of the sort, there's really nothing other than opinion. You have to concede that the most horrible things imaginable are only wrong by popular opinion.

Yes, right and wrong IS. But says who? If it's just you and I, and some other humans who say that, it's just an opinion. Right and wrong are what they are regardless of how many people agree with them. Without God, though, right and wrong is determined by the majority...they fluctuate and change constantly. Did slavery become wrong when people started to speak out against it? No, it was wrong all along. Why? Because wrong has a SET meaning.

If you don't believe in any Higher Power, though, wrong has no set meaning. It's all just a big mess, and all you have is your opinion...things are not wholly wrong, or absolutely wrong. That's what I'm trying to say, basically.

Ah...that is a relief. I'm so glad you agree. Those are just a few of the things I feel strongly about...and they're the important ones.

*booty bumps sades* yes, we're all settled.

which is that when you believe in some Higher Power, you can make the argument that that Power sets the rules of right and wrong. If you have nothing at all of the sort, there's really nothing other than opinion.

no, because HUMANS can set the rules of wright and wrong. And they may no cover them all ... just like God hasn't necessarily covered them all (truly, the number of rights and wrongs is likely beyond our counting capabilities) because for whatever reason he chose to limit it to what he did.

You have to concede that the most horrible things imaginable are only wrong by popular opinion.

Not really. Like you said below - they're wrong whether you think they are or not.

Yes, right and wrong IS. But says who? If it's just you and I, and some other humans who say that, it's just an opinion. Right and wrong are what they are regardless of how many people agree with them.

Yes and right/wring being defined BY GOD doesn't mean they can't exist WITHOUT him. As in - God points to the things we do and says - Bad. Good. He is 1) enlightening us to the idea of bad/good and 2) saying what is bad/good and what we are to treat bad/good. It remains an unknown whether his definition of bad/good is a) his opinion or b) they were absolutes and he merely pointed them out to us.

I argue for B and that we can find them on our own but it IS true with the shifting, fallible nature of mankind that people won't see it. Many people thought slavery was wrong but did it anyway. They KNEW it was wrong - only some rather perverted folks twisted it around in their heads to make wrongs "right" (it's "bad" to degrade, abuse, or enslave other people. it's "bad" to say a human being isn't a human being. but do so anyway, so you needn't think the africans are "people" and can treat them as objects - so you aren't doing anything wrong in your mind by enslaving them).

.Without God, though, right and wrong is determined by the majority...they fluctuate and change constantly. Did slavery become wrong when people started to speak out against it? No, it was wrong all along. Why? Because wrong has a SET meaning.

yes it does. basically - here's my hypothesis:

there is an absolute. wrong/right. it's the same exact thing as truth. as in, there are 3 truths - yours, mine, and the real truth. we may or many not discover that REAL truth and we aspire to - truth, and what is RIGHT and JUST.

now, the world is round but for centuries people had the OPINION that the world was FLAT and that THAT was right. so yes, in that sense "what was right" changed when people discovered that was not the case. howEVER - the world was as round before that discovery as after. now, god may have said - look, the world is round. or he may, as in this case, have not had anything particular to say on that subject. regardless of his silence OR his input - the world is round.

so, for slavery - the law and popular OPINION (for some) interpreted slavery as "right" and our popular opinion has changed ... but the "wrong" of it, just as you said, is still there.

and that wrong is defined REGARDLESS of your chrisitian belief or an atheist's beliefs. that IS set, that IS fixed and that DOES exist with or without a "higher power." an atheist might heartily agree with you that slavery, racism, etc, are wrong. so, just because you're christian your opinion is fact, and because he isn't his is merely unfounded opinion?

i say, definitely not.

If you don't believe in any Higher Power, though, wrong has no set meaning.

hmm, a sidenote - if, let's say, there are 100 rights and wrongs. and the bible and 10 commandments cover 60% of them. What happens to a christian when they've got to figure out the other 40%? You may have a spirit of conduct to guide you there but that's as vague a base as someone else's being raised by the 10 most spiritually brilliant men in the world. So in that sense there aren't always "set" right and wrongs for ANYBODY - religiously affiliated or not. add to that my opinion regarding interpretation -

an example could be, you have read the "men shall not lie with men" line as "no sex, no love, no desire between men." that's an interpretation of right/wrong. god might have just meant no sex. he might have meant sleeping. i'm just saying, though yeah, i agree he meant sex. but see? our difference in reading that ALONE is opinion. now, that opinion could still exist from another devout christian. he'd see one wrong, you'd see something else! all from this book which lays it out there for you. with that difference ... there's a set meaning but in reality ... it's your friends' truth, your truth, and the bible. and the bible may have it exact or be god's interpretation of the right/wrong he felt like telling you about. soo ... applying that "set" business to a religion alone and not to those without it is entirely arbitrary. or seems to me.

there are absolute wrongs. no killing other people. bad bad bad! that's set in stone. so's lying. so what, people say, we lie all the time or, little white lies are ok. killing in self defense is ok. etc.

that's interpretation. that's each person's opinion. YET - mankind has made the rule that lying and kiling are NOT good. and that IS set. not in stone, or in one authorized book like Hammurabi's but - set.

Word sistah...word! I'll leave you two to your banter, just thought I'd put in my two cents.

This is all Bull! "Homosexuality is unnatural" Sex is not the religious and defining moment of a persons life. If you want to have a good time with somebody and you are sexually attracted to them, then go at. This is true for same sex or heterosexual sex. If two people feel like having a good time I say let them and don't condemn them for doing something that is "unnatural"

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. If it's unnatural, do it anyway. Who says you can't make love to a goat, right? If the goat likes it, who cares if it's unnatural? Oh, and thanks so much for this insightful tidbit:

From a secular standpoint, it might not matter...but it is obviously unnatural. If you don't believe in God (wouldn't surprise me, Zwee) then yeah, it's not as big a deal. If you don't believe in God, nothing's a big deal. If you don't believe in any kind of God, it's illogical to do anything aside from things that you want to do, and that benefit you directly, too.

Miriam: I still don't think we're on the same page. Yes, despite what Zwee or Timing says, right and wrong exist, because they're wrong in their beliefs...but I've been speaking from the assumption that they are correct...I'm saying "If you believe this to be true, then there's no right and wrong." I'm telling them that if they want to believe this one thing, this other thing is linked to it.

I vote this," Statement Most Likely to Take You Where You Don't Want to Go." I could go so far with that little gem, but I won't. It's obvious where I could go with it, T lightly touched on it with his," Making love to a goat." example. Truly. Let's all set aside our morals and hump anything and everything because," ...you feel like having a good time."

We aren't talking about goats here. We are talking about two human beings that are capable of having love for one another. Why is it unnatural to love another human being? I just don't understand it. Also if one finds somebody of the same sex to be attractive why can't they have a romp in the hay. You say that just because we can do something, doesn't mean that we should. Well I agree, but why can't we(as the human race) have sex with someone of the same sex. It is the most natural thing in the world to love someone and then to express that love in a physical way.