…or, why hippies are idiots.
So I wrote a reply to a "we're killing the planet" blog, and part of it I decided to repost here:There are a bunch of idiots who think that everything should be peace - peace, peace, peace. No fighting, no violence, no killing - a utopia on Earth, as it were. Problem with that is, it's been tried. And it failed. There's a book I read once - "The Arcadians." A bunch of naturalists back in the nineteenth century decided to live in nature and be nonviolent - they failed. Within a couple of weeks, one was drinking (alcohol, not water) and they were all angry at each other. The settlement fell apart.Now, I'm not saying peace is bad - far from it. Peace is a good thing. It's just when people try to take the pie without paying the pieper that things get sticky. Humans are basically evil. And not in the "Ooh, we're killing trees! We're evil!" kind of way - in the "I'm going to kill you because I want your house" kind of way. There is NO WAY to have a perfectly peaceful earth. Those that only act in peace are trampled by those who act out of desire - just like the Vikings and those they raided. In order to keep the Vikings away, peace-loving villages without standing armies would basically give the vikings money in order to uphold that peace. Remember 9/11? The reason behind that horrible act? Why did the terrorists decide to fly a plane into the WTC? Why did they attack the United States? Were we doing something to them? Were we attacking them? No. We were being "peaceful." Holding "peace talks." Trying to negotiate for "peace." However, we happened to be supporting Israel - which was something these terrorists didn't like. So they walked onboard a bunch of planes, took them over, and killed thousands of Americans. We were being overly peaceful - and it cost us. But - and here's where things took a turn for the better - we didn't sit and take it. We stood up and fought back. We became active and vigilant in our defense against terrorism - and since that day, there have been no more World Trade Center disasters. Our current peace is preserved not through peacemongering, but through defensive war.In closing, there's a sentence that easily applies here: "Peace is good. Peace without war… is impossible."
->SJF: Ok, that's just one of four references that you've noted. And, the septuagint and related documents were discarded by a council of Christian elders for a reason: either they were inconsistent with the rest of the Bible; or the writing style didn't compare; or they contained openly heretical ideas. They are no more part of the true Christian faith than the book of Mormon.
->Ace02: Eh? I have an IQ of 147. I have SAT scores in the 2200s. I'm in the national merit scholarship finals. How am I "dumb"?Academics mean nothing when talking about intelligence. It's wisdom, common sense, and in a way, philosophy.
Read what I said. I said that Christianity dislikes homosexuality because it goes against the Bible, while atheistic evolution shouldn't support it because it does not further the survival of a species.
What makes you think that because I don't believe it or have to write answers on tests according to what it says, I can't study it or use it in my debates. Knowing one's enemy is a key to success, so why assume I simply speak out of ignorance?@melee-master
There is a difference between evolution and the theory of evolution. You'd have to be a complete idiot to not believe in evolution. Evolution occurs every day.Also, the bible itself contains literally hundreds of paradoxical statements, and Christian scholars do not discard the non-biblical texts. They only do not count them as a part of the bible.
By my philosophie if someone is happy being with their own gender, let it be so.
And it should be noted that there is a large difference, omicron1, between homosexuality and sex between a man and a man. You can be a homosexual without having sex, and as I stated, nothing in the Bible speaks against homosexuality. The only things that you have mentioned are related to sex between two people of the same sex. The reason that is a sin, is that sex outside of marriage is a sin, and marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman.
So please, I implore you to try your best. Present me with ONE piece of evidence that homosexuality is a sin. I submit that you can not, and as such, you have failed.You sound like Clinton. "That depends on how you define is."
Frankly, it's ridiculous. The word "homosexuality" wasn't even created until the 1890s - and you expect me to find that exact word in a book authored two thousand years ago? But let me work in context here. "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." - Matthew 5:28It can logically be assumed that the same holds true for lusting after men; therefore, men who lust after other men have commited adultery with them in their hearts, and are therefore guilty under the stipulations put forth in Leviticus.Besides which, what about my last reference (Genesis ch. 19)? The men of the city didn't manage to commit the act of sex with the visiting angels, but the fact that they wanted to and tried was enough to doom the city.In my opinion, when you have to resort to verbal fencing in order to prove a point, you have already lost the battle.More verbal tomfoolery? What I said is as follows:
* When a man lusts after a woman, it is equivalent to adultery.* When a man lusts after a man, it is therefore equivalent to homosexual adultery.* While sex is a sin outside of marriage, it is not inside marriage. HOWEVER, the act of homosexual sex is a sin at all times, as stated in Leviticus.Therefore, we have the following table of limitations and permissions:Heterosexual sex/lust outside of marriage is a sin.Homosexual sex/lust at any time is a sin.Heterosexual sex/lust inside of marriage is not a sin."You can be a homosexual man without lusting after men as well, just as you can be a heterosexual man without lusting after women." I urge you to name one normal man (not child; puberty and up - but no eunuchs) who has NOT lusted after someone.