See, this is your problem. You don't read properly what people are saying. I said many religions accept gay people. The Christian church, for example, even has gay vicars. Your biggest problem is you're so arrogant and closed-minded that you think you're right about everything and everyone else is wrong. That's the problem with fundamentalists the world over and explains why countries with a strong fundamentalist religious-minded government and anti-liberal agenda are stuck in the dark ages while the rest of the world move forwards. You are homophobic. You make homophobic comments on here all the time and make no effort to hide the fact so don't tell me I'm wrong when the evidence is there in your posts.
the only thing you have said correct there is that i make homophobic comments on here. means nothing, i make racist ones too. as do you and many others You were wrong because you said it was 2 things I was passionate about, its not. you specifically used the words 'natural act' and you were wrong In fact you were so wrong in the world of wronginess you are the wrongest
Yes, I do mean diminished. I'm on the mobile app and Samsung think that I meant dismissed even though I quite clearly typed diminished. Bloody Koreans As for 'as watertight as it gets', that's not true. If Suetonius had written the Qu'ran, or someone similarly impartial and unbiased, then it would be more convincing. It's more believable than the Bible, but that's not much to shout about. Plus, you don't need to be insane to murder. If someone killed your child, and you killed them in turn, that would be completely rational.
I don't think that any of the main religions actually say anything about someone being homosexual. They may define some homosexual acts as being sinful, but they also do the same for many heterosexual acts. It's the action or even the thought that's sinful, not the nature of the individual. As for deciding on what you see, it's largely irrelevant Fan, as you're talking about a corpse. The only thing that refusing a proper burial would do would be to offend and/or further traumatise any family that the deceased might have. What purpose would it serve?
It watertight in terms of the religious context. IE Muhammad himself chose the guy who was to be referred to in terms of quranic text. Which is what happened The bible in itself isnt the problem either, what we have today isnt the bible due to changes. Changes that often occurred to make things 'normal' or 'acceptable' including things like having an image for God. Or the whole animals going in 2 by 2 for Noah. I think the people 'in charge' had good intentions but by making things 'easier' made it ridiculous. Same with the whole women priests and gay priests etc. I think people would have had more respect if they didnt, imo, sellout and change things to suit As for your example of murder, I personally agree with that, but legally you would not be in a 'normal' or rational state of mind. If so then you would get life for murder Which kind of goes with what I was saying in regards to we judge by what we see, would this person be in hell for that? not according to the eye for an eye rule
http://www.not606.com/showthread.php/120738-Calling-gay-not606ers http://www.not606.com/showthread.php/103440-George-Michael http://www.not606.com/showthread.php/101474-homoTOBIa http://www.not606.com/showthread.php/101454-calling-all-gay-men http://www.not606.com/showthread.php/84137-the-word-gay http://www.not606.com/showthread.php/80388-Lesbians http://www.not606.com/showthread.php/79345-The-Gay-Gene http://www.not606.com/showthread.php/61387-the-church-and-sex So you're not obsessed with homosexuality then TFWNN?
They do say it is wrong/sinful. Disagreeing with homosexuality shouldnt equate to being homophobic. You are right with regards to hetrosexual acts and I do believe that they should stick up their beliefs In Islam, for example, if a pregnant woman wants to get married most Imams will not conduct the 'nikah' ceremony as per Islamic instruction (it can be done after the birth and a time period). I agree with these guys and not the ones that say its ok and contradict the CLEAR laws around this. Doesnt mean that couple shouldnt get married, its just not Islamic so go to a registry office I think 'feelings' are not what the institutions should be basing their beliefs on, its either the word of God or not. If you are going to forego your beliefs for public opinion then shut up shop and be done with it The purpose for me is sticking to your beliefs, if they are in fact your beliefs. otherwise its weakness and no belief at all
Muhammad choosing the guy doesn't make it reliable though. It's still likely to be biased. Most history is, but that's pretty harmless when you're just studying out of interest. If Caesar hadn't really been killed on the Ides of March, but had in fact died on the toilet, would it really matter? However, biased history ISN'T harmless when millions of people live their lives by it. As for women priests, why not? The Greeks, Egyptians and Jews have had them. The real reason for not having them was probably far from religious anyway, just as the reason for celibacy in the Catholic was nothing to do with god.
No, of course not. The faith that the perpetrator of his own death had, should not disown said person due to maybe a temporary loss of judgement. Futhermore it may not actually be a loss of judgement issue,and the person may well wish to take his own life to prevent further suffering for themself and/or their closest ones. It is often said suicide is the easy way out but I know from personal experiences that it can be a brave deed. To answer your second question look below, I personally do not give a flying **** what religion deems as sin. I do not need anybody to tell me how to live my life and find it pretty sad that some do. Read below.
That is why I said in context to religion. The quran isnt like history in the sense that its not tales of what happened in Muhammads time. Thats the Hadith and even they have to go to the original source to be authentic, hence the strong an weak hadiths. As I said in the past the quran was written down or memorised as it was revealed via Muhammad and a person was chosen to be the scribe. There was in turn a group who were tasked with collating all that was available and unifying it into 1. We do know for example that it is not in order of revelation, so surah 96 is actually the first surah that was revealed As for the women priests issue, funnily enough Islamically one of the greatest sources is actually a woman. However the issue isnt about women per se its about changing something that is seen as the word of God. The celibacy bit is a great example. Nothing to do with being religious/pious. In fact I think if we go by the texts then it is actually sinful
Your sig is a load of bubbles IMO. It makes for good sloganism but that is all it is. As for the rest of what you have written, emotionally speaking I see where you come from From a religious perspective none of that means anything Its like what was said above, if someone kills your kid it may seem right that you kill the person responsible. Legally you are both murderers
Exactly, from a religious perspective it means nothing, and you cannot have one law that fits every situation, its not possible. What in some circumstances is murder in another situation it could be justifiable homicide as they say.
