RC & Martin
try this site: http://www.ambs.edu/LJohns/Homosexuality.htm

Now let's look at The bible & the pope's pronouncements on it

According to the pope the bible taught geocentrism. Galileo was convicted for going against the plain teaching of scripture like these.

"The sun rises and the sun sets; And hastening to its place it rises there again." (Eccles. 1:5, NASB)

He established the earth upon its foundations, so that it will not totter, forever and ever.
- Psalm 104:5

The world is firmly established, it will NOT BE MOVED.
- Psalm 93:1 & 1 Chronicles 16:30

Despite the fact declaring that the bible clearly taught this God didn't make the Sun revolve around the Earth did He RC? The pope & the bible were WRONG weren't they?

Maybe they are wrong about homosexuality as well?

Now to your weird reply.

Quote "Did anyone, even Jesus, ever think "loving, committed, monogamous homosexual relationships" and Sodom should be put in the same sentence?"

Since it's my contention [one you have NEVER refuted merely sneered at] that the story of sodom has NOTHING to do with homosexuality why would Jesus mention them both? Only a fundy like yourself would think that a reasonable argument :) lol

My contention is that the story of sodom has been misinterpreted by bigots. NOT that the people of sodom were blameless - after all they broke the sacrosanct law of hospitality.

Now have you finished trying to twist my words into something I never said RC?

Next my contention is where a verse or verses are disputed then the interpretation should be chosen which promotes tolerance. What a prejudiced view I have.

While in your view homosexuals are morally disordered & treating them like human beings is an example of western degeneracy. Not prejudiced bigotry at all is it?

Saint fletch
Sorry if I've come across as opposing Homosexuals or homosexuality. I do NOT. & I take your point that anal rape does NOT a homosexual make. I agree totally.

TurnRightThenLeft,
You misrepresent the position of Christian teaching. Note it is the act of buggery that is evil and must be shunned, it is not the person, unless they intend to pervert the mind of the innocent. It is their behaviour that needs to change and their mind know cleansing. The person is always to be shown compassion dispite the evil of his / her actions. That is why we have prison Chaplins who show compassion to vile criminals. The person needs salvation - not his evil deeds to be retained or normalised.

Jesus showed compassion to prostitutes and adulterers but he warned them to step out of their former life and adopt purity. Jesus was and is about bringing change and purity into a persons life. This is demonstrated by the testimony of lives of former prostitutes, homosexuals, and adulterers that I know locally in Churches I attend.

They attest to the purity and forgivness they find now in Christ and how their lives have flourished by their acceptance of the purity of Christ. Unfortunately too late for several homosexuals I knew who contracted AIDS before accepting Christ as their saviour whose lives have been lost to the scourge, but they died knowing cleansing of heart and mind.

Quote, "Umm... took a look through the bible, and could you show me a specific quote from Jesus saying that homosexuals are evil?"

Rather identify the act as evil; as the person can change to become a saint. Only in the case of gay lesbian exhibitionists could we call them as persons evil, because they flaunt their perversions before others. Their intent is evil and defiant.

From the several sensitive boys I have known who have fallen into homosexuality it was their peers who teased them and Public School teachers who influenced them that they ought to consider being gay.

Martin, “Without God there is no reason why Reason itself should be considered trustworthy if it too is just a product of random processes.”

Ae you saying that theists are, as a rule, more trustworthy than atheists?
This could be true in some cases but in other cases it can be vice versa. People who do not believe that there is a God can still be trustworthy people. And some people who do believe in God can be untrustworthy. For example, do we need to trust George Bush merely because he is a God lover?
Call me ignorant, but I think I’ll skip the book at this stage.\

Reality check, “All these changes were done by pollies and Judges with no reference to the public. That the public didn’t rise up & overturn them is also lamentable.”
Oh ok I get your point now. But there might be a reason that the public didn’t rise up about these changes- for instance they might have agreed with the changes made such as divorce. Wouldn’t it be a disaster if , let’s say, divorce still wasn’t possible? Even in Ireland they changed the law on divorce not that long ago.
Yes it seems the pedo-party PNVD changed their name and are back again after having been in hiding. Although the idea that such party can even exists is disgusting, that’s democracy for you. It’s not prohibited to try to change a law through democratic means.
Ideas cannot be treated as illegal or criminalised; there’s freedom of speech to respect.
That’s why, for example, extreme right Christian parties can also exist. Any group of psychopaths seems to be able to launge a party- but who is going to vote for the PNVD? A handful of pedophiles?
And can you imagine a PNVD stall close to election time where they promote and hand out their material? They’ll be killed!

Luckily, the mere existence of a minority party does not mean anything- lots of silly little parties are being launched and you never hear of these again. They come and go. It’s just that this one is so controversial that it gets in all the papers so people talk about it.

OK Let’s give them exposure- at least it will be out in the open, people will roughly know how many pedophiles there are around; let’s count the PNVD votes of each area and publish them; at least people will know how many pedophiles there are around, roughly.
Hiding pedophiles away (in churches, bushes, around corners) and silencing them won’t make them go away.
Openly discussing the issue and the party may open pandora’s box, but that will settle down and through discussions there will be raised awareness and safety.
For example, when people found out that the founder of this party lived in a caravan at a recreational park, all recreational parks were made aware and better safety standards were introduced. So a lot of exposure and the speaking out of such party does not always have to be negative.

One more thing about this for now: I am amazed that they found an internet provider that wants their business- the last one they had threw them off air because they didn’t want to be associated with that party.

Celivia

“But there might be a reason that the public didn’t rise up about these changes- for instance they might have agreed with the changes made such as divorce. Wouldn’t it be a disaster if, let’s say, divorce still wasn’t possible?”

It’s a disaster with it, so I am not sure we are all that much better off, will have to ask the kids, but, research says it’s not so good.

Anyway, the reasons pollies get away with anything would be:

APATHY – Australian People Allow Things However You-beaut!

Followed by:

STUPID – Simply Too(many) Uninterested People Ignoring Democracy.

“that’s democracy for you. It’s not prohibited to try to change a law through democratic means.”

”Ideas cannot be treated as illegal or criminalised; there’s freedom of speech to respect.”

Here is the problem. What are the higher order priorities that society should value and that should, by virtue of their nature, be immutable and promoted?

Right to life – only when it doesn’t consider abortion, euthanasia, destruction of embryos associated with ART/IVF and stem cell research on ‘surplus’ ones?

Divorce & marriage – seeing it merely as a law to change with fashion or pressure? Etc

If we apply the principles of tolerance & free speech as 'a priori' absolutes to matters, then we end up with the mess we have. This becomes a new dictatorship as bad as any of the past and makes Church doctrine comparatively liberating…

Celivia,

My argument wasn't about an individual's reasonableness, it was about where our ability to match our thoughts with reality comes from.

How do we know whether what we think is an accurate map of reality, ie what we call true, unless we believe Reason capital 'r' is trustworthy.

But if Reason is the product of blind random evolutionary processes, why should we consider our thoughts any less random? If this follows why then should we consider the reasoning of philosophical materialists about the non-existence of God and their alternative explanation of the universe? All it could offer would be the product of brain chemicals randomly colliding.

Of course there are atheists who are more like Jesus than professing Christians. But all things being equal e.g. heredity, environment, and loving exercise of free will it logically follows if Jesus was who he said he was a believer will do much more good than a non-believer, simply because they have a more accurate map of reality.

If they were your only reasons for not reading works you currently disagree with perhaps you "should" afterall, read CS Lewis? Who was, like you, an atheist (until he was 30)

Bosk,

if I was unclear it was because I was reaching my work limit so I had to abbreviate. Plato's interlocutors in the Phaedra, not you, tittered about pederasty even while it was socially tolerated. Which implies an acquiescence to, rather than an endorsement of, homosexuality. How much more then did Biblical Israel condemn it given God's command for separation from paganism. The Jews are still here all others are gone.