LouzBlog

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

Quote, Unquote

There's nothing wrong with being straight,
There's everything wrong with being straight and narrow.

One is a sexuality,
The other is a problem.


Thoughts?

posted by Lou @ 6:56 PM  

13 Comments:

  • At 2:24 PM, Anonymous Allan said…

    There's everything wrong with not being straight.
    There's nothing wrong with being straight and narrow so long as the narrow is due to the confines of scripture.


    Hows that :-)

     

  • At 9:33 AM, Anonymous Hansjurg said…

    Hey Lou
    is this your monthly post?? ;-) its good to hear from you. i hope your fine as we are.
    god blessings from far, far away.

     

  • At 12:14 AM, Blogger amoebe said…

    what should be wrong with being not straight, or, to use the g-word, with being gay?

     

  • At 9:00 PM, Anonymous Allan said…

    Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

    Scripture says Homosexuality is wrong.

    Evolution says that they who cannot breed of themselves are to be dropped out of existance. If homosexuality was not a choice made by the individual, and if it were forced on them by genetics, then they would become extinct in one generation. If evolution were true (which it is not) then it would select out the homosexuals and reject them into extinction.

    Clearly it is a moral choice then as they continue to exist. So clearly it falls on the source of morality to determin if they are right or wrong. And being that all Christians should hold God's word higher than the opinion of sinfull man, I can easily say from Scripture that Homosexuality is wrong and is rebellion against their creator.
    Which is why a real church will not accept a gay preacher.

     

  • At 2:25 AM, Anonymous amoebe79 said…

    there is tons of evidence for homosexuality in animals - and the relevant species have by no means become extinct. The nature vs nurture debate is pretty pointless here - I mean, who cares. As long as you are happy with what you are and don't hurt anybody I don't see a problem.

     

  • At 6:01 AM, Anonymous Allan said…

    In the animal kingdom most species shun or kill the offending animal.
    This is not a topic I am unfamiliar with. Perhaps you should check your data against the data already presented by scientists at creationontheweb.com. Use the search bar at the top to search their archives.

     

  • At 11:32 PM, Blogger amoebe said…

    well, I'm one of the people who actually go in to a fit of laughter whenever they hear creationism...ever checked out the pastafarians? Touched by his noodly appendage? That's the right answer to the creationists. Just can't take them seriously :-)

     

  • At 7:07 AM, Anonymous Allan said…

    I got into a fit of yelling at the tv when they repeatedly use fraudulent evidence to support their evolutionary dogma. Such as using pictures of brontosaurus, or the heckle embryonic diagrams as evidence of evolutionary signs in foetus development. Or for that matter the claim that oil and diamonds take millions of years to form when man has been doing it in factory's for years.

    You have the right to choose to believe their preaching. I choose not to and to actually look at the evidence. And frankly, when the cornerstone of evolutionary theory and an absolute requirement for it's existence (natural selection) fails to provide any evidence whatsoever of onward upward evolutionary mutations, and in fact shows plainly the opposite... I can reduce the whole thing down to a simple maths equation.
    1-1 will never = anything bigger than 1.
    or 1 x 1 will never = anything bigger than 1.

    Darwin's whole theory was based on the requirement that the little changes add up to big changes. Nowadays we know the little changes are neutral or negative in effect and so can never add up to anything bigger than what currently is.

    You may not like creationists because they believe the Bible. But your side requires just as much, if not more faith than mine.

     

  • At 7:41 AM, Blogger amoebe said…

    ok, let's rest this here...I choose to believe in the facts presented by the evolutionary biologists, and I also accept that things are far too complicated to ever be comprehended by humans. Contrary to creationists, I am ok with the fact that there are tons of things I will never be able to figure out and accept it. I don't need the whole god and bible thing to get over the fact that my capacities are too limited to get the whole picture.
    Oh, and as far as the bible goes, it's a book, a good one, but it's a book, written, translated and edited (heavily) be man. I wouldn't base anything that is connected to reason on this book. Maybe connected to wisdom, heritage and history (MAYBE), but not reason.

     

  • At 11:55 AM, Anonymous Allan said…

    As far as the evolutionist scientists go, they are human. They are educated ones, but they are human. And humans like to lie and manufacture data when their world view comes under threat.

    You reject the Bible, I reject the evolutionist scientists :-) Fair trade I guess. I hope you see my point that both sides of the debate require faith.

    Dropping it now.

     

  • At 11:55 PM, Blogger amoebe said…

    "humans like to lie and manufacture data when their world view comes under threat".
    Ehem. Goes for the bible people too. I mean, remember those medieval conferences where they determined what would be part of the bible and what would be chucked out? That's what I call data manufacture!

     

  • At 11:55 AM, Blogger Scotty said…

    There are good and sound explanations for all of these 'problems' amoebe. One just have to have an open mind to them.

     

  • At 7:57 AM, Anonymous Allan said…

    I'll say happy birthday now in case I forget :) God Bless.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home