|
On May 02 2012 19:05 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 18:34 Joedaddy wrote:You didn't answer the question: why do you keep saying "the gay lifestyle is a sin" and not "the straight lifestyle is a sin" as well? I didn't say it because I don't believe a physical relationship between a man and a woman is a sin. I do however believe that a physical relationship between a man and another man (or a woman and another woman) is a sin. There's nothing wrong about a man being with a man or a woman being with a woman. Your book doesn't have any convincing argument in it to prove me wrong.
I wouldn't try to convince you, or anyone on TL, that I'm right and "you're" wrong. I'm just trying to articulate my beliefs, as a Christian, as they pertain to this discussion.
|
On May 02 2012 18:43 hefty wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 18:16 sc14s wrote:On May 02 2012 18:10 Asrathiel wrote:On May 02 2012 18:07 sc14s wrote:
ANNNND you didn't explain anything. I really hate when people do this. If you don't agree with an issue you dont fucking troll by posting a stupid ass picture. My edit nothwithstanding, I'm pretty sure the image clearly explains that while adults hitting adults is against the law, adults hitting children is seen as 'discipline', and this makes no logical sense. Actually it does in the fact that they understand after getting spanked what they did was wrong, It conveys in the strongest of sense (pain) that something is wrong so you should not be doing it. How do you learn things are right and wrong as a child? trial and error- the right things get you positive results (generally) and wrong things get you negative results (i.e you are in the kitchen and touch your finger on the hot stove *OW* it burns gee mayby i shouldn't be touching the stove in the firstplace when it is on) They theories you are applying here are very outdated behaviorism. Upbringing of a child is more complex than giving negative and positive reinforcements at the right times. And there is great differences from some negative/positive reinforcements and others. Reinforcing through violence is reinforcing through fear. Whereas it may suceed in abolishing the behavior, it doesn't do so in a very "effective manner" (more to the point: it doesn't make your child a decent human being). The problem with fear induced reinforcements is that they mostly work as long as the threat is present. For instance as long as the child live under your roof. Absent of the threat, the child have no motivation to behave as you like it to. Now, you may succeed in inducing a fear in the child that it can't just move away from, but in doing so you are hurting the child emotionally and may even then not succeed in your endeavor. What you want to do is have your children internalize a set of good moral rules that they apply to their own behavior absent of threat. You do that by showing the way in your own actions and loving your child. Loved children don't usually go very wrong and when they do, most will regret it and try to change their ways. I won't spend to much time on the subject it is easy enough to read up on. As a disclaimer I will add that this view doesn't mean that a child go awry just because you hit it a few times during its upbringing. All parents make mistakes and you don't ruin the child doing so. Just don't make bad upbringing tecniques your go to choices or you will give yourself a harder time than was necessary. I will also add that a child that got "put straight" by violence may later internalize good morale through different means, so even if you taught your children not to fight by spanking them, it doesn't mean they will get violent as free adults.
Well of course its more advanced than just good or bad behaviors and really I only mean this for extreme cases where your child is way out of line and I am not saying you come out and smack and literally abuse the child. When i was younger for example it wasn't that actual spankings that hurt it was more the leading up to it scaring you from doing the activity anyways i.e i stole some trinkets when i was 8, I was forced to return the objects as well as apologize and then get a spanking knowing it was coming.. i sure as hell never stole again O.O
also do you expect every parent to be a phychologist? =S
|
On May 02 2012 19:05 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 18:34 Joedaddy wrote:You didn't answer the question: why do you keep saying "the gay lifestyle is a sin" and not "the straight lifestyle is a sin" as well? I didn't say it because I don't believe a physical relationship between a man and a woman is a sin. I do however believe that a physical relationship between a man and another man (or a woman and another woman) is a sin. There's nothing wrong about a man being with a man or a woman being with a woman. Your book doesn't have any convincing argument in it to prove me wrong.
You're approaching the issue as if the validity of the book is in question. Certainly it is for many. Having faith in the God from the Bible means that there is no "argument."
^_^
Thus is the problem with trying to completely rationalize something truly can't be.
|
On May 02 2012 19:05 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 18:34 Joedaddy wrote:You didn't answer the question: why do you keep saying "the gay lifestyle is a sin" and not "the straight lifestyle is a sin" as well? I didn't say it because I don't believe a physical relationship between a man and a woman is a sin. I do however believe that a physical relationship between a man and another man (or a woman and another woman) is a sin. There's nothing wrong about a man being with a man or a woman being with a woman. Your book doesn't have any convincing argument in it to prove me wrong.
Interpretations change in sects and denominations in Christianity. Which is why lots of Christian denominations are fully accepting of homosexuality and do not interpret passage that hint that homosexuality is a sin as valid. Or interpret it different themselves.
Remember, the Bible was the biggest tool used by both advocates of slavery and abolitionists in America. Verses such as Colossians 3:22 were used for centuries to justify that owning slaves was acceptable. Various Christians will likely continue to use passages from the Bible to argue that homosexuality is wrong for centuries. But in all honesty I wouldn't be surprised if in a few decades it is only fringe Christians who hold on to these beliefs on homosexuality in America. I think that in most of Europe it's already only fringe Christian groups that still think homosexuality is a sin.
|
On May 02 2012 18:29 NeonFox wrote:I would recommend physical punishment to treat this pastor's stupidity. Edit ; Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 18:27 guN-viCe wrote:On May 02 2012 17:05 ScienceNotBusiness wrote:
Unfortunately, people always have and always will pick and choose which parts of the bible they follow and which parts they don't. This is a case of people seeing the bible says that being "gay" is a sin to god and unnatural, and refuse to follow up on the part that says all people sin and they are forgiven.
I'm an agnostic and pretty anti-christian, it's plain and simple stupid people making other people look stupid
It's cute that you downplay it so hard, but the reality is is that these people are mentally insane, and contributing the insanity of our current and growing population, which chooses to obey their ignorant egoism of the refusal of modern day science in exchange for the peer pressure of modern and past day religion. What a fucking joke you people are. I agree with you, but 95% of the USA is religious. The world-wide religion statistic is similar. Where did you get those statistics, because after some research these numbers are wrong.
Semantics and polls will change the number considerably. IMO believing in God is synonymous with religion. According to wikipedia, people were polled about their belief in God and 92% did believe. Another wikipedia source states 78% believed in God, 15% believed in a "Universal spirit or higher power".
In that same source, it states that 15% of the USA is "irreligious". 78% identify as christian, 2.4% agnostic, 1.6 athiest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_by_country
16% of the world is irreligious.
So not quite 95%, but close.
.2% of USA prison system is atheist according to this website
http://atheistempire.com/reference/stats/main.html
|
On May 02 2012 19:01 Hertzy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 18:34 Joedaddy wrote:You didn't answer the question: why do you keep saying "the gay lifestyle is a sin" and not "the straight lifestyle is a sin" as well? I didn't say it because I don't believe a physical relationship between a man and a woman is a sin. I do however believe that a physical relationship between a man and another man (or a woman and another woman) is a sin. That strikes me as intellectually dishonest; You claim you don't have anything against gay people, but then go on to say that an expression of homosexuality is a sin.
Hold on. He did say he thinks a homoesexual lifestyle is a sin and he doesn't try to run from that. He can love sinners though, as to him every is a sinner in their own way. Nothing dishonest about it, you just seem to have a need for his alliances to fit in to your box?
Reading comprehension, poeple!
On May 02 2012 19:08 sc14s wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 02 2012 18:43 hefty wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 18:16 sc14s wrote:On May 02 2012 18:10 Asrathiel wrote:On May 02 2012 18:07 sc14s wrote:
ANNNND you didn't explain anything. I really hate when people do this. If you don't agree with an issue you dont fucking troll by posting a stupid ass picture. My edit nothwithstanding, I'm pretty sure the image clearly explains that while adults hitting adults is against the law, adults hitting children is seen as 'discipline', and this makes no logical sense. Actually it does in the fact that they understand after getting spanked what they did was wrong, It conveys in the strongest of sense (pain) that something is wrong so you should not be doing it. How do you learn things are right and wrong as a child? trial and error- the right things get you positive results (generally) and wrong things get you negative results (i.e you are in the kitchen and touch your finger on the hot stove *OW* it burns gee mayby i shouldn't be touching the stove in the firstplace when it is on) They theories you are applying here are very outdated behaviorism. Upbringing of a child is more complex than giving negative and positive reinforcements at the right times. And there is great differences from some negative/positive reinforcements and others. Reinforcing through violence is reinforcing through fear. Whereas it may suceed in abolishing the behavior, it doesn't do so in a very "effective manner" (more to the point: it doesn't make your child a decent human being). The problem with fear induced reinforcements is that they mostly work as long as the threat is present. For instance as long as the child live under your roof. Absent of the threat, the child have no motivation to behave as you like it to. Now, you may succeed in inducing a fear in the child that it can't just move away from, but in doing so you are hurting the child emotionally and may even then not succeed in your endeavor. What you want to do is have your children internalize a set of good moral rules that they apply to their own behavior absent of threat. You do that by showing the way in your own actions and loving your child. Loved children don't usually go very wrong and when they do, most will regret it and try to change their ways. I won't spend to much time on the subject it is easy enough to read up on. As a disclaimer I will add that this view doesn't mean that a child go awry just because you hit it a few times during its upbringing. All parents make mistakes and you don't ruin the child doing so. Just don't make bad upbringing tecniques your go to choices or you will give yourself a harder time than was necessary. I will also add that a child that got "put straight" by violence may later internalize good morale through different means, so even if you taught your children not to fight by spanking them, it doesn't mean they will get violent as free adults. Well of course its more advanced than just good or bad behaviors and really I only mean this for extreme cases where your child is way out of line and I am not saying you come out and smack and literally abuse the child. When i was younger for example it wasn't that actual spankings that hurt it was more the leading up to it scaring you from doing the activity anyways i.e i stole some trinkets when i was 8, I got a spanking and was forced to return the objects as well as apologize.. i sure as hell never stole again O.O also do you expect every parent to be a phychologist? =S
Nono, they certainly doesn't have to be. Part of my message was that all parents make mistakes and that it quite okay. But it is unwise to advocate faulty upbringing tecniques. If experts provide some good directions and parents are kind and try their best, the child has as good chances as anyone can have.
|
|
|
On May 02 2012 19:19 hefty wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 19:01 Hertzy wrote:On May 02 2012 18:34 Joedaddy wrote:You didn't answer the question: why do you keep saying "the gay lifestyle is a sin" and not "the straight lifestyle is a sin" as well? I didn't say it because I don't believe a physical relationship between a man and a woman is a sin. I do however believe that a physical relationship between a man and another man (or a woman and another woman) is a sin. That strikes me as intellectually dishonest; You claim you don't have anything against gay people, but then go on to say that an expression of homosexuality is a sin. Hold on. He did say he thinks a homoesexual lifestyle is a sin and he doesn't try to run from that. He can love sinners though, as to him every is a sinner in their own way. Nothing dishonest about it, you just seem to have a need for his alliances to fit in to your box? Reading comprehension, poeple!
Saying that you have nothing against homosexuals, while simultaneously believing that homosexuality is a sin can reasonably be construed as intelectually dishonest. If you consider homosexuality a sin, that is obviously a special, additional, condemnation of homosexual people. The fact that other people are sinners too, and that you love everyone, is religious rhetoric that means nothing to me.
|
On May 02 2012 19:08 Joedaddy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 19:05 Roe wrote:On May 02 2012 18:34 Joedaddy wrote:You didn't answer the question: why do you keep saying "the gay lifestyle is a sin" and not "the straight lifestyle is a sin" as well? I didn't say it because I don't believe a physical relationship between a man and a woman is a sin. I do however believe that a physical relationship between a man and another man (or a woman and another woman) is a sin. There's nothing wrong about a man being with a man or a woman being with a woman. Your book doesn't have any convincing argument in it to prove me wrong. I wouldn't try to convince you, or anyone on TL, that I'm right and "you're" wrong. I'm just trying to articulate my beliefs, as a Christian, as they pertain to this discussion.
Well isn't that one of the problem here. Although you are thankfully enough not trying to convince anyone, you are still bringing beliefs into a discussion, which is kind of pointless.
What you say have no evidence at all to support it and that is a strong basis when discussing. I am not trying to tell you not to believe anything, but i don't think claims completly void of any real evidence (i don't think a book in itself can be considered evidence, as it doesn't prove anything about whos words it is. It is just claiming it) are really worth bringing into a discussion at all.
And not regarding you. I thought it was scientifically proven that homosexuality is not a choice. Why even discuss it.
And on the matter: Of course no one should physically abuse the child for anything. And certainly not for what you yourself consider "right". While i agree that some behavour is unwanted in society, for example bullying and murder. I think that it should be a consideration of maximising happines, instead of "this book says so". Of course, happiness must in some way be measured against a desire for freedom of choice though.
And physical abuse is in no way a desired thing in society.
|
Religion when used like a weapon to control and stop our evolution is worse then a cancer.. This guy is a old and stupid man, that reads from a book instead of really understanding the words of a great man (Christ), he preached for peace and understanding, love and mercy..
He didn't speak about condoms, genders, race, color, etc..
Open your eyes and follow the man and the message not words on a book written thousands of years ago by people that didn't even know earth is round!
|
On May 02 2012 19:01 hefty wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 18:34 hypercube wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 02 2012 18:12 hefty wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 17:48 hypercube wrote:On May 02 2012 17:41 Joedaddy wrote:On May 02 2012 17:38 Kenshin_915 wrote:On May 02 2012 17:30 Joedaddy wrote:
I really hope people don't stereotype all Christians or the Christian faith because of this. To me, that is always the saddest part about these kinds of stories. Hundreds/thousands/millions of people will look at this and say "HA! Christians are hateful bigots." Nothing could be further from the truth. I don't hate gay people. I don't think children should be physically abused for gay tendencies. I do believe that living a Gay lifestyle is a sin, but I have plenty of tendencies and behaviors myself that are sinful.
Hating and/or physically abusing Gay people is not what God and the Christian faith are about. So please, address the man and the issue, but do not lump all Christians into the same group as him. Yeah, I guess subtle, lifelong psycological abuse will just have to do. But ya' know, "hate the sin love the sinner etc etc." But the problem is, being gay isn't a lifestyle, as much as being straight is a lifestyle. It's normal. But hey, screw all the evidence that says so... I'm really sorry, but I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I'm not advocating "subtle, lifelong psychological abuse." How did you arrive at the conclusion that I think that would be appropriate? He probably means referring to a perfectly normal lifestyle choice as sinful and threatening them with eternal torture for it. It may look acceptable to you but from the outside it fits the definition of abuse. Come on, guys, just cause you brought out your pitch forks doesn't mean you have to stab any christian with them. He likens a "gay lifestyle" to a sin, which I have to disagree with, but also makes it clear that many things are a sin to him - including some of his own behavior. Many christians view life like that - see human behavior as an endless struggle against sinful nature and ask for the forgivenes of their god who will love them any way. He may view homosexuality as a sin like a lie is a sin. Do this mean he would mistreat a gay son? Hopefully not, as he probably wouldn't scorn a lying child. If he would take actions to make his son live a different lifestyle - you can openly disagree and disrespect that, but he hasn't said anything of that nature yet. Also, we should bear in mind that it is a relatively new thing that homosexually is viewed as normal. We cannot expect every member of our society to suddenly agree and we have no right to tell people what to think. We can of course try to shield children from abuse, but certainly not from the directions given by loving parents who have other priorities than us. After all, most good parents have at one point or other in the upbringing of their children tried to push these children in a certain direction. Luckily children don't always do as their parents would like. As long as he isn't hurting his children it isn't our business. Here's the thing: I can make a mistake, hurt someone, lie and accept I made a mistake. I can apologize, maybe feel guilty, make amends and move on. How can a gay person live with himself if he thinks being gay is a sin? It's not like a mistake that can be changed or avoided in the future. Not without inhuman sacrifice anyway. I pretty much agree and certainly hope he would unconditionally love the child. But I do think a parent can convey the message that they disprove of something without saying it makes the child unloved. I certainly am glad I am not that parent in that awkward situation, but Ithink it can be done. In my eyes it is not completely unlike believing parents who are hurt that teir children are atheist for example (please note I don't say the two situations are the same). Of course, these are not talks that should be had before the youth reached a certain maturity. Again, I would want for both parent and child that this wasn't necessary. I don't like it when christians openly dislike homosexuality. But it is not my place to get between that adult and his son.
I think there are a ton of different issues going on at the same time. From the parents POV there might be no difference between atheism and homosexuality but for the child there's a huge difference. An atheist will almost always know there's nothing wrong with him for not believing in God. A kid who is attracted to his own sex will almost always believe there's something wrong with _him_ if he was taught homosexuality is a sin (and usually even he wasn't).
IDK how these situations play out in practice. I suspect it's very hard to unconditionally love your homosexual child and believe that homosexuality is sinful. Something has to give.
On May 02 2012 18:34 hypercube wrote:
You are telling a person that something very basic about them is WRONG. That's very different from telling someone that they made a mistake, or even telling them that they made many mistakes.
It's not like a parent telling their children that they should study law, not music either. It's like a parent telling their children that if they don't study law they'll die of starvation and musicians are inherently bad people. Only slightly worse.
I don't get your metaphors at all. I take it you add the "die of starvation" part to emphasize the emotionally devastating effect of the message, but if there is anything other to it, it is very unclear to me. I think I disagree with this last paragraph though. [/QUOTE]
There's the element of going to hell for their sins.
|
On May 02 2012 19:26 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 19:19 hefty wrote:On May 02 2012 19:01 Hertzy wrote:On May 02 2012 18:34 Joedaddy wrote:You didn't answer the question: why do you keep saying "the gay lifestyle is a sin" and not "the straight lifestyle is a sin" as well? I didn't say it because I don't believe a physical relationship between a man and a woman is a sin. I do however believe that a physical relationship between a man and another man (or a woman and another woman) is a sin. That strikes me as intellectually dishonest; You claim you don't have anything against gay people, but then go on to say that an expression of homosexuality is a sin. Hold on. He did say he thinks a homoesexual lifestyle is a sin and he doesn't try to run from that. He can love sinners though, as to him every is a sinner in their own way. Nothing dishonest about it, you just seem to have a need for his alliances to fit in to your box? Reading comprehension, poeple! Saying that you have nothing against homosexuals, while simultaneously believing that homosexuality is a sin can reasonably be construed as intelectually dishonest. If you consider homosexuality a sin, that is obviously a special, additional, condemnation of homosexual people. The fact that other people are sinners too, and that you love everyone, is religious rhetoric that means nothing to me.
Okay then. Seems a bit narrow minded to me.
It is natural to have ambigous feelings towards things. Things aren't as easy love or hate. Would I have learned from talking to believers is that they are often quite aware of such ambiguities and mixed feelings. The very idea that all human beings are sinners (thus somewhat dispicable I guess) yet loveable is an example of how religion constantly emphasize the two-fold or many-fold nature of things. Being reared in such an environment probably mean you are more aware of it than the average person.
So I don't think it is only rhetorics when a christian claims to love homosexuals even if the homosexual lifestyle is a sin to him. He think he means what he says. Also, notice how he put: he loves the homosexual (man) but can't approve of his homosexual actions (giving in to his desires). He isn't intellectually dishonest, he jsut sees things different that you and I.
On May 02 2012 19:26 Teoman wrote:And not regarding you. I thought it was scientifically proven that homosexuality is not a choice. Why even discuss it.
EDIT: Misqouted : (
Don't throw this around so lightly, I am sure it hasn't been. Common sense says it hasn't been, it is such a complex phenomenon.
|
I do not think this works and it creates a society where it is acceptable to use violence on gays.
|
Hahahahahahahahaha, religion.
Words cannot express how stupid it really is.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On May 02 2012 19:26 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 19:19 hefty wrote:On May 02 2012 19:01 Hertzy wrote:On May 02 2012 18:34 Joedaddy wrote:You didn't answer the question: why do you keep saying "the gay lifestyle is a sin" and not "the straight lifestyle is a sin" as well? I didn't say it because I don't believe a physical relationship between a man and a woman is a sin. I do however believe that a physical relationship between a man and another man (or a woman and another woman) is a sin. That strikes me as intellectually dishonest; You claim you don't have anything against gay people, but then go on to say that an expression of homosexuality is a sin. Hold on. He did say he thinks a homoesexual lifestyle is a sin and he doesn't try to run from that. He can love sinners though, as to him every is a sinner in their own way. Nothing dishonest about it, you just seem to have a need for his alliances to fit in to your box? Reading comprehension, poeple! Saying that you have nothing against homosexuals, while simultaneously believing that homosexuality is a sin can reasonably be construed as intelectually dishonest. If you consider homosexuality a sin, that is obviously a special, additional, condemnation of homosexual people. The fact that other people are sinners too, and that you love everyone, is religious rhetoric that means nothing to me.
What's wrong with loving a sinner? How would you propose religions work then, you either have to do away with the idea of immoral acts or the principle of loving others, they aren't mutually exclusive. If you feel they are mutually exclusive, how do you deal with people who have wronged you, is forgiveness a notion only for the religious? Should christians (or any other person who believes in immoral acts) feel conflicted for loving their kids even if their kids lie to them?
|
On May 02 2012 19:33 hefty wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 19:26 Teoman wrote:
Well isn't that one of the problem here. Although you are thankfully enough not trying to convince anyone, you are still bringing beliefs into a discussion, which is kind of pointless. Don't throw this around so lightly, I am sure it hasn't been. Common sense says it hasn't been, it is such a complex phenomenon.
Okay, i might not have explained that enough and it may not have been to considerate written :D
What i was hoping to say was that you can discuss something based on faith. But that is just what it is: faith. It is basicly defined by not having evidence, because then i guess it wouldn't be faith.
So that is why i used the word pointless, because if someone says "I think homosexuality is a sin" (not trying to single you out :D) simply because they believe it or have read it in the bible (which is a matter of belief to) then that argument can't hold any weight against someone who can rationally explain it or even better, provide evidence. It does not mean that you are not allowed to believe otherwise, it simply means, as i said that it is pointless to bring it up.
|
Just know that because a Pastor says these things
it is not what Jesus taught. If someone could point
me to a place in the New Testament where Jesus
advocated physically harming another person for
their sins please let me know. Jesus in fact saved a
woman who was going to be stoned to death for being caught in the act of adultery. If anything
Jesus would be telling this Pastor NOT to hard the
children but instead pray for them.
Matthew 5:17-18
"17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter,
will pass from the law until all is accomplished."
^ Jesus upholds the law of the Old Testament.
The Old Testament is full of commandments to kill criminals, smack children, beat disobedient slaves, etc.
It also says:
Leviticus 18:22
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
The law, which Jesus upholds every part of, says that homosexual sex is an abomination.
To those of you who say that smacking of children is child abuse: how many of you were smacked as children and are now over 18? How many of you have raised children with or without smacking?
I was smacked as a kid and it's one of the best things my parents ever did for me. I wasn't at all abused or beaten. I can honestly say that I wouldn't be as "good" a person as I am now if I hadn't been smacked, and most people in my country agree with me, that smacking is not a bad thing. (Unfortunate, because it is now illegal to smack children in New Zealand. Democracy at work...)
|
On May 02 2012 19:33 hefty wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 19:26 Crushinator wrote:On May 02 2012 19:19 hefty wrote:On May 02 2012 19:01 Hertzy wrote:On May 02 2012 18:34 Joedaddy wrote:You didn't answer the question: why do you keep saying "the gay lifestyle is a sin" and not "the straight lifestyle is a sin" as well? I didn't say it because I don't believe a physical relationship between a man and a woman is a sin. I do however believe that a physical relationship between a man and another man (or a woman and another woman) is a sin. That strikes me as intellectually dishonest; You claim you don't have anything against gay people, but then go on to say that an expression of homosexuality is a sin. Hold on. He did say he thinks a homoesexual lifestyle is a sin and he doesn't try to run from that. He can love sinners though, as to him every is a sinner in their own way. Nothing dishonest about it, you just seem to have a need for his alliances to fit in to your box? Reading comprehension, poeple! Saying that you have nothing against homosexuals, while simultaneously believing that homosexuality is a sin can reasonably be construed as intelectually dishonest. If you consider homosexuality a sin, that is obviously a special, additional, condemnation of homosexual people. The fact that other people are sinners too, and that you love everyone, is religious rhetoric that means nothing to me. Okay then. Seems a bit narrow minded to me. It is natural to have ambigous feelings towards things. Things aren't as easy love or hate. Would I have learned from talking to believers is that they are often quite aware of such ambiguities and mixed feelings. The very idea that all human beings are sinners (thus somewhat dispicable I guess) yet loveable is an example of how religion constantly emphasize the two-fold or many-fold nature of things. Being reared in such an environment probably mean you are more aware of it than the average person. So I don't think it is only rhetorics when a christian claims to love homosexuals even if the homosexual lifestyle is a sin to him. He think he means what he says. Also, notice how he put: he loves the homosexual (man) but can't approve of his homosexual actions (giving in to his desires). He isn't intellectually dishonest, he jsut sees things different that you and I. Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 19:26 Teoman wrote:
Well isn't that one of the problem here. Although you are thankfully enough not trying to convince anyone, you are still bringing beliefs into a discussion, which is kind of pointless. Don't throw this around so lightly, I am sure it hasn't been. Common sense says it hasn't been, it is such a complex phenomenon.
I think the major double standard is that most sins like lying or stealing are things you can help. However, demanding that someone eschew homosexual actions is to demand that they remain celibate. I find it rather obnoxious that one would claim that such a requirement is no different than expecting their heterosexual friends to eschew from generally antisocial actions.
|
On May 02 2012 19:29 hypercube wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 02 2012 19:01 hefty wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 18:34 hypercube wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 02 2012 18:12 hefty wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 17:48 hypercube wrote:On May 02 2012 17:41 Joedaddy wrote:On May 02 2012 17:38 Kenshin_915 wrote:On May 02 2012 17:30 Joedaddy wrote:
I really hope people don't stereotype all Christians or the Christian faith because of this. To me, that is always the saddest part about these kinds of stories. Hundreds/thousands/millions of people will look at this and say "HA! Christians are hateful bigots." Nothing could be further from the truth. I don't hate gay people. I don't think children should be physically abused for gay tendencies. I do believe that living a Gay lifestyle is a sin, but I have plenty of tendencies and behaviors myself that are sinful.
Hating and/or physically abusing Gay people is not what God and the Christian faith are about. So please, address the man and the issue, but do not lump all Christians into the same group as him. Yeah, I guess subtle, lifelong psycological abuse will just have to do. But ya' know, "hate the sin love the sinner etc etc." But the problem is, being gay isn't a lifestyle, as much as being straight is a lifestyle. It's normal. But hey, screw all the evidence that says so... I'm really sorry, but I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I'm not advocating "subtle, lifelong psychological abuse." How did you arrive at the conclusion that I think that would be appropriate? He probably means referring to a perfectly normal lifestyle choice as sinful and threatening them with eternal torture for it. It may look acceptable to you but from the outside it fits the definition of abuse. Come on, guys, just cause you brought out your pitch forks doesn't mean you have to stab any christian with them. He likens a "gay lifestyle" to a sin, which I have to disagree with, but also makes it clear that many things are a sin to him - including some of his own behavior. Many christians view life like that - see human behavior as an endless struggle against sinful nature and ask for the forgivenes of their god who will love them any way. He may view homosexuality as a sin like a lie is a sin. Do this mean he would mistreat a gay son? Hopefully not, as he probably wouldn't scorn a lying child. If he would take actions to make his son live a different lifestyle - you can openly disagree and disrespect that, but he hasn't said anything of that nature yet. Also, we should bear in mind that it is a relatively new thing that homosexually is viewed as normal. We cannot expect every member of our society to suddenly agree and we have no right to tell people what to think. We can of course try to shield children from abuse, but certainly not from the directions given by loving parents who have other priorities than us. After all, most good parents have at one point or other in the upbringing of their children tried to push these children in a certain direction. Luckily children don't always do as their parents would like. As long as he isn't hurting his children it isn't our business. Here's the thing: I can make a mistake, hurt someone, lie and accept I made a mistake. I can apologize, maybe feel guilty, make amends and move on. How can a gay person live with himself if he thinks being gay is a sin? It's not like a mistake that can be changed or avoided in the future. Not without inhuman sacrifice anyway. I pretty much agree and certainly hope he would unconditionally love the child. But I do think a parent can convey the message that they disprove of something without saying it makes the child unloved. I certainly am glad I am not that parent in that awkward situation, but Ithink it can be done. In my eyes it is not completely unlike believing parents who are hurt that teir children are atheist for example (please note I don't say the two situations are the same). Of course, these are not talks that should be had before the youth reached a certain maturity. Again, I would want for both parent and child that this wasn't necessary. I don't like it when christians openly dislike homosexuality. But it is not my place to get between that adult and his son. I think there are a ton of different issues going on at the same time. From the parents POV there might be no difference between atheism and homosexuality but for the child there's a huge difference. An atheist will almost always know there's nothing wrong with him for not believing in God. A kid who is attracted to his own sex will almost always believe there's something wrong with _him_ if he was taught homosexuality is a sin (and usually even he wasn't). IDK how these situations play out in practice. I suspect it's very hard to unconditionally love your homosexual child and believe that homosexuality is sinful. Something has to give. Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 18:34 hypercube wrote:
You are telling a person that something very basic about them is WRONG. That's very different from telling someone that they made a mistake, or even telling them that they made many mistakes.
It's not like a parent telling their children that they should study law, not music either. It's like a parent telling their children that if they don't study law they'll die of starvation and musicians are inherently bad people. Only slightly worse. Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 19:01 hefty wrote:
I don't get your metaphors at all. I take it you add the "die of starvation" part to emphasize the emotionally devastating effect of the message, but if there is anything other to it, it is very unclear to me. I think I disagree with this last paragraph though. There's the element of going to hell for their sins.
I think you put way to much emphasis on this. To many believers (cartainly not all) hell is a place you go for your sins unless you are forgiven. Different societies have different opinions on how difficult this forgiveness is to obtain. To some it may sound very harsh rearing children in an environment where stories of hell are told as an example of condemnation, but it has been so in religious societies forever. Hell, like heaven, is a part of the world to these people and not something you live in constant fear of.
Just as these children are taught that hell is for sinners, they are taught that everyone sins and everyone can be forgiven. You are implying that the notion of hell is akin to psychological torture, while it is a pretty ordinary part of a many christians lives.
Yeah, it kinda baffles me as well to be honest, but I appreciate that this is how they view things. I admit I got a little taken aback when a religious girl once told me (knowing I am an atheist), that it was such a shame I had to burn in hell cause I were a nice guy. Odd to me, but I see were they are coming from.
|
I don't even care that this guy hates gay people. I care that he is so stupid he thinks that a male toddler having a limp wrist is going to mean he will be a homosexual.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
