|
On May 02 2012 19:42 taldarimAltar 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. 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?
I do not hold any of the beliefs you have assigned to me.
|
On May 02 2012 16:25 b0mBerMan wrote: To be honest, I am one of those that are morally or philisophically vague about this isms - pro-gay, anti-gay, prolife, pro-abortion, etc. I don't really feel the need to stand of one side of the fence or the other. I feel that these are mere natural tensions that occur in a complex society and eventually will play out on what is really for the common good, as it has in most cases, such as with racism, semitism, etc (at least the vulgar part of it).
first of all, i'm pretty sure you mean ANTIsemitism.
are you serious? those 'natural tensions' 'play out' because people fight against racism, ANTIsemitism etc., because people chose a side instead of being 'morally or philosophically vague'. its also quite obvious that none of those problems are solved yet. just look around in the world.
you also write: 'Throughout history there are many cases of these, in the end what will count and be considered "humane" is who wins the moral battle.'
i am not sure i understand what you are trying to tell us. you chose not to chose sides, because you do not feel the need for it, because eventually others will fight the struggle and one side will win and dictate the moral point of view. at first i thought u must be trying to criticize something with your statements, but after all i think you are using them to justify that you yourself are not choosing sides. sir, i think you are a sheep.
|
On May 02 2012 16:28 Denzil wrote:
How many american states are this hardcore anti gay?
Everybody except Vermont xD
|
He should be locked up for this. Inciting violence against children.
|
On May 02 2012 16:33 Aelfric wrote:
I could never understand why people be anti-gay. What are they trying to protect the public from? Being gay is a part of reality, let the people live however they want lol. It's not like they will ass rape you in the ATM all of a sudden...
well, to put it in the words the homophobes would use: "new things be scary and i hates them!"
If god exists I find it hard to believe he/she would care about something as trivial as what people like to do with their weiner.
|
I agree with him. USA!
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On May 02 2012 19:45 Hertzy wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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. 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.
Well, I agree that it is a bad spot parent put themselves and their children in if they want to let the child know that they can't condone of homosexuality. I certainly hope they are fantastic parents (in all other regards) and able to handle the situation with sufficient care.
It may, and may not, be a bit like the example I mentioned earlier with the atheist child of a religious parent. A girl close to me has been a believer but now thinks herself an agnostic atheist. Her mother is naturally enough very hurt and hopes that the daughter will convert. To her mother atheism means hell, although she would never openly say this to her beloved daughter. The daughter knows this, which means she tries not to bring up the issue too much as it would hurt her mother. The two of them love eachother unconditionally. It isn't such a strange thing after all. People can love what hurt them and love what is very different from them.
|
On May 02 2012 19:52 horsebanger wrote:
I agree with him. USA!
I think you are going to get banned in the near future.
|
On May 02 2012 19:44 zany_001 wrote:Show nested quote +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...)
Wait! How does some people agreing make something a good thing? And how can you be certain that you are better because you were "Smacked"? Can you forsee alternative futures.
I am sure that the government had more research and stastistic in place to outlaw child smacking than your "agreeing".
I was not smacked as a kid. Does that mean that i am by your words "less good". I have yet to see any evidence that smacking children is good for them, but i will not make an uninformed claim that " I wouldn't be as "good" a person as I am now" if i hadn't been smacked.
|
Damn me and my limp wrist.
|
On May 02 2012 17:15 Rannasha wrote:
Why not just live and let live?
The first thing that poped into my head when i read this was "because that would be something Christ would do!"
|
On May 02 2012 19:43 Teoman wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 19:33 hefty wrote: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.
Thank you for your answer, I apprecaite it, but I misqouted you there. See the ealier post for the correction if you wish to.
|
On May 02 2012 19:47 hefty wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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. 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.
Ok, I guess I'll have to reappraise my view on telling someone they'll go to hell. At the very least I admit I don't really understand how religious people view it. I still think the number one issue is how their subject sees it. If someone is scared by being threatened with hell, it's the accuser responsibility to pick up on it. I guess it's the same with all forms of (possible) psychological abuse. If the victim thinks it's abuse, chances are they're right.
OTOH, I'm not very sympathetic to the "it's been like this forever" argument. The past was very different, with the vast majority concerned with day to day survival, having no education and certainly no access to differing points of views. And maybe those who did have access to these luxuries should be condemned for their lack of empathy.
|
On May 02 2012 19:59 Teoman wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 19:44 zany_001 wrote: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...) Wait! How does some people agreing make something a good thing? And how can you be certain that you are better because you were "Smacked"? Can you forsee alternative futures. I am sure that the government had more research and stastistic in place to outlaw child smacking than your "agreeing". I was not smacked as a kid. Does that mean that i am by your words "less good". I have yet to see any evidence that smacking children is good for them, but i will not make an uninformed claim that " I wouldn't be as "good" a person as I am now" if i hadn't been smacked.
People agreeing on something does not make it true (argumentum ad populum). I merely stated that to lead on to the illegality of smacking in NZ.
I know myself fairly well, I was a pretty unruly, break-the-rules kid and smacking kept me on the right side of the law.
Over 87.6% of those in NZ who voted in a referendum to prevent the anti-smacking bill (so called) thought that smacking should be legal. The government didn't change the law. The reason they changed it in the first place was most likely in keeping with UN specifications, to improve their trade rating. Regardless, that was merely an aside and not the main part of what I was saying.
I never said that not being smacked made you a worse kid. Straw man argument.
There are plenty of kids I know who weren't smacked and are "nice" kids. But there are plenty of kids I know who weren't smacked and are NOT "nice" kids, and others with similar temperaments who WERE smacked who turned out much better.
|
On May 02 2012 16:28 Denzil wrote:
How many american states are this hardcore anti gay?
None of them. He's a whack job and they exist in your country as well.
|
On May 02 2012 20:09 zany_001 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 19:59 Teoman wrote:On May 02 2012 19:44 zany_001 wrote: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...) Wait! How does some people agreing make something a good thing? And how can you be certain that you are better because you were "Smacked"? Can you forsee alternative futures. I am sure that the government had more research and stastistic in place to outlaw child smacking than your "agreeing". I was not smacked as a kid. Does that mean that i am by your words "less good". I have yet to see any evidence that smacking children is good for them, but i will not make an uninformed claim that " I wouldn't be as "good" a person as I am now" if i hadn't been smacked. People agreeing on something does not make it true (argumentum ad populum). I merely stated that to lead on to the illegality of smacking in NZ. I know myself fairly well, I was a pretty unruly, break-the-rules kid and smacking kept me on the right side of the law. Over 87.6% of those in NZ who voted in a referendum to prevent the anti-smacking bill (so called) thought that smacking should be legal. The government didn't change the law. The reason they changed it in the first place was most likely in keeping with UN specifications, to improve their trade rating. Regardless, that was merely an aside and not the main part of what I was saying. I never said that not being smacked made you a worse kid. Straw man argument. There are plenty of kids I know who weren't smacked and are "nice" kids. But there are plenty of kids I know who weren't smacked and are NOT "nice" kids, and others with similar temperaments who WERE smacked who turned out much better.
Child abuse is never okay. It's this silly attitude of "I got beat, so I'm gonna beat my kids" that keeps this going generation after generation. Please just stop.
|
United States42006 Posts
Closing this because there is literally no debate to be had here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
