|
On January 29 2013 14:01 FeelingTookish wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 13:08 Jormundr wrote:On January 29 2013 12:57 FeelingTookish wrote:On January 29 2013 12:48 Jormundr wrote:On January 29 2013 12:42 FeelingTookish wrote:
I think it's a bit dehumanizing to wildly paint people who discourage the homosexual lifestyle (majority of the world, all of history I'm pretty sure) as "bigots", "ignorant", people who somehow "fear" homosexuals, and especially "hateful". These just aren't accurate. The vast majority of people don't go out of their way to condemn homosexuals as terrible people. They simply believe in the man-and-wife, white picket fence, bring-home-the-bacon kind of lifestyle and I don't think that's to be frowned upon. One man, one woman, add misogyny. Got it. I mean, I don't hate christians. I don't actively condemn them as terrible people (because I stay away from them whenever I can). I just try to make sure that they can't get married or raise children. I'm not sure belief in traditional gender roles implies misogyny any more than it implies misandry. I think both sexes should be encouraged to use the strengths biologically given to them. And you brought up child-rearing, so I'll pitch this: It's hard to argue that one mother and one father is demonstrably the ideal situation for a child, however much you may cite the divorce rate, etc. When and where were these gender roles traditional, and what were they? What strengths are biologically given to men to make them more able to "bring-home-the-bacon"? Enlighten me! Really? You haven't figured out that women are better looking and men are stronger, that women are better at dealing with small children, and a man makes a better commando, sheriff, ditch-digger, etc? Is this too common-sensical for you or do you want me to dig up obscure statistics and lengthy historical arguments? If you can't accept this premise, then any argument we have will be rather low-level and semantic.
I don't think you are being misogynistic, but I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "discourage the homosexual lifestyle". To what extent are you discouraging homosexuals? Are you opposed to them getting married/raising kids or just altogether opposed to the concept of homosexuality?
|
On January 29 2013 14:03 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 13:41 HumpingHydra wrote:On January 29 2013 12:04 Risen wrote:
Can a man say no? Yes. Can an animal? End of discussion. Damn that was hard to think through, eh?
Edit: don't know why I expect anything different from someone who in the same post says he follows higher power morals not realizing he's been taught all his morals by other humans and not God. Ok, I'll bite. Lets suppose a man has a dolphin or bonobo. Both of which have sex for purposes other than reproducing. Is it ok for the man to have sex with the bonobo or dolphin as long as he doesn't force it to have sex with him? What if he bribes the bonobo or dolphin with food, and they're ok with it? I know thats wierd (and its a decently stupid example, i think theres truth here), but I feel like there are so many situations that are hard to justify. I don't think athiests are fine with that, but I could be wrong. One thing I do appreciate about atheism is that usually the people are critical thinkers. LOL humping hydra, what an appropriate name  . But aside from that this recent discussion makes me wonder if there is any reasonable justification for...not liking homosexuals? Wanting to ban them from holding positions in your club? I guess that's what it comes down to. Well I think there may be in terms of natural, inborn aversions to certain types of people. Like, certain individuals may dislike talking to fat people, because all of that blubber makes them uncomfortable for whatever reason (lol) - maybe its just disgusting to them, and they don't wan to look at all that flabbiness. Along the same vein, maybe its also reasonable for certain people to dislike gays, because there sexual preferences gives them a "freakish" nature that the others find disturbing. So then, is it okay to discriminate against someone, or deny them access to the higher levels of your club? Would it be "moral" to look down upon a beautiful person's club, which does not allow ugly people to join? I feel like that's what could be going on here. Its a club, that among other things, promotes "straight" sexuality and a certain way of life because they think that the homosexual way of life is somewhat perverse or disturbing, so they keep it out of the club. Is it morally wrong for people to be disturbed (if they are)? I feel like the assumption is that, its okay to criticize them (Boy scouts) because they just have some bigoted attitudes against gays that aren't founded on anything except baseless hatred - or similarly, based in the perceived fantasy that is religion.
No man
you see
if you let these homosexuals into the boy scouts, they will convert everyone to the homosexual lifestyle, and they will have gay sex inside their tents, constantly
this is a plot by the gays and their homosexual agenda to trick people into thinking that homosexuals aren't deviants who spend every moment of their lives lusting after the same sex
this is what some people actually believe
|
On January 29 2013 14:06 mecra wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 14:03 radscorpion9 wrote:
Is it morally wrong for people to be disturbed (if they are)? I feel like the assumption is that, its okay to criticize them (Boy scouts) because they just have some bigoted attitudes against gays that aren't founded on anything except baseless hatred - or similarly, based in the perceived fantasy that is religion. Again, if you keep discounting religion and falsifying it, you won't ever understand it. You say baseless hatred, I don't see hatred (you over-dramatized) but an adherence to their religion. If you negate that simply because you don't believe it, then it's quite easy for me to negate your view of homosexuality as being ok.
I wanted to be clear, but that one word (perceived) may have passed unnoticed, so let me do a better job of it: I'm just saying that the way people often frame the argument, that they often (typically) view the anti-gay side as being the result of religion that is basically just a fiction to them, and so is basically a form of unsubstantiated bigotry.
I am not saying anything specifically one way or the other, because I have no interest in starting that discussion or upsetting anyone. I'm just observing how the arguments are framed in society in general, on what grounds the contempt for Boy Scouts, or any other similar organization, is based on. The reason was I was trying to observe whether this approach or assumption is justified, so I left it as an open question.
Also I said it was similar to baseless hatred - in that it is a form of disgust which is a similar negative emotion. So yeah, a bunch of technicalities. Hatred probably is too strong a word in some cases, probably the wrong word in general. But I think there are definitely some crazy people (Phelps?) who do hate gays.
On January 29 2013 14:13 wozzot wrote:
No man
you see
if you let these homosexuals into the boy scouts, they will convert everyone to the homosexual lifestyle, and they will have gay sex inside their tents, constantly
this is a plot by the gays and their homosexual agenda to trick people into thinking that homosexuals aren't deviants who spend every moment of their lives lusting after the same sex
this is what some people actually believe
haha . I'm sure they do. You don't seem to be debating my point, but it is amusing to think of the homosexual agenda. It actually makes me wonder, whether we need religion to protect people from themselves (those who are susceptible to this paranoia) - or whether its the other way around, and religion fosters this type of paranoia. Hmmm... I'll go with the latter.
Edit: uh-oh I just realized I might have typed something "upsetting". Sorry religious person . I didn't mean it lol
|
On January 29 2013 14:05 Buff345 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 13:34 mecra wrote:Wow, all the Christian hate. Plus the whole argument that Christians are wrong to dislike homosexuals goes against the religion's beliefs. Here's the deal, to Christians, including myself, homosexuality is sin. Plainly and simply stated in the Bible. If we are to believe the Bible, then we are to subscribe to that notion. If we are to be Christians, we subscribe to said book. Now, other concepts are also in there that I agree a lot of Christians don't adhere to very well. For example, loving thy neighbor, regardless if they are homosexuals, atheists, or the like is a pillar of the faith. So, while Christians view homosexuals as sinners, there is no clause in there to state that they should hate them or such. In this, a lot of Christians are found wanting, I won't disagree with that. I strongly dislike it when people basically want to throw out the Bible for its stance on things but yet want to still be true Christians. It really doesn't work like that. You may still believe in God, but once you start purposefully dissecting the book into things you agree with and don't, you've effectively created your own religion with the sole purpose to console yourself. Religion isn't something you get to specifically create with any hopes of it being true. (oh the flood of posts on this one point, of which I won't address here.) A great number of Christians believe the religion to be very true, and thus the Bible its guidance. To claim the Bible is wrong, that the Christian should just sit in their house to pray and stay hidden, is the very essence of proclaiming them and their religion as nothing but paper and folded hands. You are stating that Christians are wrong in the same way they proclaim homosexuality wrong. Both sides negate, one based on a religion, and the other based on ideal. You don't get to tell one group to go hide, but then declare others get full reign to do whatever they want. You stomp on the rights of the one group, in favor of the other. You stomp on the rights of Christians to want their world to be somewhat in alignment with their beliefs. What if society decided that pedophilia wasn't so bad and that the age of consent was 10? I'll tell you one thing, Christians won't like that at all. Other people, however, may see it as a logical extension of being and thus want equal rights. Religion gives a rock to stand on to base one's beliefs. When there is no rock, you can simply adopt any belief and claim its truth and justification. Society does the rest to implant it, which of course doesn't actually mean it's true. Just that it's commonly accepted. (At least until scientifically proven.) Anyway, I'm just posting some thoughts on religion. One poster above said, "I hope one day we can learn to live more tolerably." Believe me when I say that Christians wish the same thing. Lately it's fun to poke fun at an entire religion because of a small number of people. I don't know any of the types of Christians that would cause the world to rage at us, so I get highly annoyed when those people are used as prime examples of why a religion fails. We have simply way too many people in the world, and as a result, you are going to get bad apples in every walk of life. So, to finalize, the Boy Scouts are a Christian organization. To Christians who read their Bible, homosexuals pose a conundrum. If it's the BSA's line to not allow homosexuality (changing it seems), atheists, or agnostics, that is their right. Now it may cost them money, support, etc, but it is ultimately their right to be able to stand for their beliefs. It's easy to stand for your beliefs when they are all encompassing and they go with the general populace. It's generally not so easy when religious. So, I applaud them for standing their ground. If they feel that they need to change, that is also their right. edit - I apologize for the size of the post. Just had a lot to say I guess.  I think youre making some sweeping generalizations about christians that are not necessarily true. Homosexuality may be a sin, but so is flipping someone off when they cut into your lane on the highway. It's a sin to eat too much and to not study enough for your tests. The definition of sin wasnt layed out so we can tell eachother not to sin, its there so we can know that we are incapable of being perfect. Just because a christian doesnt care whether or not people are gay doesnt mean they are throwing the bible out the window. Theres a problem people have within themselves that permeates beyond their actions. If someone claims they dont have a problem then it isnt up to me to change their mind. If someone says they do have a problem, then me telling them that they need to stop sinning isnt going to help them at all. So in light of this, as a christian who believes he is holding to all of the bible, i have to disagree with you. If it claims to be a christian organization it shoudnt expel children who have "problems" it should try to help them actually take care of the real issue. And if the child doesnt think he has a problem, its kind of messed up for me to try and be the hand of god in convicting them
Like any organization, they want to promote people that share their values. The people have to demonstrate through action that they fit the mold the Boy Scouts are looking for. If a child, or leader is an atheist with no plans of changing that, how does accepting them into the club help the individual or the organization? Logically neither of them benefit, save to make some political point.
"If it claims to be a christian organization it shoudnt expel children..."
This is the same straw-man argument claiming Christians are supposed to be pacifists, turn the other cheek, etc. Christians are not pacifists, and are not commanded to accept people as they are. Christianity teaches tolerance. *Actual* tolerance. Not the redefined progressive tolerance which is code for acceptance and celebration. A Christian organization shouldn't have to accept or celebrate views antithetical to their organization's stated goals.
|
On January 29 2013 14:13 wozzot wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 14:03 radscorpion9 wrote:On January 29 2013 13:41 HumpingHydra wrote:On January 29 2013 12:04 Risen wrote:
Can a man say no? Yes. Can an animal? End of discussion. Damn that was hard to think through, eh?
Edit: don't know why I expect anything different from someone who in the same post says he follows higher power morals not realizing he's been taught all his morals by other humans and not God. Ok, I'll bite. Lets suppose a man has a dolphin or bonobo. Both of which have sex for purposes other than reproducing. Is it ok for the man to have sex with the bonobo or dolphin as long as he doesn't force it to have sex with him? What if he bribes the bonobo or dolphin with food, and they're ok with it? I know thats wierd (and its a decently stupid example, i think theres truth here), but I feel like there are so many situations that are hard to justify. I don't think athiests are fine with that, but I could be wrong. One thing I do appreciate about atheism is that usually the people are critical thinkers. LOL humping hydra, what an appropriate name . But aside from that this recent discussion makes me wonder if there is any reasonable justification for...not liking homosexuals? Wanting to ban them from holding positions in your club? I guess that's what it comes down to. Well I think there may be in terms of natural, inborn aversions to certain types of people. Like, certain individuals may dislike talking to fat people, because all of that blubber makes them uncomfortable for whatever reason (lol) - maybe its just disgusting to them, and they don't wan to look at all that flabbiness. Along the same vein, maybe its also reasonable for certain people to dislike gays, because there sexual preferences gives them a "freakish" nature that the others find disturbing. So then, is it okay to discriminate against someone, or deny them access to the higher levels of your club? Would it be "moral" to look down upon a beautiful person's club, which does not allow ugly people to join? I feel like that's what could be going on here. Its a club, that among other things, promotes "straight" sexuality and a certain way of life because they think that the homosexual way of life is somewhat perverse or disturbing, so they keep it out of the club. Is it morally wrong for people to be disturbed (if they are)? I feel like the assumption is that, its okay to criticize them (Boy scouts) because they just have some bigoted attitudes against gays that aren't founded on anything except baseless hatred - or similarly, based in the perceived fantasy that is religion. No man you see if you let these homosexuals into the boy scouts, they will convert everyone to the homosexual lifestyle, and they will have gay sex inside their tents, constantly this is a plot by the gays and their homosexual agenda to trick people into thinking that homosexuals aren't deviants who spend every moment of their lives lusting after the same sex this is what some people actually believe
Or more possibly cause members to lose faith in the institution of marriage or lose their faith in God or start disobeying their parents because of the influence of people that have made it very clear they do not share the values and goals of the club. What's the point of a club if everyone is allowed in? Then there would only be one club, Earth.
|
On January 29 2013 14:05 Buff345 wrote:
I think youre making some sweeping generalizations about christians that are not necessarily true. Homosexuality may be a sin, but so is flipping someone off when they cut into your lane on the highway. It's a sin to eat too much and to not study enough for your tests. The definition of sin wasnt layed out so we can tell eachother not to sin, its there so we can know that we are incapable of being perfect. Just because a christian doesnt care whether or not people are gay doesnt mean they are throwing the bible out the window. Theres a problem people have within themselves that permeates beyond their actions.
If someone claims they dont have a problem then it isnt up to me to change their mind. If someone says they do have a problem, then me telling them that they need to stop sinning isnt going to help them at all.
So in light of this, as a christian who believes he is holding to all of the bible, i have to disagree with you. If it claims to be a christian organization it shoudnt expel children who have "problems" it should try to help them actually take care of the real issue. And if the child doesnt think he has a problem, its kind of messed up for me to try and be the hand of god in convicting them
Being a Christian of 35 years lends me a great deal of experience, and I never said some of the above. You are making assumptions incorrectly.
I would say that one must adhere to a stance if not doing so would cause harm to the belief. It's fine not trying to change the mind of someone who doesn't have a problem with it, but it isn't when it becomes church defining doctrine. I mean the latter to a degree that it changes the Bible. For example, calling homosexuality not a sin in church would be a problem. Meeting someone at work who thinks it's fine, agreed that's not the place to call down fire and brimstone.
However, you are accurate that Christians should help where they can and not to use sin as a bludgeoning tool. Maybe this is where the BSA is changing it's stance? Possibly not and it's just societal pressure. I'm unsure.
|
On January 29 2013 14:18 FeelingTookish wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 14:05 Buff345 wrote:On January 29 2013 13:34 mecra wrote:Wow, all the Christian hate. Plus the whole argument that Christians are wrong to dislike homosexuals goes against the religion's beliefs. Here's the deal, to Christians, including myself, homosexuality is sin. Plainly and simply stated in the Bible. If we are to believe the Bible, then we are to subscribe to that notion. If we are to be Christians, we subscribe to said book. Now, other concepts are also in there that I agree a lot of Christians don't adhere to very well. For example, loving thy neighbor, regardless if they are homosexuals, atheists, or the like is a pillar of the faith. So, while Christians view homosexuals as sinners, there is no clause in there to state that they should hate them or such. In this, a lot of Christians are found wanting, I won't disagree with that. I strongly dislike it when people basically want to throw out the Bible for its stance on things but yet want to still be true Christians. It really doesn't work like that. You may still believe in God, but once you start purposefully dissecting the book into things you agree with and don't, you've effectively created your own religion with the sole purpose to console yourself. Religion isn't something you get to specifically create with any hopes of it being true. (oh the flood of posts on this one point, of which I won't address here.) A great number of Christians believe the religion to be very true, and thus the Bible its guidance. To claim the Bible is wrong, that the Christian should just sit in their house to pray and stay hidden, is the very essence of proclaiming them and their religion as nothing but paper and folded hands. You are stating that Christians are wrong in the same way they proclaim homosexuality wrong. Both sides negate, one based on a religion, and the other based on ideal. You don't get to tell one group to go hide, but then declare others get full reign to do whatever they want. You stomp on the rights of the one group, in favor of the other. You stomp on the rights of Christians to want their world to be somewhat in alignment with their beliefs. What if society decided that pedophilia wasn't so bad and that the age of consent was 10? I'll tell you one thing, Christians won't like that at all. Other people, however, may see it as a logical extension of being and thus want equal rights. Religion gives a rock to stand on to base one's beliefs. When there is no rock, you can simply adopt any belief and claim its truth and justification. Society does the rest to implant it, which of course doesn't actually mean it's true. Just that it's commonly accepted. (At least until scientifically proven.) Anyway, I'm just posting some thoughts on religion. One poster above said, "I hope one day we can learn to live more tolerably." Believe me when I say that Christians wish the same thing. Lately it's fun to poke fun at an entire religion because of a small number of people. I don't know any of the types of Christians that would cause the world to rage at us, so I get highly annoyed when those people are used as prime examples of why a religion fails. We have simply way too many people in the world, and as a result, you are going to get bad apples in every walk of life. So, to finalize, the Boy Scouts are a Christian organization. To Christians who read their Bible, homosexuals pose a conundrum. If it's the BSA's line to not allow homosexuality (changing it seems), atheists, or agnostics, that is their right. Now it may cost them money, support, etc, but it is ultimately their right to be able to stand for their beliefs. It's easy to stand for your beliefs when they are all encompassing and they go with the general populace. It's generally not so easy when religious. So, I applaud them for standing their ground. If they feel that they need to change, that is also their right. edit - I apologize for the size of the post. Just had a lot to say I guess. I think youre making some sweeping generalizations about christians that are not necessarily true. Homosexuality may be a sin, but so is flipping someone off when they cut into your lane on the highway. It's a sin to eat too much and to not study enough for your tests. The definition of sin wasnt layed out so we can tell eachother not to sin, its there so we can know that we are incapable of being perfect. Just because a christian doesnt care whether or not people are gay doesnt mean they are throwing the bible out the window. Theres a problem people have within themselves that permeates beyond their actions. If someone claims they dont have a problem then it isnt up to me to change their mind. If someone says they do have a problem, then me telling them that they need to stop sinning isnt going to help them at all. So in light of this, as a christian who believes he is holding to all of the bible, i have to disagree with you. If it claims to be a christian organization it shoudnt expel children who have "problems" it should try to help them actually take care of the real issue. And if the child doesnt think he has a problem, its kind of messed up for me to try and be the hand of god in convicting them Like any organization, they want to promote people that share their values. The people have to demonstrate through action that they fit the mold the Boy Scouts are looking for. If a child, or leader is an atheist with no plans of changing that, how does accepting them into the club help the individual or the organization? Logically neither of them benefit, save to make some political point. "If it claims to be a christian organization it shoudnt expel children..." This is the same straw-man argument claiming Christians are supposed to be pacifists, turn the other cheek, etc. Christians are not pacifists, and are not commanded to accept people as they are. Christianity teaches tolerance. *Actual* tolerance. Not the redefined progressive tolerance which is code for acceptance and celebration. A Christian organization shouldn't have to accept or celebrate views antithetical to their organization's stated goals.
Ok, but what are christian values? Im just saying you dont have to think that being straight is a christian value in order to be a christian. As a christian organization i can understand not having a leader who is an athiest. But what the bible holds as vital is trust in god, not the ability to have control over our bodies and what we desire.
|
On January 29 2013 14:18 FeelingTookish wrote:
Like any organization, they want to promote people that share their values. The people have to demonstrate through action that they fit the mold the Boy Scouts are looking for. If a child, or leader is an atheist with no plans of changing that, how does accepting them into the club help the individual or the organization? Logically neither of them benefit, save to make some political point.
"If it claims to be a christian organization it shoudnt expel children..."
This is the same straw-man argument claiming Christians are supposed to be pacifists, turn the other cheek, etc. Christians are not pacifists, and are not commanded to accept people as they are. Christianity teaches tolerance. *Actual* tolerance. Not the redefined progressive tolerance which is code for acceptance and celebration. A Christian organization shouldn't have to accept or celebrate views antithetical to their organization's stated goals.
Excellent statement.
|
The only reason many Christians take such a firm stance against homosexuality is because it's one of the only sins in the Bible that they never have any urge to partake in.
|
On January 29 2013 14:25 Buff345 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 14:18 FeelingTookish wrote:On January 29 2013 14:05 Buff345 wrote:On January 29 2013 13:34 mecra wrote:Wow, all the Christian hate. Plus the whole argument that Christians are wrong to dislike homosexuals goes against the religion's beliefs. Here's the deal, to Christians, including myself, homosexuality is sin. Plainly and simply stated in the Bible. If we are to believe the Bible, then we are to subscribe to that notion. If we are to be Christians, we subscribe to said book. Now, other concepts are also in there that I agree a lot of Christians don't adhere to very well. For example, loving thy neighbor, regardless if they are homosexuals, atheists, or the like is a pillar of the faith. So, while Christians view homosexuals as sinners, there is no clause in there to state that they should hate them or such. In this, a lot of Christians are found wanting, I won't disagree with that. I strongly dislike it when people basically want to throw out the Bible for its stance on things but yet want to still be true Christians. It really doesn't work like that. You may still believe in God, but once you start purposefully dissecting the book into things you agree with and don't, you've effectively created your own religion with the sole purpose to console yourself. Religion isn't something you get to specifically create with any hopes of it being true. (oh the flood of posts on this one point, of which I won't address here.) A great number of Christians believe the religion to be very true, and thus the Bible its guidance. To claim the Bible is wrong, that the Christian should just sit in their house to pray and stay hidden, is the very essence of proclaiming them and their religion as nothing but paper and folded hands. You are stating that Christians are wrong in the same way they proclaim homosexuality wrong. Both sides negate, one based on a religion, and the other based on ideal. You don't get to tell one group to go hide, but then declare others get full reign to do whatever they want. You stomp on the rights of the one group, in favor of the other. You stomp on the rights of Christians to want their world to be somewhat in alignment with their beliefs. What if society decided that pedophilia wasn't so bad and that the age of consent was 10? I'll tell you one thing, Christians won't like that at all. Other people, however, may see it as a logical extension of being and thus want equal rights. Religion gives a rock to stand on to base one's beliefs. When there is no rock, you can simply adopt any belief and claim its truth and justification. Society does the rest to implant it, which of course doesn't actually mean it's true. Just that it's commonly accepted. (At least until scientifically proven.) Anyway, I'm just posting some thoughts on religion. One poster above said, "I hope one day we can learn to live more tolerably." Believe me when I say that Christians wish the same thing. Lately it's fun to poke fun at an entire religion because of a small number of people. I don't know any of the types of Christians that would cause the world to rage at us, so I get highly annoyed when those people are used as prime examples of why a religion fails. We have simply way too many people in the world, and as a result, you are going to get bad apples in every walk of life. So, to finalize, the Boy Scouts are a Christian organization. To Christians who read their Bible, homosexuals pose a conundrum. If it's the BSA's line to not allow homosexuality (changing it seems), atheists, or agnostics, that is their right. Now it may cost them money, support, etc, but it is ultimately their right to be able to stand for their beliefs. It's easy to stand for your beliefs when they are all encompassing and they go with the general populace. It's generally not so easy when religious. So, I applaud them for standing their ground. If they feel that they need to change, that is also their right. edit - I apologize for the size of the post. Just had a lot to say I guess. I think youre making some sweeping generalizations about christians that are not necessarily true. Homosexuality may be a sin, but so is flipping someone off when they cut into your lane on the highway. It's a sin to eat too much and to not study enough for your tests. The definition of sin wasnt layed out so we can tell eachother not to sin, its there so we can know that we are incapable of being perfect. Just because a christian doesnt care whether or not people are gay doesnt mean they are throwing the bible out the window. Theres a problem people have within themselves that permeates beyond their actions. If someone claims they dont have a problem then it isnt up to me to change their mind. If someone says they do have a problem, then me telling them that they need to stop sinning isnt going to help them at all. So in light of this, as a christian who believes he is holding to all of the bible, i have to disagree with you. If it claims to be a christian organization it shoudnt expel children who have "problems" it should try to help them actually take care of the real issue. And if the child doesnt think he has a problem, its kind of messed up for me to try and be the hand of god in convicting them Like any organization, they want to promote people that share their values. The people have to demonstrate through action that they fit the mold the Boy Scouts are looking for. If a child, or leader is an atheist with no plans of changing that, how does accepting them into the club help the individual or the organization? Logically neither of them benefit, save to make some political point. "If it claims to be a christian organization it shoudnt expel children..." This is the same straw-man argument claiming Christians are supposed to be pacifists, turn the other cheek, etc. Christians are not pacifists, and are not commanded to accept people as they are. Christianity teaches tolerance. *Actual* tolerance. Not the redefined progressive tolerance which is code for acceptance and celebration. A Christian organization shouldn't have to accept or celebrate views antithetical to their organization's stated goals. Ok, but what are christian values? Im just saying you dont have to think that being straight is a christian value in order to be a christian. As a christian organization i can understand not having a leader who is an athiest. But what the bible holds as vital is trust in god, not the ability to have control over our bodies and what we desire.
That isn't the message of the Torah, and by extension much of the old testament, and also disagrees with a significant portion of the New Testament epistles. Also it disagrees with a very large majority of Christian fathers and many of the influential leaders for much of Christendom.
The prime dogma of the Christian faith is the acknowledgement of Christ and what he did, yes, but there is a very large portion of the Bible that talks about conduct in many facets of life.
|
On January 29 2013 14:25 Buff345 wrote:
Ok, but what are christian values? Im just saying you dont have to think that being straight is a christian value in order to be a christian. As a christian organization i can understand not having a leader who is an athiest. But what the bible holds as vital is trust in god, not the ability to have control over our bodies and what we desire.
However, the Bible's stance on homosexuality is extremely clear cut. I was alluding to this before in that people want to cut and paste what they want into a new holy text. And our desires play a very strong role in determining sin also according to the Bible directly.
So, the main values of being a Christian are faith and love. Celebration, as stated before, is not a required part of either of those. Christians should choose to love homosexuals but that doesn't mean they have to celebrate them. My parents loved me but certainly didn't approve of everything I did.
|
On January 29 2013 14:27 FabledIntegral wrote:
The only reason many Christians take such a firm stance against homosexuality is because it's one of the only sins in the Bible that they never have any urge to partake in.
Lame. We were having such a good conversation till this.
|
On January 29 2013 14:31 Foblos wrote:
That isn't the message of the Torah, and by extension much of the old testament, and also disagrees with a significant portion of the New Testament epistles. Also it disagrees with a very large majority of Christian fathers and many of the influential leaders for much of Christendom.
I would ask for proof of your claims. They are broad and abstract so I would need refinement before passing judgement. Claiming that what we are saying disagrees with the New Testament is quite a claim so I would ask for evidence that we could discuss it further.
It would be me saying, "People don't like homosexuals because we are people." While quite right in a very broad sense, it's nothing to base an argument on.
|
On January 29 2013 14:34 mecra wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 14:31 Foblos wrote:
That isn't the message of the Torah, and by extension much of the old testament, and also disagrees with a significant portion of the New Testament epistles. Also it disagrees with a very large majority of Christian fathers and many of the influential leaders for much of Christendom. I would ask for proof of your claims. They are broad and abstract so I would need refinement before passing judgement. Claiming that what we are saying disagrees with the New Testament is quite a claim so I would ask for evidence that we could discuss it further. It would be me saying, "People don't like homosexuals because we are people." While quite right in a very broad sense, it's nothing to base an argument on.
I think you misunderstand me. I was replying to the person I quoted, and specifically the bolded part. He claimed that the Bible only requires belief in God and does not ask us to learn to control sinful desires. I disagreed.
|
It's not a Christian value to be straight, yes. But it is a Christian value to not live a homosexual lifestyle. You'd have to ask someone inside the Boy Scouts, but I think their issue has been with openly gay people joining, not people who simply have some homosexual tendencies who otherwise aspire to embody all the values of the organization. They don't want people picking and choosing what they want to agree with. Example: you can't join the Boy Scouts and still act like or talk openly about how stupid it is to live the motto "Be Prepared".
|
e: why am i even arguing on the internet god i'm dumb
|
On January 29 2013 14:36 Foblos wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 14:34 mecra wrote:On January 29 2013 14:31 Foblos wrote:
That isn't the message of the Torah, and by extension much of the old testament, and also disagrees with a significant portion of the New Testament epistles. Also it disagrees with a very large majority of Christian fathers and many of the influential leaders for much of Christendom. I would ask for proof of your claims. They are broad and abstract so I would need refinement before passing judgement. Claiming that what we are saying disagrees with the New Testament is quite a claim so I would ask for evidence that we could discuss it further. It would be me saying, "People don't like homosexuals because we are people." While quite right in a very broad sense, it's nothing to base an argument on. I think you misunderstand me. I was replying to the person I quoted, and specifically the bolded part. He claimed that the Bible only requires belief in God and does not ask us to learn to control sinful desires. I disagreed.
Ah, my misunderstanding then.
|
On January 29 2013 14:32 mecra wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 14:27 FabledIntegral wrote:
The only reason many Christians take such a firm stance against homosexuality is because it's one of the only sins in the Bible that they never have any urge to partake in. Lame. We were having such a good conversation till this.
I read the last 3 pages of conversation, and the comment was wholly relevant. In fact, it's even admitted (by you?) in particular at some point about how Christians (very generally speaking) fail to adhere to the beliefs themselves. Yet the vast majority seek to limit what homosexuals can do because of a very particular sin they commit. That one sin singles them out.
Is there any other "victimless" sin in the Bible singled out in our society as much as that one? I can't think of one off the top of my head, but there's little question that the reason it's singled out is due to the intense hypocrisy of the religious (generally speaking, once again).
|
On January 29 2013 14:36 wozzot wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 14:25 FeelingTookish wrote:On January 29 2013 14:13 wozzot wrote:On January 29 2013 14:03 radscorpion9 wrote:On January 29 2013 13:41 HumpingHydra wrote:On January 29 2013 12:04 Risen wrote:
Can a man say no? Yes. Can an animal? End of discussion. Damn that was hard to think through, eh?
Edit: don't know why I expect anything different from someone who in the same post says he follows higher power morals not realizing he's been taught all his morals by other humans and not God. Ok, I'll bite. Lets suppose a man has a dolphin or bonobo. Both of which have sex for purposes other than reproducing. Is it ok for the man to have sex with the bonobo or dolphin as long as he doesn't force it to have sex with him? What if he bribes the bonobo or dolphin with food, and they're ok with it? I know thats wierd (and its a decently stupid example, i think theres truth here), but I feel like there are so many situations that are hard to justify. I don't think athiests are fine with that, but I could be wrong. One thing I do appreciate about atheism is that usually the people are critical thinkers. LOL humping hydra, what an appropriate name . But aside from that this recent discussion makes me wonder if there is any reasonable justification for...not liking homosexuals? Wanting to ban them from holding positions in your club? I guess that's what it comes down to. Well I think there may be in terms of natural, inborn aversions to certain types of people. Like, certain individuals may dislike talking to fat people, because all of that blubber makes them uncomfortable for whatever reason (lol) - maybe its just disgusting to them, and they don't wan to look at all that flabbiness. Along the same vein, maybe its also reasonable for certain people to dislike gays, because there sexual preferences gives them a "freakish" nature that the others find disturbing. So then, is it okay to discriminate against someone, or deny them access to the higher levels of your club? Would it be "moral" to look down upon a beautiful person's club, which does not allow ugly people to join? I feel like that's what could be going on here. Its a club, that among other things, promotes "straight" sexuality and a certain way of life because they think that the homosexual way of life is somewhat perverse or disturbing, so they keep it out of the club. Is it morally wrong for people to be disturbed (if they are)? I feel like the assumption is that, its okay to criticize them (Boy scouts) because they just have some bigoted attitudes against gays that aren't founded on anything except baseless hatred - or similarly, based in the perceived fantasy that is religion. No man you see if you let these homosexuals into the boy scouts, they will convert everyone to the homosexual lifestyle, and they will have gay sex inside their tents, constantly this is a plot by the gays and their homosexual agenda to trick people into thinking that homosexuals aren't deviants who spend every moment of their lives lusting after the same sex this is what some people actually believe Or more possibly cause members to lose faith in the institution of marriage or lose their faith in God or start disobeying their parents because of the influence of people that have made it very clear they do not share the values and goals of the club. What's the point of a club if everyone is allowed in? Then there would only be one club, Earth. If you accept gays into the Boy Scouts, this will cause people to lose faith in marriage and God because e: n/m out
If you spend time with people who reject your values, you might learn to reject them too? A radical concept! We must make note of this hypothesis!
|
On January 29 2013 14:31 mecra wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 14:25 Buff345 wrote:
Ok, but what are christian values? Im just saying you dont have to think that being straight is a christian value in order to be a christian. As a christian organization i can understand not having a leader who is an athiest. But what the bible holds as vital is trust in god, not the ability to have control over our bodies and what we desire.
However, the Bible's stance on homosexuality is extremely clear cut. I was alluding to this before in that people want to cut and paste what they want into a new holy text. And our desires play a very strong role in determining sin also according to the Bible directly. So, the main values of being a Christian are faith and love. Celebration, as stated before, is not a required part of either of those. Christians should choose to love homosexuals but that doesn't mean they have to celebrate them. My parents loved me but certainly didn't approve of everything I did.
I agree that its view on homosexuality is clear cut. But the bible also says that all things are lawful, just not expedient. In other words, being a homosexual might not lead you to the most fulfillment in your life, but god wont withhold mercy because you are.
The woman at the well had 5 husbands in the past, and the man she was staying with in the moment she met jesus wasnt even her husband at the time. Jesus didnt say your issue is that you are a whore and sleep around, he said you have a problem that nothing you have can quench what you really desire and i can help you.
My point is just that being a homosexual doesnt mean someone is automatically not a christian. And if i were running a christian organization i wouldnt stop someone from joining it because they are. That doesnt mean that BSA cant ban them and still be a christian organization, just that i personally dont think it is best. But obviously i dont care that much or i would be protesting i suppose.
I THINK we both agree on our personal worldviews at least somewhat, just im a bit more liberal in how i think christian organizations/clubs should interact with the public
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
