Warbler said:
I may not approve of homosexuality, but I don't hate homosexuals.
I don't approve of theism, but if you are going to be theist, I will love you anyway. But I'd rather you not (because I don't approve).
Oh yes, and I support your rights as a theist (even though I don't approve. I honestly think theists ought to be allowed to marry one another, and I will always vote in favor of this).
CP3S said:
Warbler said:
I may not approve of homosexuality, but I don't hate homosexuals.
I don't approve of theism, but if you are going to be theist, I will love you anyway. But I'd rather you not (because I don't approve).
Don't forget that you support his rights (even though you don't approve).
A very close friend of mine is what would be called an "evangelical atheist". While I have typically been content with the live and let live philosophy in my own atheism, he has been trying to convince me of the merits of evangelical atheism, and I think he has some very good points.
Warbler said:
As to what makes it bad, I really am not sure. My religion says its a sin. Maybe it is that it might be unnatural or that maybe sex should be about procreation and that can't happen naturally between gays. Just so you know, saying this stuff leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.
"My religion says its a sin."
Here is one good example of why my friend is beginning to win me over in his evangelical atheist thinking. Statements like this are kind of scary. "It is bad, I don't know what makes it bad, but God says it is bad, so it is bad". This ancient book written by backwards people thousands of years ago claims something is bad, and you end up with modern people who should by now know better believing it is bad... even though they have no clue why it is bad.
You can bet all the hatred and persecution (and plain old disapproval) homosexuals have gone through in recent years, and are still going through now, wouldn't exist, or at least not on the scale it does, if Christianity didn't teach that it was wrong.
I am very happy you said it leaves a bad taste in your mouth saying that stuff, Warb. It shows you are wiser than that, and capable of thinking on your own. Rather than just going along with what ignorant men who died a very long time ago have written in the name of some entity you have never seen, heard, or met.
TV's Frink said:
CP3S said:
Warbler said:
I may not approve of homosexuality, but I don't hate homosexuals.
I don't approve of theism, but if you are going to be theist, I will love you anyway. But I'd rather you not (because I don't approve).
Oh yes, and I support your rights as a theist (even though I don't approve. I honestly think theist ought to be allowed to marry one another, and I will always vote in favor of this).
Don't forget that you support his rights (even though you don't approve).
Fixed.
Warbler said:
TV's Frink said:
The usual response is that it is a choice, and the wrong one at that. I've always found that viewpoint extremely silly, not to mention scientifically disproved.
could one not argue that while it is not a choice to have homosexual desires, is it a choice to act on them?
That is logic that I can understand. Yes, I would agree with that. Except there follows then the logical question: why is it bad to act on them? In the case of someone with, say, the desire to have sex with children, then I would agree that it is bad to act on those desires, because doing so harms someone. But who is harmed when consenting adults use those desires to enter into a supportive, longterm partnership? Isn't that good for society?
Also, the question arises, why would God give such strong desires to so many people, and then say they can't act on them? Sounds rather cruel.
"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars
CP3S said:
"My religion says its a sin."
Here is one good example of why my friend is beginning to win me over in his evangelical atheist thinking. Statements like this are kind of scary.
This reminds me of a recent discussion I had with a friend. She said that her son - 4 years old - asked her why the sky was blue. Her answer: "because God made it that way." That one really made me angry... here is a kid who displays a bit of intellectual curiosity, and rather than using it as learning moment (say, by looking it up in a book together, or on the internet), she put the kabosh on it. No need to actually learn things, just attribute everything to God and you're always right, even if you don't know what you're talking about.
Then again, sampling from the tree of knowledge was the original sin that we're supposedly still paying for, so maybe she was right after all.
"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars
My thermodynamics courses elucidated that the sky is blue due to Rayleigh scattering (by very small particles e.g. air molecules). Basically, longer wavelengths of light (red, orange, yellow) can pass through our atmosphere without too much scattering. Since blue light has a short wavelength, it becomes scattered much more than red light, all of which is contained in the sun's white rays. That's why at sunset the sky's color is more reddish. Most of the blue and shorter wavelength light has been scattered out of those rays (which must travel a longer distance to your location at sunset). But when the sun is directly above us, we're basically receiving the direct white rays plus the scattered blue components from the 'adjacent' rays.
“Grow up. These are my Disney's movies, not yours.”
CP3S said:
A very close friend of mine is what would be called an "evangelical atheist". While I have typically been content with the live and let live philosophy in my own atheism, he has been trying to convince me of the merits of evangelical atheism, and I think he has some very good points.
Explain, good sir.
darth_ender said:
Try and tone down the rhetoric and look what happens. I was even providing compliments. As much as I have to say (and as many posts as I would like to reply to), I think I'm better off sticking to my original plan for now and resuming my vow of silence. I use my time better when I do.
2000 years of non-rhetorical silence got people tortured and burned to death by instruments of the establishment.
Under a century of rhetoric and in the West at least such actions are moved to the fringes of society.
One can not have enough equality.
It's all or nothing so if some can promote a religion with the stoning to death of a group within society in it's Holy Text the current state of equality would be for me to promote a group where the stoning of Mormons to death was okay even though I couldn't legally do it.
I could use that book to lobby for the reduction of my freedoms of Mormons (not allowing them to marry or adopt children for example).
People could use that book to justify the beating of people to death and rejecting their own children if they found themselves drawn to Mormonism.
That would be wrong and evil.
If I can accept that what's stopping the world religions, other than the belief that those words are the literal word of God which returns to my questioning how worthy of worship such a God is.
I find it ironic, if not moronic that people who are critical of other countries with constitutional monarchs and cluck about the merits of plutocracy will bend the knee to an absolute spiritual tyrant.
georgec said:
My thermodynamics courses elucidated that the sky is blue due to Rayleigh scattering (by very small particles e.g. air molecules). Basically, longer wavelengths of light (red, orange, yellow) can pass through our atmosphere without too much scattering. Since blue light has a short wavelength, it becomes scattered much more than red light, all of which is contained in the sun's white rays. That's why at sunset the sky's color is more reddish. Most of the blue and shorter wavelength light has been scattered out of those rays (which must travel a longer distance to your location at sunset). But when the sun is directly above us, we're basically receiving the direct white rays plus the scattered blue components from the 'adjacent' rays.
BURN THE WITCH!!!
CP3S said:
Warbler said:
I may not approve of homosexuality, but I don't hate homosexuals.
I don't approve of theism, but if you are going to be theist, I will love you anyway. But I'd rather you not (because I don't approve).
Oh yes, and I support your rights as a theist (even though I don't approve. I honestly think theists ought to be allowed to marry one another, and I will always vote in favor of this).
and your point of posting this is?
TV's Frink said:
CP3S said:
Warbler said:
I may not approve of homosexuality, but I don't hate homosexuals.
I don't approve of theism, but if you are going to be theist, I will love you anyway. But I'd rather you not (because I don't approve).
Don't forget that you support his rights (even though you don't approve).
and your point of posting this is?
Bingowings said:
darth_ender said:
Try and tone down the rhetoric and look what happens. I was even providing compliments. As much as I have to say (and as many posts as I would like to reply to), I think I'm better off sticking to my original plan for now and resuming my vow of silence. I use my time better when I do.
2000 years of non-rhetorical silence got people tortured and burned to death by instruments of the establishment.
Under a century of rhetoric and in the West at least such actions are moved to the fringes of society.
One can not have enough equality.
It's all or nothing so if some can promote a religion with the stoning to death of a group within society in it's Holy Text the current state of equality would be for me to promote a group where the stoning of Mormons to death was okay even though I couldn't legally do it.
I could use that book to lobby for the reduction of my freedoms of Mormons (not allowing them to marry or adopt children for example).
People could use that book to justify the beating of people to death and rejecting their own children if they found themselves drawn to Mormonism.
That would be wrong and evil.
If I can accept that what's stopping the world religions, other than the belief that those words are the literal word of God which returns to my questioning how worthy of worship such a God is.
I find it ironic, if not moronic that people who are critical of other countries with constitutional monarchs and cluck about the merits of plutocracy will bend the knee to an absolute spiritual tyrant.
I could try to respond to this, but what would be the point. You will not listen can continue to mock what I hold sacred and paint everyone of my religion as being in a hate group.
Actually, I can understand supporting someone's rights even while disapproving - for instance supporting the free speach of an opposing viewpoint. What I don't understand is disapproving of something without some sort of tangible reason. Even a logically unsound reason would be something tangible. Once someone says "because God says so", there's nothing to discuss, it's just a vaccuous assertion of immutable truth.
"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars
CP3S said:
A very close friend of mine is what would be called an "evangelical atheist". While I have typically been content with the live and let live philosophy in my own atheism, he has been trying to convince me of the merits of evangelical atheism, and I think he has some very good points.
Warbler said:
As to what makes it bad, I really am not sure. My religion says its a sin. Maybe it is that it might be unnatural or that maybe sex should be about procreation and that can't happen naturally between gays. Just so you know, saying this stuff leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.
"My religion says its a sin."
Here is one good example of why my friend is beginning to win me over in his evangelical atheist thinking. Statements like this are kind of scary. "It is bad, I don't know what makes it bad, but God says it is bad, so it is bad". This ancient book written by backwards people God thousands of years ago claims something is bad, and you end up with modern people who should by now know better believing it is bad... even though they have no clue why it is bad.
fixed.
and please remember the verse I posted a while back about not leaning on your own understanding.
CP3S said:
You can bet all the hatred and persecution (and plain old disapproval) homosexuals have gone through in recent years, and are still going through now, wouldn't exist, or at least not on the scale it does, if Christianity didn't teach that it was wrong.
don't blame just Christianity. Judaism also teaches it is wrong, I am betting to back Islam does to.
Christianity also teaches us to love one another. It teaches not to judge and not to cast the first stone. to turn the other cheek. If really understood Christianity, you'd know it isn't about hate or persecution. I am against the hatred and persecution of homosexuals.
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:
Actually, I can understand supporting someone's rights even while disapproving - for instance supporting the free speach of an opposing viewpoint.
exactly.
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:
What I don't understand is disapproving of something without some sort of tangible reason. Even a logically unsound reason would be something tangible. Once someone says "because God says so", there's nothing to discuss, it's just a vaccuous assertion of immutable truth.
I know what you are saying. The thing with homosexuality and other certain things being a sin, does not rest easy with me. There is much I don't understand. What I do know is that God is capable understanding so much that we ourselves can not.
How do you know God disapproves of homosexuality?
I don't know, but it is written that he disapproves of it in the book that is believed to have come from him.
Let's say the book says God disapproves of Philadelphia Eagles fans, and furthermore he wants them killed. Do you believe that would come from God, or from the people who wrote the book?
I know that's a silly example, but the point is, why do you assume that God disapproves of a lifestyle that does no damage to anyone else? Isn't it more likely that the people who wrote the book inserted their own flawed reasoning into it?
I don't know.
On a lighter note...
Warbler said:
CP3S said:
Warbler said:
I may not approve of homosexuality, but I don't hate homosexuals.
I don't approve of theism, but if you are going to be theist, I will love you anyway. But I'd rather you not (because I don't approve).
Oh yes, and I support your rights as a theist (even though I don't approve. I honestly think theists ought to be allowed to marry one another, and I will always vote in favor of this).
and your point of posting this is?
TV's Frink said:
CP3S said:
Warbler said:
I may not approve of homosexuality, but I don't hate homosexuals.
I don't approve of theism, but if you are going to be theist, I will love you anyway. But I'd rather you not (because I don't approve).
Don't forget that you support his rights (even though you don't approve).
and your point of posting this is?
My point is, I am saying the same thing you are saying. But you feel we are being too harsh on Christianity.
If the other non-Christians here and I were to seriously feel that theism was wrong and to say we disapproved of it, you'd probably find that offensive. You might say something along the lines of, "I am free to believe in and worship whatever God I please!"
Yet you justify saying that homosexuality is wrong, and claim your stance on this shouldn't be taken offense to, because you don't hate them, even though you disapprove of them.
Disapproving is still a judgment, I see no reason not to take offense. Especially since homosexuals have gone through, and are still going through, a lot of hardship thanks to ancient men God writing that it is wrong in their His book.
Right now I have an extremely strained relationship with my family. I am fully supportive and accepting of their theism, but they have a really hard time with the fact that I no longer go to church (I've never told them I don't believe in God. All they know is that I don't go to church. If they knew of my unbelief, and of the way I live my life, I'm not sure they would even talk to me anymore). It sucks, it is a major issue to them, and creates a huge rift between us. I feel really bad about this sometimes, but really the issue is them. I'm perfectly fine with them and love them very much. This is one of the many bad things religion does. It creates issues where they shouldn't exist. It is really sad. And why? Because God said so. At least I am real. It makes me really sad my family misses out on being as close to me as they could because of something that isn't even real.
CP3S said:
Warbler said:
CP3S said:
Warbler said:
I may not approve of homosexuality, but I don't hate homosexuals.
I don't approve of theism, but if you are going to be theist, I will love you anyway. But I'd rather you not (because I don't approve).
Oh yes, and I support your rights as a theist (even though I don't approve. I honestly think theists ought to be allowed to marry one another, and I will always vote in favor of this).
and your point of posting this is?
TV's Frink said:
CP3S said:
Warbler said:
I may not approve of homosexuality, but I don't hate homosexuals.
I don't approve of theism, but if you are going to be theist, I will love you anyway. But I'd rather you not (because I don't approve).
Don't forget that you support his rights (even though you don't approve).
and your point of posting this is?
My point is, I am saying the same thing you are saying. But you feel we are being too harsh on Christianity.
If the other non-Christians here and I were to seriously feel that theism was wrong and to say we disapproved of it, you'd probably find that offensive. You might say something along the lines of, "I am free to believe in and worship whatever God I please!"
I'd disagree with you, I don't know that I'd take offense. And, yes, I am free to worship whatever God I please. I have also said "Gays are free to live however they please"
CP3S said:
Yet you justify saying that homosexuality is wrong, and claim your stance on this shouldn't be taken offense to, because you don't hate them, even though you disapprove of them.
I am not sure why my approval is so important considering that I'd said I wouldn't hate them nor persecute them and that I believe in gay rights and and I wouldn't bay gay family members from my life. After all that, what does the approval matter so much.
CP3S said:
Disapproving is still a judgment,
no it is not, it is just a personal opinion.
CP3S said:
I see no reason not to take offense. Especially since homosexuals have gone through, and are still going through, a lot of hardship thanks to ancient men God writing that it is wrong in their His book and people not following his rules about love and turning the other cheek and not judging and not casting the first stone and not killing .
fixed
Warbler said:
I could try to respond to this, but what would be the point. You will not listen can continue to mock what I hold sacred and paint everyone of my religion as being in a hate group.
I wouldn't paint everyone any colour Warb.
But you should regularly ask yourself if what you hold sacred is done so more out of habit or because other people in your family or locale do.
If you really believe I should be stoned to death what more is there to say?
I think you are wrong but I would say that wouldn't I?
when did I say you should be stoned to death? I do not believe that.