darth_ender

Qxa8

+R-7b

Qxc6

Qxb7

N-7c

Qb5

Sorry bud.  I have some long, late days sometimes, and even when I get home, I sometimes have stuff to do.

Qa4

G-4b

S-3b

0-0

Sorry it took a while.  I'm home now.  Maybe can make one or two moves more, if you're even still awake.

I am posting from work, and certainly taking way too long to do so.  I probably could have been home by now had I focused on work.  Of course, they did cut my hours, so I don't mind compensating a bit.  Don't worry.  I'll make a few moves tonight, and I should go home soon.

Bingowings said:

I don't think you are acting out of hate when you make these sorts of judgements

I am glad to read this because that has been my whole point.  I have hardly actually touched on the topic of homosexuality in and of itself, but rather a defense of morally opposing it.

but you aren't saving our souls you are just adding to our Earthly discomfort.

And because of what I wrote above, I feel like I shouldn't be contributing to your discomfort.  If we knew each other in person, I think you'd feel perfectly comfortable with me, as I would with you.  As a non-hateful person, I believe we could be friends as long as we seldom discussed politics.  You could introduce me to your better half (though from what I read, you are the better half), and I would be friends with him as well.

If anything anyone else does isn't for you don't do it. If you feel it's a barrier to you reaching your goals negotiate by all means but calling it wrong for everyone because you believe it's wrong for you isn't going to win anyone over to your perspective.

 I may call it wrong, but not try to impose my will upon you.  In the improbable event that we did meet, I probably wouldn't even bring it up.  If it came up, it would simply be a matter we could discuss as my belief, and I again would do nothing to interfere or belittle or condemn your sexuality.  I'd simply be a friend.  That's what I consider you, even now, thousands of miles apart.  I value my relationship with you.  You are a friend.

I understand what you are saying in your last sentence, and I am not equating.  I am pointing out how we have to judge the actions of people as right or wrong, not the people as hell- or heaven-bound.  I don't hold you or other non-Christians to the same standards as a Christian anyway.  But you must understand, as a non-Christian you are not bound to live by Christian commandments, but neither are you really in much of a position to interpret them any more correctly than I.

Am I wrong to believe that homosexual acts are wrong?  For you to make such a call is, in fact, judging my "sin" (even if you don't believe it's a sin per se).  But are you judging me as a person because of that?  Well, if you are using merely a moral view to justify calling me a hateful person (*cough*hairy_hen*cough*), then yes you are.  But if you are merely thinking, "Wow, he sure is ignorant on this topic, and thinking that a sexual act between consenting adults is sinful is a sure sign of his ignorance," then I think you are merely "hating the sin" (of opposing homosexual behavior) without hating the sinner.

Oh, well, you're welcome then ;)

I also work in a nursing home, and believe it or not, I'm on the dementia wing today.  I even have an Alzheimer's patient speaking to me off and on right now.  She often asks questions.  The thing to remember about reality is that none of us can be sure what it truly is.  Most of us agree on a similar reality, but all of us perceive the world in a unique way, and some construct a very different reality, often changing based on what limited information they receive or remember or perceive.  It can be good to reorient schizophrenics to reality if hallucinations are present, as it can help dispel them and their negative effects.  But a dementia patient is different.  They will not benefit from such reorientation in the same way.  First off, they are not hallucinating.  Their perceptions are not necessarily damaging.  Repeatedly hurting them with reminders of something sad like the loss of a loved one will have no benefit at all.  They will be sad to learn this, and then forget, thus never going through the grieving process and coping with the loss.  They simply are repeatedly shocked to learn of the loved one's death.  It is better to be as truthful as possible, but not divulge too much information.  Saying, "I don't know" or "They aren't here now" are good answers.  It might not hurt, considering your religious beliefs, to say that they will see them later.  If necessary, less truthful statements might be necessary.  Remember, you are not dealing with our reality.  You are dealing with someone with a fractured, unstable, changing reality.  You must address their situation in their reality, not in yours.

http://allnurses.com/geriatric-nurses-ltc/therapeutic-lying-dementia-754397.html

Bingowings said:

Judge your own actions not the actions of others but in a nuanced way seems to be the message of the piece.

Others were judging Him. Being without sin he can pass judgement on their passing of judgement on Him.

 I find it hard to believe that this is what Jesus taught, or what anyone believes.  If you think about it, you judge my actions, including any prejudice you see in me.  If I beat my children or cheated on my wife or murdered my next-door-neighbor, I'm sure you would judge my actions as evil.  Would such not be righteous judgment?

But you are certainly correct that Jesus is in the best of positions to judge others, being without sin.

Actually, I think you could just call it the *sigh* thread, but I guess we already have one of those ;)  Actually, I don't think you ever even had to change the name, but I do appreciate your efforts to accommodate.

^^Exactly.  Judge the actions of people, not the people themselves.  People can be better.  Their actions, once committed, cannot be changed.

I abhor your sinful avatar!

As I stated, I don't wish to force my beliefs on others.  But I will offer my opinion.  If they disagree, don't want to hear more, and they are not hurting anyone, I will not overshare my opinion.

Bingowings said:

darth_ender said:

  In fact, if you ever speak up for your values and believe that others who don't share the same standards are wrong about something, you are in fact hateful and holier than thou.

That's probably because you are Blanche.

Christians are specifically told not to do this .

To err is to be human so while other people may forgive this Christian sin now and then it smacks at double standards when it becomes a habit and boy is it moreish to some, including myself it has to be said but I'm not a Christian.

 Actually, Christians are commanded to specifically told to judge righteous judgment in the same chapter.  To me, that means exactly what I've been arguing for.  Don't judge the sinner.  You are a sinner too.  But don't love the sin itself.

TV's Frink said:

Here's the problem: you are judging how others choose to live their lives.  It's why I think Olie's "love your children despite the wrong they do" analogy fails.

Religions should try a little more "live and let live," then perhaps they wouldn't piss so many people off.

 I get the appeal, and I generally agree.  I do not like to impose my beliefs on others.  That is why I find my greatest dissonance in my Church's political action against gay marriage.  I believe it is wrong.  But I also have real difficulty believing that legislating against it is right.  People commit adultery, and I feel that is far worse, and yet that is legal.

But is it wrong to teach others my beliefs?  Is it wrong to share why I believe it is wrong?  Is it wrong to encourage them not to engage is immoral practices?  Is it wrong to abhor sin, while showing an increase in love towards the sinner?  I really don't think so.

I think that much of the previous 25 pages were discussing homosexuality without discussing it in a prejudiced manner.  Discussing controversy and religious beliefs towards it isn't the same thing as prejudging those who are homosexual.

Bingowings said:

Some Christians give Paul a great deal of importance as a Saint and tent pole of the early church, others just see him as anything from an early Christian commentator/leader to a misogynist embarrassment.

Either way he commented on Christians having sex outside of matrimony (including same gender sex). Not everyone is a Christian.

I agree, he is lesser than Christ.  We have musical instruments in our church, and our women do lots of speaking.  Not everything he said is 100% accepted.  I was just pointing out that it was not only in Leviticus.  Sex outside of marriage is definitely wrong, but Paul was clearly speaking against homosexual sex as well, particularly in Romans 1.  And I know not everyone is Christian.  I am especially less inclined to judge someone for sin if they do not hold the same beliefs as I do.  But that doesn't mean I won't try to teach them what I believe is true either.

Paul isn't God the Father he is a man (and presumably a sinner). Jesus according to most Christians is God incarnate and he doesn't mention the topic at all and yet a lot of Christians just can't get enough of talking about it and campaigning against it outside the Christian sphere while not really making so much of a noise about idolatry for example.

I agree, there is much hypocrisy in Christian circles.  I hate it.  It shouldn't raise such a big stink.  I feel it is wrong, but I feel there are many other things that are wrong that don't get nearly enough attention, especially from televangelists and the like, as you mention later.

Perhaps they don't want to upset Hindus, who didn't really have a big stance against homosexuality until the British introduced their Christian attitudes into the region where it is most practiced.

I wish to point out that it was a Hindu that originated the sinner of "Hate the sin, love the sinner."

Jesus never endorsed the actions of the woman caught in adultery. he didn't admonish her either (he forgave her and told her not to do it again) he did admonish the men with rocks about to painfully execute her when they were all guilty of something themselves.

You are correct except that he never stated that he forgave her.  He said that he didn't condemn her.  In other words, while the rest of the Jewish world had already consigned her to hell, he was encouraging her to repent.  And yes, we are all guilty, and thus not in a position to determine the judgment of others, at least to some extent.

Now if only the blameless can throw stones and the only blameless adult being chose not to, where does that leave the sanctions in Leviticus?

And yet Christians keep referring to Leviticus to justify their judgement on and lobbying against others including people who don't share their beliefs.

The new message wasn't love the sinner hate the sin. It was love your neighbour and repent your sin.

Interestingly, you will note that the commandments of Jesus were often stricter, not looser.  Not only should one not kill, he should not even hate.  Not only should one never commit adultery, he shouldn't even lust.  That said, Jesus also did emphasize the importance of the spirit of the law over the letter.  And really, Jesus' message wasn't new, it was simply a reminder of what was really not being practiced, as the Jews of the time were so caught up in the letter and missing the spirit.  The Old Testament teaches to love your neighbor (in Leviticus no less).  The two primary sects were hating the sin and the sinner.

I feel like I'm rambling.  Let's get back to the point.  Let's forget homosexuality for a sec and speak of sin in general.  How are we supposed to feel about it?  Like it?  Love it?  Feel indifferent towards it?  No, clearly Jesus taught us to abhor sin, to lead clean lives, to encourage others to lead clean lives, but to love our neightbors.  Jesus went after the lost sheep, leaving 99.  The prodigal son got a party while the good son was encouraged to care less about his own righteousness and more about the repentance of the sinful brother.  Clearly those who sin the most might actually be among those God cares most about, and whom he wants us to care most about.  Clearly we are meant to be concerned with their wellbeing, even so far as going after to help them.  Don't embrace sin (which implies accepting sinful behaviors without any worry).  But embrace the sinner.

Now amazingly, we are all sinners.  We are not in a position to judge harshly.  But we are to judge righteously.  If when my kids are 16 and wnat to go out with friends to drink and cruise the streets, or if they want to spend time with girls with lower standards, I'm sorry but I'm going to judge those friends.  I will judge righteously and tell my sons not to spend that kind of time with those individuals.  But I will tell them to continue loving those individuals, even if they do not embrace their behavior.

About homosexuality you make good points.  Let's say that you are even correct.  My points are not to say you are not because I know we won't ever agree theologically on that.  My point is merely that it is not a prejudiced or horrible thing to say "love the sinner, hate the sin."  I can be best friends with a serious sinner and still not approve of what he or she does.  Heck, all my friends are sinners, and I love them anyway.  I hope they feel the same about me, and I hope they feel the same about my sin.

The loudest Christian voices seem to be saying to get the outsider to be repentant we need your cash.

 I won't argue with you there.

TV's Frink said:

Wait, what sexual acts outside of marriage are most of us engaging in?

 Most who talk about their sex lives also talk about being with girlfriends, not wives.  Thus, they are sexually involved outside of marriage.  But I guess I'm a horribly condescending person (according to hairy_hen) for disagreeing with the moral choices of those people as well.  In fact, if you ever speak up for your values and believe that others who don't share the same standards are wrong about something, you are in fact hateful and holier than thou.

hairy_hen said:

Okay, so I'm a hateful douche, because I defend the rights of gays against judgemental pricks who put them down by condescendingly claiming to have absolute moral authority on their side.

Yep.  This thread is officially hilarious.

 

"Oh no, we don't hate you, dear.  We just loathe and abhor everything about your inner self that makes you behave the way you do, but we don't hate you, we promise!"

Yeah, excuse me while I don't believe a word of this nonsense.

Bottom line: being gay isn't a sin.  God never said it was, because it's only an outdated superstition that got mixed up with a bunch of other unrelated writings.  Folks who believe every literal word of such things really need to take a step back and get with the times, because that kind of thinking is seriously outmoded and has no place in any modern society claiming to be civilized.  It's what gives religion a bad name, when if it actually followed the true spirit of Christ's message, it would be very wonderful indeed.

Now, if God actually had said that being gay was a sin, then I would say that God was a worthless sh!tbag, completely unworthy of being paid attention to in any way.  But he didn't.  I will, however, say that there is no such thing as Christianity, nor has there ever been, since hardly anyone in the history of the world has ever really tried to live life in accordance with his philosophies.  'Judge not', he said, and yet judging others for their differences is practically the only thing many so-called 'Christians' know how to do.  'Live and let live, and don't be a douchebag' is how it might be put in modern terms, but I guess that's just too complicated for some to figure out.

When you're more concerned about whether someone with a cock wants to get with someone else who also has a cock than you are with treating people decently, you're doing exactly the opposite of what Christ wanted.  When you condescendingly look down on someone for doing something you consider wrong or shameful, but which, in fact, informs the entire essence of their being and could no more be changed than the colour of their skin, all the while claiming only to want what's best for them, then you have a serious prejudice you don't want to acknowledge.  It is entirely necessary for such hypocrisy to be exposed for what it really is.

Try this example on for size:

"I don't hate you for being black.  It's so unfortunate you were born into a black family, because God says that all black people will go to Hell when they die, and you're really quite wonderful, dear, despite your disadvantage.  Have you tried being white instead?  It's the only way you could ever be saved, I'm sad to say, and I would really hate for you to have to burn . . ."

 

Needless to say, this doesn't fly AT ALL.  And all the anti-gay arguments I've ever heard have exactly this same sort of ridiculously skewed perspective behind them.  You can claim it's not the same thing all you want, but you're only fooling yourself if you try.  People with sense can see right through it, and we don't like what we see.  The world is moving on from this kind of thing, and thank goodness for that.  You should move on from it, too.  Trust me, it feels a lot better.

 Good job missing the point.  Pretty common in this sort of discussion I fear.  At least you addressed the why and didn't simply say you're sick of it so it's wrong.