posted
Ahh, he forgot the hate the belief, love the believer cover his ass statement. I get it.
By the way, the arguments are laughable, not the arguer.
I live near the "God Hates Fags" guy and I'm tired of him at funerals. And if my niece dies of AIDS before God strikes him dead, the bastard better not show up. And just because Belle "loves the sinner" isn't she basically saying the same thing? I mean, God hates the unrepentant sinner. They are cast out and all. Or not let in. So, what exactly is the problem? Is the wording of it too harsh? Should that be one of those things that if it can't be said, it should be done?
quote: "What fuels your passion to post threads that upon close reading display your general disreguard for Christianity and its doctrines?"
Why do some Christians feel the need to disregard non-Christian beliefs and legislate against things that are none of their business?
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Firstly, "Good lord, Belle, you're doing that I-get-the-last-word-and-run-away thing again?"
Yes, Fugu. If you've read Caleb's goodbye thread (where he came out), you'll remember that Belle came in, denounced Caleb as a sinner, then declared she was being persecuted by the angry responses to her claim. She made one last post declaring her beliefs, again as before with no reasoning behind it, and said she would leave Hatrack forever.
It's annoying the first time around.
quote:Then I'd just like to say, "sometimes they're ridiculous enough to make me laugh..."
How very intellectually dishonest of you, Fugu. I expected more.
Here's the quote in its entirety, and what it responded. Note that I'm always careful to address each response to the section of her post it belongs with -- I have trouble understanding how you could become confused over it.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adultery can happen between two people who love each other and are committed to each other, and just happen to be married to someone else. Does that make adultery okay in this case? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heh. Jesus. Yes, Belle. Allowing a loving, committed, monogamous couple to marry each other is exactly like adultery -- the exact opposite of what marriage is all about.
Heh. Sometimes the arguments are extreme enough to make me wince, sometimes they're ridiculous enough to make me laugh...
Here, Belle was trying to analogize marriage and adultery, so desperate was she to associate homosexuality with sinfulness. I was not, contrary to how you selectively edited that quote, calling conservatives "ridiculous enough to make me laugh."
quote:I'll follow up with "There are three places in the Bible used by anti-homosexuals to justify the whole God-Hates-Fags deal."
Yes.
What's your point, again?
quote:I think I'll finish with "Hypocrisy. Selfish, bigoted twisting of a book you claim to hold sacred. I'm truly disgusted with beliefs like yours, Belle, and disappointed that someone I could respect could also hold such twisted beliefs -- and what's worse, be blind to her own hypocrisy."
And you never responded to my question above. I'll put it in italics for you.
But read more carefully. I've not "actively denounced the sources of their beliefs" -- merely questioned why Belle would disrespect the book she claims to hold sacred by discarding certain portions of it that lessen her as a woman, yet values the tiny blurb that lessens homosexuals.
Tell me true, Fugu. Is that not hypocrisy?
You never answered my question. To me, anti-homosexual stances are vile enough standing alone, but they're often written off to religious fundamentalism. Belle, in her post above, proved that she was picking and choosing which parts of the Bible to believe in -- the parts that lessened her as a woman, she discarded. The parts that lessened homosexuals, she treasures, despite the countless arguments Hatrack has had over the subject.
That is "selfish, bigoted twisting of a book [she] claim[s] to hold sacred." I AM "truly disgusted with beliefs like [hers]" -- if someone is determined to keep homosexuals as a sub-class of citizens, I'd prefer that they have more reasoning behind it than to claim their gods don't like it.
And I am disappointed in her. Terribly disappointed. She's not an unintelligent woman, and I've enjoyed reading many of her posts. It hurts that someone who I could almost consider a friend could hold such beliefs; strangely enough, it hurts more to think that Adrian wouldn't even be able to claim the religious fundamentalism defense.
quote:You have some good points, but you haven't learned to form a respectful argument. You don't win arguments by yelling at people. Not only that, but the tone you took and statements you have made do directly contravene the board's rules -- specifically the requirement that we show respect for other's beliefs.
I'm very aware how to form a respectful argument, but I have no respect for opinions thinly cloaked in religion's mantle. Note that, contrary to the quotes (and misquotes -- shame on you) above, you have yet to point out an instance of an ad hominem attack I've made.
I respect religious beliefs, though I'll probably disagree with many of them. Moose, for example, is very religious and one of Hatrack's treasured. What's the difference behind him and Adrian? He's not trying to relegate homosexuals to a sub-class of citizen based on shady, contrary religious beliefs.
I would hope you wouldn't have respect for any position that supports such an end, be it relegating homosexuals, minorities, or women to any sub-class of citizenry.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lalo mocked Belle. You may think what she said was mockable (I don't), but that does not give one a right to do it, particularly in contravention of board rules.
Belle expressly takes the God Does Not Hate Fags position. I am absolutely certain that she believes with all her heart that God loves everyone, including homosexual people.
Her arguments are not ridiculous. Her arguments are ridiculous if you are operating off a different set of assumptions than she is, but this is not the same. As those assumptions are religious in nature, one would be hard pressed to not view this as insulting someone's religion.
The last bit I posted above is, though perhaps the most strongly worded, the most okay of the whole, at least as far the forum rules thing. However, I am not so sure it would be viewed this way by others, for instance the Cards. And they get to set the rules here, like it or not.
I have spent extensive time on this forum defending the rights of homosexual people to participate openly and freely in our society, and I will continue to do so (Ryan, any response on my question about marrying outside one's religion?). As much as I vehemently disagree with Belle's stated position, she has done her best to both phrase it appropriately, and I also believe has nothing but the best intentions (I do hope that "rationalize" was just poor wording). As such, and particularly given the board remit, she should be treated with respect, just as every other member of the board, and of society, should, while they participate honestly.
I have been known to be scornful of arguments myself, but I try to restrict myself to being scornful of arguments, not beliefs, and not people. Lalo crossed the line considerably.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've never seen Caleb's goodbye thread actually so could someone post a link to it cause I can't find it.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I wrote a response to Squicky, but I think Ralphie would vegemite me if I took after her bobo.
Wha?
Squicky's fair game, Kat. I mean, yeah I'm all over that boy like white on rice, but I'm perfectly fine with you getting in a flame war with him.
And Eddie - fugu is totally right. Being passionate and being catty while hiding it behind righteous indignation are too different things. If you can't write a post without red in your eye, stop posting until you can.
Posts: 7600 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Caleb mentioned the "God let me see with your heart" prayer. Jeniwren thought she'd try it. All I have to say is "be careful what you wish for."
When I was religious, I prayed such a prayer and earnestly sought such a path. It led me away from the "faith of my Fathers." And to a deeper love and understanding for every human I come across.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have been known to be scornful of arguments myself, but I try to restrict myself to being scornful of arguments, not beliefs, and not people. Lalo crossed the line considerably.
I wish I could be scornful of Belle's arguments. Unfortunately, the only one offered is that she claims God is against homosexuality -- how would you suggest one argue against her relegation of homosexuals to sub-citizens without necessarily pointing out the obnoxious nature and futile circumlocution of such God-told-me-so arguments?
I might also point out that while I've been far from respectful, I've been far from disrespectful, too. I'm also growing rather tired of your penchant for ignoring -- or worse, misconstruing -- what I write in favor of your own argument. You've always been honest before; I don't expect such behavior from you.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Caleb mentioned the "God let me see with your heart" prayer. Jeniwren thought she'd try it. All I have to say is "be careful what you wish for."
When I was religious, I prayed such a prayer and earnestly sought such a path. It led me away from the "faith of my Fathers." And to a deeper love and understanding for every human I come across.
Wow! This, in the end, was my final prayer, and I've come to the conclusion that if there is a God at all, he doesn't endorse any of the religions that claim him as their source.
Philosophy, thy name is Irony.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I might also point out that while I've been far from respectful, I've been far from disrespectful, too."
Well, no. You have, in fact, been disrespectful, and Belle doesn't deserve your hostile sanctimony. Cut it out.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that for some things there is only a very rocky middle ground to be found.
Do I think that homosexuality should be illegal and its proponents prosecuted? No, I do not.
I see no problem with anyone who wants being able to designate legal heirs, share health benefits etc in one legal swoop, just like marriage. If there are churches which believe it is right to do so then they should be perfectly free to perform wedding ceremonies for whomever they want.
Yet I do not think that it is this that many proponents of homosexual marriage want. I think that many want society, as represented by our government, to state unequivocally that homosexuality is no different in any way shape or form from marriage between a man and a woman.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Yet I do not think that it is this that many proponents of homosexual marriage want. I think that many want society, as represented by our government, to state unequivocally that homosexuality is no different in any way shape or form from marriage between a man and a woman.
What, in your opinion, are the differences between civil heterosexual marriage and civil homosexual marriage? What is the fundamental difference that the "Defense of Marriage" people are trying to defend?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Caleb mentioned the "God let me see with your heart" prayer. Jeniwren thought she'd try it. All I have to say is "be careful what you wish for."
When I was religious, I prayed such a prayer and earnestly sought such a path. It led me away from the "faith of my Fathers." And to a deeper love and understanding for every human I come across. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow! This, in the end, was my final prayer, and I've come to the conclusion that if there is a God at all, he doesn't endorse any of the religions that claim him as their source.
quote: What, in your opinion, are the differences between civil heterosexual marriage and civil homosexual marriage? What is the fundamental difference that the "Defense of Marriage" people are trying to defend?
I thought I made that fairly clear- as far as civil standing goes I don't see any reason why homosexuals should not have the opportunity to gain all of the benefits (and, in the case of taxes, liabilities) as married folks. Perhaps by way of appeasement it could be labeled a "civil union", but I don't think that it makes much difference either way.
As far as what the "defense of marriage" people are trying to defend, I can only speak for my own opinions. I think that marriage is divinely ordained. I think that families consisting of a mother, father and children are the most basic functional unit of society. I think that biologically, neurologically and spiritually there are differences between men and women which when forged in the partnership of marriage bring unique strengths to raising a family. Of course in the real world there are all sorts of problems such as single parent families, abuse etc. but on average I feel that a nuclear family with strong ties to extended family offers greater stability, diversity and strength than any other option.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I thought I made that fairly clear- as far as civil standing goes I don't see any reason why homosexuals should not have the opportunity to gain all of the benefits (and, in the case of taxes, liabilities) as married folks. Perhaps by way of appeasement it could be labeled a "civil union", but I don't think that it makes much difference either way.
And that is precisely the goal of the overwhelming majority of proponents for gay marriage. Who are the "many" who bother you, and in what way are they demanding more than you think they should have? I've never argued, nor have I heard anyone else argue that homosexual families are the ideal. I have argued that the vast majority of heterosexual marriages fall short of any ideal, too, and therefore arguing the merits of homosexual unions against ideal heterosexual marriage is basically meaningless.
I guess the problem I have with your assertion is that is seems to imply some sort of gay conspiracy to undermine the society all the good upstanding heterosexuals have tried so hard to build. I have the same problem with much of OSC's writings on the topic, and I think it's unfounded paranoia.
posted
I would also like to add that I agree that broken families, divorce, single-parent families, and general alienation from extended families are big problems that need to be address. However, I don't think that homosexuals being allowed to marry or even that letting homosexual marriage share the same respect and acceptance as hetersexual marriage is going to make any of those problems worse.
I think marriage may very well need defending, but it isn't from any threat from gays. I would like to see the energy being used to scapegoat homosexuals for societies ills put towards teaching heterosexuals how to be responsible parents. That is the only way the real threats are going to be assuaged.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think marriage may very well need defending, but it isn't from any threat from gays. I would like to see the energy being used to scapegoat homosexuals for societies ills put towards teaching heterosexuals how to be responsible parents. That is the only way the real threats are going to be assuaged.
I think that teaching folks how to be good parents would be money well spent. However, you just knaowe that every political group would get their own little agenda shoehorned in so that "parental training" would have less to do with raising children and more to do with raising children who agre with political view X.
quote: I would also like to add that I agree that broken families, divorce, single-parent families, and general alienation from extended families are big problems that need to be address. However, I don't think that homosexuals being allowed to marry or even that letting homosexual marriage share the same respect and acceptance as hetersexual marriage is going to make any of those problems worse.
Possibly not. Here is an example of what I think complete legitimization of homosexuality will lead to which I consider a bad result: Homosexual high school such as those in New York. On the face of it it is certainly a good thing that these kids won't be tormented by their peers. However, as has been mentioned by many, I think that teenagers are in a confusing state due to hormone fluctutaion, rebellion against parental expectations etc and hence encouraging kids to define themselves as homosexual at this young age may result in more kids becoming homosexual.
Now, to put this in perspective, I think that this outcome is somewhere near the same level of "badness" as handing out condoms at high school since (wink wink nudge nudge) we know those kids will be having sex anyway so we may as well officially condone the practice.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I see no problem with anyone who wants being able to designate legal heirs, share health benefits etc in one legal swoop, just like marriage. If there are churches which believe it is right to do so then they should be perfectly free to perform wedding ceremonies for whomever they want.
Yet I do not think that it is this that many proponents of homosexual marriage want.
Does it matter what you think we want?
There's some truth to it, of course. Insofar as monogomous homosexual relationships want to be recognized, it's logical to assume that they also want to be valued members of the community. But it's illogical to suggest that that is in any way contrary to the other goals you mentioned--if that is what you were suggesting.
In essence, Jacare, only your relationship with God can bring you to a place where you can see homosexuality as a sin. Likely the opposite is true as well. Only your relationship with God could bring you to a place where you could accept homosexuality as part of his creation.
But what 'society-as-represented-by-its-government' chooses to value cannot, nor should it, rise and fall with your relationship to God. And since you probably believe that the majority of believers around this world--perhaps even in this country--do not actually have a relationship with God (else how could they come to such opposite conclusions about his will?), you surely must see the dangers to democracy that that would pose.
Papa Moose, Storm Saxon, others:
quote:Caleb, I wish you were here more often. Hatrack is missing something incredibly valuable with you gone.
quote:Caleb, you're an idiot for leaving. No one here hates you, you big galoot. Get your ass back here.
I've been a recovering Hatraholic for a while now. Don't you know that every word I type takes me that much deeper into the danger zone?
Ryan Heart:
quote:Caleb- The thing is man has a sin nature. Without God we tend towards sin. That's why we need him to come into our lives.<--Obviously a Christian statement. Take it for what you will.
It may seem like a wild idea to you, Ryan, but I think that as long as man continues to believe that sin is an inescapable part of his nature, it will be. It's not a biblical perspective, I know, but few of my perspectives are. Let me ask you this: if Christ died on the cross so that you could be free of sin, and you have accepted the gift of his penance, why is it that you still consider yourself a sinner? Do you think Jesus died to save you now, or only when you go to face judgment?
SaberZedge:
quote:[Stormy,] what fuels your passion to post threads that upon close reading display your disdain for Christianity and its doctrine?
The only thing a close reading of Stormy's posts can reveal is that he thinks 'Christianity and its doctrine' is making a big mistake on this issue. He thinks they are wrong. That does not, nor has it ever, constitute disdain towards them. What the rest of us see in his posts is a reasonable person trying to suggest alternative ways of looking at one's religion, and that which fuels his 'passion' to do so is simply his intellectual obligation to promote civil discourse as a viable method of social change.
I imagine that your conversations with David Bowles were likely fueled by the very same source.
Lalo:
Hey buddy. I appreciate the things you're saying for the reasons you're saying them. I've been watching over this thread, and I must admit that I too was a little miffed at Belle's post-and-quit. It just feels rude to me that she would give her positions--views that she knows will step on other people's toes--and then walk out of the discussion. The implication is that she can't NOT give her views because it's too important that they be correctly understood. But it's not really important at all to stick around and give your opposition the floor. That, to me, is very disrespectful towards members of this board who take part in these discussions BECAUSE we all know each other. I don't think she was trying to be disrespectful in her heart, but I do think that that's where she was coming from subconsciously. The important thing was not the conversation or the people in it, but that somebody had to stand up for God's truth.
Kinda like those door-to-door witnesses. On a certain level their very presence is disrespectful. They come to the door and knock because they're pretty sure that you really need to get right with the Lord. And yeah, that can be offensive, but you know they're only doing what their system has led them to do, and what's more: they really want to share with you what gives meaning and joy to their lives.
When was the last time you walked up to somebody and tried to share with them the source of all your joy?
What makes Belle's post offensive is that she came to the door, knocked, threw a tract into the house and then walked away. But even then, we all know that's not the way SHE thinks of what she said, and therefore that cannot be the whole truth of what she did.
That said, I'm going to agree with others that you have been disrespectful. And for you that disrespect is justified because the beliefs you're fighting against are harmful enough to warrant disdain. Of course I can completely understand that. Just check out my posts in "funniest essay on gay marriage that I've seen".
What I've learned since then is that disdain doesn't accomplish anything. You can be a thousand times right about the inconsistencies of the bible and it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference because you speak with as much judgment in your heart as Fred Phelps has towards me. Instead of hating those views, we need to rise above ourselves and react with sorrow. Sorrow can be fought with hope. Anger cannot be fought with anything.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: It just feels rude to me that she would give her positions--views that she knows will step on other people's toes--and then walk out of the discussion.
To be fair, didn't you do the same thing?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
I never said the conversations weren't worth my effort, and I never said that I was just going to say my peace and never come back. I said I was tired and hurt and I needed to regain some energy and that I would be back later. I never said I'd leave hatrack for good.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also disagree that the reason she stopped posting was because she wasn't interested in hearing the other side, or that she didn't care, but because she believes no one will listen to her. I would guess that she stopped posting because, in her mind, she really has no choice about how to believe about homosexuals. It's God's word. End of story.
I think if you read what she wrote, she is trying to be as compassionate as possible towards gay people, given her sworn obedience/stance/belief in her church.
I know her attitude supports the current political climate towards gay people, but I think it's important to seperate out what you can do versus what you can't do. Work to change the political process and other people's opinions, yes, but I think it's also vital to be able to see when you can't change a person and just accept them for who they are. I don't think Belle's opinion is going to be changed with words. I do think she is a very nice person with a good heart. I think that eventually, her views will change of their own accord simply by knowing gay people here on the rack and in life and seeing that they, too, are good.
I do think that there is going to be an ideological struggle for the hearts and minds of Americans, between liberal and conservative Christian ideologies, both within and without churches. You see that already happening. When the church doctrine changes, then Belle can in good conscience change her mind. Or maybe it will be more accurate to say that her daughter will be able to believe differently, since Belle already has accepted certain truths as doctrine.
posted
I'm pretty sure she's at the same place, Caleb. I doubt she's leaving Hatrack permanently. Many have tried and few succeed, as you know. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ahh the homosexual debate. It's about as bad as the anna nicole show. I want to look away, I really do, but for some reason, I keep watching.
(oddly enough, id venture that i watched a grand total of three minutes of anna nicole, but ive read a good deal of this thread. So i suppose it has even more of a 'keep watching im a train wreck' quality.)
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pretty sure that I've already covered what you're saying:
quote:But even then, we all know that's not the way SHE thinks of what she said, and therefore that cannot be the whole truth of what she did.
My whole purpose in posting at all was to try and promote mutual understanding of each other, Stormy. Understanding of myself and understanding of those views with which I disagree. I don't think I'm guilty of whatever it is your accusing me.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm kind of not explaining myself very well, I guess. I like you both, and I hope you both continue to post in a spirit of friendship with each other.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Caleb, I really appreciate your thoughts and posts on the thread. Really interesting and a pleasure to read, of course I enjoyed those from Chris Bridges, Toretha, and GSA President, not to mention Lalo's as well.
Not suprisingly I come down exactly on their side in this arena (which obviously explains my fondness for their takes), and I understand exactly why I think Lalo took such a strong, and aggressive stance in his more recent posts. As an individual born and raised a short ways south of San Francisco, I was quickly made aware of homosexuality growing up, but didn't really clearly come to terms with it until I was in High School and came to know inumerable friends, an uncle who came out, and a best friend whose father came out as gay. I don't know how effectively being around individuals of a different sexual persuasion helps one's understanding of it, and works against homophobia. Clearly growing up around other races didn't necessitate tolerant racial views after all, but in my experience, the more I got to know gay men and women the more clearly and profoundly I became aware that these individuals had little choice in the matter. The science hasn't yet come clearly to the forefront to support this belief of mine, so clearly it's not fact based, it's just based on the "reason" I have available to learn and understand my environment from. There is little doubt in my view that the sexual identity of individuals can become a bit squirrelly in homes where abuse, both physical, and mental is prevalent, but clearly many, nearly all gay men and women I know, did not grow up in these environments and nearly all of them state that they knew they were gay from their earliest memories.
So when it comes down to it, both Lalo and I (and I probably shouldn't be speaking for him) see in these threads such a thoroughly objectionable viewpoints. These views aren't backed by facts either, at least one's that I noticed. Some arguments are backed by clearly stated beliefs that God wrote the bible, something that is neither fact, nor proveable, nor reliable as anything remotely similar to a justifiable argument, one might as well take the stand that Zeus, Apollo, Mars, and Neptune were clearly fine with hetero and homosexual acts, so clearly these varient sexualities are okay. Original sin is another take, that is not FACT, it is belief, and a matter of faith, you are welcome to it, as are anyone to their beliefs, but these ideas are not facts, heck there are infinitely more religious cultures that do not believe in original sin, than that actually do, I can start trotting out Hopi, Hupa, or Anasazi beliefs on sin, and it won't make my arguments any more reliable, or persuasive, or factual, it will just provide detail, ideas, and beliefs on matters of faith and oral histories detailing cultural perspectives on human origins. These, of course, aren't facts, or genuinely persuasive counterarguments to anything.
It drives me bonkers to see threads like this where arguments are actually presented as fact, when they are not, they are matters of belief and faith. A beautiful thing in my view, but still not facts. I'm not an atheist, either, I was raised Lutheran, and I was raised and taught that the Bible was not necessairly God's Word, but rather written by human beings. God didn't come down with a bic, or with a feather and some ink and draw up the bible. Man did. That is my belief, just as it is the belief of others that God wrote it (I assume via his spirit filling the minds of the actual writers?), but these are both beliefs. I have no ownership, or deed to the truth, and as such I try to remain flexible enough to listen to others, but when there are neither facts, nor clear evidence to support the idea that God Wrote the Bible, I'm not gonna take that as anything remotely similar to a justifiable argument for rulings on sexuality where it concerns marriage, or the relative sinfulness of homosexuality as opposed to heterosexuality.
I'm not gonna bend, as clearly most others won't on this forum. I have bended in the past. As a kid I thought it was icky, bizarre, and almost certainly wrong, but the more I grew to know gay individuals, as I mentioned earlier, the more clearly I felt and knew (as a belief), that they were unalterably and truly, gay, period. To take the "Love the sinner, hate the sin" argument is an absolute non-sensical argument in my view. It's one thing if you're talking about violence, or theft, or other vices, issues that regard behavior distinguisable from identity. But sexuality isn't on anything remotely similar to an equivalent plane to predilections for drinking, stealing, or outright murder. Sexuality is a part of one's identity and almost assuredly will be proved to have at least some biological basis. I just can't see how the "Love the sinner, hate the sin" argument can possibly apply to sexuality if you argue from a stance with reason. How can anyone expect someone whose gay, to not act on this reality. It would be like asking me not to eat a couple times a week, or ask another man not to go to the bathroom more than twice a week. Sexuality is sexuality, it effects your dreams, your fantasies, your physical reality, your love and social life, it impacts nearly all aspects of one's life, it helps construct how you think of yourself, and those around you, it's a fundamental part of who you are. My fondness for tequila may be strong, but it's not a fundamental part of my identity, and neither is my fondness for Champions League soccer. I love it, but clearly it isn't as fundamental to my identity and personality as my heterosexuality. To demand that the sinner, not act on what is, based on all reason available, part and parcel of who they are in my view is demonstrably nothing short of insane non-sense. You might as well tell me not to have dreams at night. How the heck can I help that? The answer is I can't, as long as I continue to sleep every night.
I won't win anyone over here, with this, and I may irritate people as Lalo clearly, did, but others must understand how horrendous Lalo and I perceive the justifications have been for the opposing takes in much of this thread, particularly the hypocritical ones. Just as Lalo's takes may be a bit beyond the line to some, and a bit disrespectful, so to do I find the opposing takes, of many posters I've come to adore over the two years I've been here. For many of us who either have family, loved ones, or are gay ourselves, the arguments expressed seem nothing short of weak justifications for the sexual equivlanet of racism, the poorly conceived term, "Homophobia".
I must remember, and take into account that the matter of faith, and devout religious beliefs that many in this forum share should be respected, but I hope those of you who were offended by Lalo, or by my takes can understand why we might have so much trouble respecting what we (or at least I) regard as clear prejudice, which is based and founded on matters of belief and faith, rather than reason and/or fact. I can't and shouldn't try to change beliefs and a faith that are part and parcel of who you are, but I sure as heck, can and will have problems with it, when it is used to make fundamental judgements about the relative sinfulness of people who cannot change who and what they are. And for clarification, I understand that some of you think that being gay is a sin, in the doing, not the being, but in my view the gay identity is fundamental, and if gay individuals want loving relationships, that may involve physical expression of that love, that is as equally part and parcel of who they are, as heterosexual physical relationships are for straight individuals. As such, I can't possibly see how it can be a sin to express that love, anymore than its heterosexual equivalent. Period.
Anyay, that's plenty from me. My views, my beliefs, my ideas, no suggestion that these arguments are based on thoroughly researched experiments, or an accumulation of facts, it's based on my reason, my experience, and my life, just as the opposing view is, however, I don't and won't base my interpretation on what I believe to be God's take on the issue, since I don't believe God has ever spoken to it, although the actual world and the way it is, may suggest his view (I find it hard to believe that homosexuality can exist for so many, as an identity, and so often, in the animal kingdom, and still be considered anathema and/or a sin, in God's eyes. But that's my view, that isn't based in the least on scripture).
Posts: 752 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should make clear that I don't have a problem with Lalo's positions, but with how he presented them.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Graywolfe, you go, girl. On this issue, at least, you're certainly entitled to speak for the positions we both hold, despite our differing religious beliefs.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm an agnostic in the sense that I'm not fond of atheism making concrete statements about the existence of gods -- in other words, the atheist claiming that gods cannot exist is about as valid as the fundamentalist Baptist claiming God hates fags. Neither have any real validity to their claims.
I'm more a sarcastic agnostic with leanings toward atheism. i.e., if you believe deities exist, why not leprechauns or Santa Claus?
Of course, I have no problem with religious beliefs, and even less of a problem arguing with them. But in my mind, there's a huge difference between having peaceful religious beliefs and forcing prejudices on other people, whether those prejudices are cloaked in religion's mantle or no.
God told me so. Ugh.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Caleb- Gosh do you know your theology. Man without the Holy Spirit is sinful. The thing with me is that I know I have a sin nature because I can see it fight with the Holy Spirit. I can feel the conflict within my heart. I consider myself a sinner because I see the depravity in my own mind. The natural impulses I have are towards evil. However I feel the power of the Holy Spirit within me combating these impulses. Jesus died so that the Holy Spirit could come and I can have a personal relationship with the Living God. And because of that relationship, on the day of judgment I will be able to stand before God because I knew His Son.
Edit: Lalo- None of what you say sounds anything remotely resembling agnosticism. You sound like an athiest to me.
[ September 14, 2003, 07:35 PM: Message edited by: Ryan Hart ]
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wheras Lalo stated specifically that he's an agnostic and gave the exact definition of agnostic vs. atheism.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think that teaching folks how to be good parents would be money well spent. However, you just knaowe that every political group would get their own little agenda shoehorned in so that "parental training" would have less to do with raising children and more to do with raising children who agre with political view X.
I just feel I need to make it clear that I was in no way promoting any government sponsored training of potential parents. I just think that promulgating fears of some "threat" of homosexuality to the strength of the American Family is a scapegoating tactic.
quote: Here is an example of what I think complete legitimization of homosexuality will lead to which I consider a bad result: Homosexual high school such as those in New York.
I would think it clear that the gay high school in NYC is a reaction to the current climate and that far from making them the norm, complete legitimization of homosexuality would make them unnecessary. If that's the best you can come up with, it only underscores the paucity of the "threat to the family" arguement.
That said, I think the gay high school idea is a poorly conceived one in any climate. However, you do raise a good question about sexual identity. I doubt very seriously that many straight youths will become gay simply because it is no longer stigmatized. However, I don't doubt that many gays will be able to understand and accept their own sexuality at a younger age, and therefore be better able to become well adjusted gay adults because they are spared the marginalization most gays encounter today. I see that as good for society rather than bad.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The natural impulses I have are towards evil."
If it makes you feel any better, Ryan, some of us have natural impulses towards GOOD.
I'm sorry you're a bad person, but I'm glad you've got something that keeps you from killing your neighbors.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ryan...how can it possibly be a good thing to be telling yourself that you're doomed to be a sinner and have evil impulses, and only by following x, y, and z rules, you're not going to burn in hell forever? That's got to be one dreary outlook on life!
Posts: 3658 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, the thing is, if Ryan's a strict Calvinist, he DOESN'T believe that following X, Y, and Z rules will keep him from going to Hell. If he's a strict Calvinist, he believes that nothing he does will keep him from going to Hell if that's the fate already determined for him; obeying X, Y, and Z rules would be merely demonstrative SYMPTOMS of his non-Hellbound nature.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:...I can feel the conflict within my heart. I consider myself a sinner because I see the depravity in my own mind. The natural impulses I have are towards evil... Jesus died so that the Holy Spirit could come and I can have a personal relationship with the Living God. And because of that relationship, on the day of judgment I will be able to stand before God because I knew His Son.
For curiosity's sake, Ryan, do you have any scriptural references to support this position? I've wondered for a while now why Christ would have to leave us in order for us to receive the 'Holy Spirit'. Can they not occupy the same space at the same time, or what?
A quick search through the New Testament finds me one--and only one--verse that sounds even remotely similar to your depiction of the Holy Spirit vs. Sin Nature relationship which you claim to be characteristic of Christians, and that is Titus 3:5.
Of course I've never been comfortable with the idea that men are born with their DEFAULT destination being hell. Again 'wow, do I know my theology', eh? Well I do, actually. It's just not YOUR theology, and I suppose that makes me... a Satanist. Or a blasphemor. A heretic at least, right? It's alright. I established long ago that I would have no part of your version of heaven. Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, if it helps, Caleb, I also share a theology in which our default state is going to 'heaven'. In fact, we believe that any child that dies before the age of accountability (That is when they can understand the difference between right and wrong, good and evil. Usually occurs around eight.) returns to Heavenly Father.
But what we also believe is that we will inevitably succumb to temptation. We simply aren't spiritually mature enough not to. Our goal is perfection, but we aren't there yet. Since we do need to be perfectly clean to enter the presence of Heavenly Father, we need our sins cleansed by the Savior. It is only when we dwell with our Heavenly Father that we can grow to our fullest potential. Therefore, what we believe is that the Atonement is necessary for our growth. Even our growth on earth. True repentance isn't simply being forgiven, it is growing to the point where we never commit that particular sin again. True repentance means we can move beyond our guilt to put things firmly in the past and be able to honestly say "I am a better person than I was."
Since are still so young (spiritually speaking) we can never attain perfection here, but we can strive for it.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Caleb- In your quick scan you apparently missed 2 Corinthians 12. Paul talks about his "thorn". He goes on to tell of how the Grace of God and Power of the Holy Spirit keep from sin.
I'm no pastor, but a detailed study of the New Testament will show a battle between the sin nature.
Amka- I hate to say this, but I think that's feel good theology. The Bible says we are born into sin, and without God we will go to Hell. Now would I tell that to a mother who just lost her baby, gracious no. That was one of the hardest conclusions I have ever come too.
By the way anyone who saw my other thread, that was just theory. I don't necessarily believe all or any of it.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Caleb- In your quick scan you apparently missed 2 Corinthians 12. Paul talks about his "thorn". He goes on to tell of how the Grace of God and Power of the Holy Spirit keep from sin.
Really? Because niether the New International Version--which you might refer to as a 'feel good translation'--or the New American Standard Version of 2nd Corinthians, Chapter 12, have any mention whatsoever of the Holy Spirit. What Paul does discuss is that troublesome 'thorn' in his side that he asks of God three times to remove. After having asked this of God, Paul is told (and get this), that God's grace is sufficient enough. Meaning, apparently, that Paul needn't war against his 'thorn' to be in a right standing with God. God's grace was enough for that. And isn't that kind of opposite to what you were saying? Hm.
The 'Power of the Holy Spirit' that you mentioned does not appear in this text.
quote:I'm no pastor, but a detailed study of the New Testament will show a battle between the sin nature.
I think it suffices to say, Ryan, that I remain unconvinced. Assuming that you won't be able to come up with references that do support your conclusions, let me ask you a derivative question: do you believe one can engage in conflict with their 'sin nature' independently of the Holy Spirit? Or can only those who have received 'the baptism of fire' (as it is sometimes called among pentacostals) resist temptation and sin?
Hey, it's possible that your interpretation of the Bible is more in line with God's intentions than mine. I'll admit that. But if you're going to assert that 'a detailed study' of something will lead to your conclusion and yours alone, you might want to try adding some details, or maybe some study, to your conclusion.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I've been a recovering Hatraholic for a while now. Don't you know that every word I type takes me that much deeper into the danger zone? ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
