posted
Scott: Next time could you get me an autograph? I've always wanted to meet him but he never returned my calls.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
How to respond when someone says, "My religion won't let me support SSM. My faith and my personal belief say that God is against it."
You say, "My religion insists I support SSM. My faith and my personal belief say that God is for love of all kinds--not Sex of all kinds, but Love. Marriage is more about demonstrating faithfulness, caring, commitment and love than it is about sex. So where do we go from here? Does your religion get to dictate what mine can do?"
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan: the answer from MPH and Scott would seem to be "Yes. If they have more votes."
It makes me want to fight back and side with the Michael Newdows(sp) of the world. Try to stamp out christianity where-ever I can. But that is just as wrong, in my opinion, as Scott and MPH's position.
So I guess I'll turn the other cheek.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I get tired of having to say to both sides that I am hardly unique in being a Christian who supports gay rights.
Kate, your support of gay rights, while certainly welcome, puts you into direct conflict with your pope. I understand why you find this sort of misunderstanding annoying, but it's probably going to keep happening as long as American Catholics continue to officially recognize papal authority.
Depends on your understanding (or misunderstanding) of Papal authority. Not really your fault, as the Vatican doesn't help to clear up that misunderstanding - or hasn't since the mid-sixties. For anyone with an understanding of the history of the Catholic Church, the fact that the laity is "ahead of the curve" on this issue should not be a surprise. I can tell you in all honesty that we "officially" pray for social justice and an end to discrimination based on sexual orientation.
We also can't ignore the progress made by Protestant churches, UCC, Methodist and Episcopal, for example, to change the way their denominations regard the issue.
Institutions change slowly - especially large, centuries old instituions- but they are changing. People of good will are changing them. Failure to recognize that, painting all Christians with the same brush, ignoring the complexities of change, will only slow progress and further threaten and entrench those people opposed to change.
Christians did not invent persecuting homosexuals or forbidding certain homosexual acts. We inherited that lovely tradition.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Assuming you know the opinion of an omniscient being based on what other flawed human beings tell you seems a bit silly
This is a good, solid example of misunderstanding.
Javert seems to think that religious people only claim to know what God wants of them through "other flawed human beings."
As Tom has pointed out, many religious people believe to have a personal connection with God. It is this connection which informs believers' decision making processes.
But because Javert thinks that believers follow only the words of other men, he/she misses out on this important fact. Depending on the depth that Javert is committed to his/her flawed idea, believers may be categorized as sheep, or pawns, or merely silly.
In my case, I don't believe that I know what I know about God because of the information given me by other flawed human beings; I believe God Himself gave me the information I have, and that the only intermediary between God and me is Jesus Christ.
So there. Bit o' learnin' for ye, Javert. Something to keep in mind the next time you have a conversation with me, or with other religious people.
Now this topic may digress into who has REALLY talked with God. (I'll give you a hint: it's me.)
I'm a he. Just to keep the pronouns straight.
My response would be that you (both yourself and the more general "you") are also a flawed human being.
I, having never personally heard the voice of God (at least I don't think I have), live in a world in which many people believe they have. I have no way to tell if their experiences are real or imagined. All I can see is that the views that come from all these people differ so much, they can't all be the correct views. So I, being a humble human, believe that the opinion of God is forever beyond my scope.
Assuming I am not a horrible example of a human being, I extend my belief beyond myself and think that the opinion of God is beyond ANYONE's grasp.
My problem comes from the fact that when you think you know the opinion of an omniscient being, whether coming to that belief through personal means or secondhand ones, you eliminate the possibility of learning you may be in error.
Am I saying your beliefs are wrong? No. But there is a possibility that they are. When you are speaking of the opinion of God, however, you stop looking for that possibility. And that, in my opinion, is where all the trouble lays. (lies?...not sure which is grammatically correct)
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott: I defend christianity. Mock me all you like, I'm going to continue to do it. You have the right to practice your faith as you see fit.
I don't care that god's name is on the money or in the pledge. I think you should be able to pray in schools. I don't mind the 10 commandments being posted in public places.
I've stated these positions over and over, but I guess you never noticed.
Pix
PS: It seems kinda weird to most people (or maybe just to me, I dunno) when people claim they talk to god. Prayer, ya, but *actually* talk to god? weird.
quote:How to respond when someone says, "My religion won't let me support SSM. My faith and my personal belief say that God is against it."
You say, "My religion insists I support SSM. My faith and my personal belief say that God is for love of all kinds--not Sex of all kinds, but Love. Marriage is more about demonstrating faithfulness, caring, commitment and love than it is about sex. So where do we go from here? Does your religion get to dictate what mine can do?"
I don't have any problem with religions teaching that homosexual couples are acceptable in the sight of God. I don't have a problem with churches marrying homosexual couples in religious ceremonies.
I have a problem with not standing up for what I believe is right when I'm specifically asked my opinion, when I am a part of and when I SERVE society. (Yep, starLisa-- you and I have a fundamental disagreement about MORE than God's view of homosexuality), and when that decision is going to affect society.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: How to respond when someone says, "My religion won't let me support SSM. My faith and my personal belief say that God is against it."
You say, "My religion insists I support SSM. My faith and my personal belief say that God is for love of all kinds--not Sex of all kinds, but Love. Marriage is more about demonstrating faithfulness, caring, commitment and love than it is about sex. So where do we go from here? Does your religion get to dictate what mine can do?"
That is exactly what a lot of us do say.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Assuming I am not a horrible example of a human being, I extend my belief beyond myself and think that the opinion of God is beyond ANYONE's grasp.
All right-- I've never been able to grasp calculus. That means that all mathemeticians just made up their science. The theorums and postulates and evidences they've come up with to be internally consistent in their self-importance are as bogus as snake oil.
I'm glad you've opened my mind to this wondrous way of thinking.
quote:My problem comes from the fact that when you think you know the opinion of an omniscient being, whether coming to that belief through personal means or secondhand ones, you eliminate the possibility of learning you may be in error.
No. I pointed this phenomenon out to Tom in another thread-- knowing (or even thinking you know) God's voice does not tend to make one certain of oneself.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
KM --I know. I think its great. Its a shame that those voices of faith get trodden on by both sides in their desire to score points and prove who is the most rightest of them all.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:All right-- I've never been able to grasp calculus. That means that all mathemeticians just made up their science. The theorums and postulates and evidences they've come up with to be internally consistent in their self-importance are as bogus as snake oil.
He was saying that god is unknowable, I assumed meaning in the sense that no living person will ever fully understand him. Do you disagree with that?
Explain to me how calculus is like that and I'll grant your analogy.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I pointed this phenomenon out to Tom in another thread-- knowing (or even thinking you know) God's voice does not tend to make one certain of oneself.
So you grant the possibility that same-sex marriage is good for society?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure, there's a possibility. I don't believe it, but there's a possibility. I believe there's a stronger possibility that it will not be, and so will act and vote accordingly.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Katie, do you really think it's possible that the church is flat-out wrong about the wrongness of homosexuality? I thought the LDS church was pretty clear about their stance on the issue, to the extent that they've ruled "officially" on it and everything.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Assuming I am not a horrible example of a human being, I extend my belief beyond myself and think that the opinion of God is beyond ANYONE's grasp.
This is what I was responding to, JT. The belief that just because X person hasn't received X information from X source MUST mean no one has received it.
quote:So you grant the possibility that same-sex marriage is good for society?
Yes. But that's not my main concern. My main concern is if it's what God wants.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure. There's a possibility that my experience is wrong, that the Book of Mormon isn't scripture, that the Savior never lived, that prophecy doesn't exist, that the Lord never speaks to us, and that there isn't any Lord in the first place. It's possible that the first presidency is wrong about same-sex marriage.
I don't believe that, though. I believe that they are right. As per voting, I also believe that Iraq was a mistake, that standardized tests are good in terms of identifying problem schools but bad for determining teacher pay, and that farm subsidies are abused but should be reformed instead of done away with altogether. I'll attempt to make my voting reflect all of that.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
So your concern in this situation consists primarily of ascertaining God's will?
I'm not seeing where the self-doubt comes in, Scott.
You'll note that the "doubt" Katie grants revolves entirely around the concept that her church -- and, by extension, her personal faith -- is wrong. That "doubt," in other words, is inversely proportional to her belief in her own religion.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I doubt things all the time in terms of my religion. However, this is not the place to share that. *shrug* I suppose you'll have to take my word for it. Unless you wish to make up a motivation for me.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: In this context, I think a vote is a sword.
yes... and discussing it in a public forum *before* voting on it is, in this context, trying diplomacy. That StarLisa doesn't like diplomacy should come as a surprise to no one. That you, Tom, feel attempts at diplomacy warrant a slap in the face *is* a surprise.
Again, I think you are right. If all you want to do is fight for right, cast your vote and swing your sword... but it is *not* a good faith negotiation to say "I'm right and you, while possibly sincere, are silly and deserve the ridicule and ire being heaped upon you as much as those who wish no dialogue and no quarter."
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Assuming I am not a horrible example of a human being, I extend my belief beyond myself and think that the opinion of God is beyond ANYONE's grasp.
This is what I was responding to, JT. The belief that just because X person hasn't received X information from X source MUST mean no one has received it.
I worded it wrong. My apologies. I don't think that God's opinion is ungraspable just because I can't grasp it. I think it is ungraspable because God is omniscient. I don't believe you can know, for certain, the opinion of an omniscient being unless you yourself are omniscient.
This even extends to your calculus analogy. The difference is that one can be taught calculus, while omniscience seems to be beyond humanty's grasp at the moment.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is what I was responding to, JT. The belief that just because X person hasn't received X information from X source MUST mean no one has received it.
Okay. That's certainly valid; just not how I read Javert's statement.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I doubt things all the time in terms of my religion.
But that's not what Scott's saying. He's saying that strong belief leads to self-doubt. In your case, however, your doubt (at least, as you described it) hinges on your disbelief; to the extent that you believe in the rightness of your church, you do not have doubt.
quote:That you, Tom, feel attempts at diplomacy warrant a slap in the face *is* a surprise.
There are times when someone is hysterical and flailing in fear or anger and likely to hurt themselves or others, and a sudden slap in that situation might bring them around. The marriage ban is intended to stop all "diplomacy" on this issue; an appeal to the Constitution is essentially the ultimate American "sword." And so -- and I'm speculating on someone else's motives again, here, so YMMV -- it's possible that people who fear that the marriage ban will pass believe that the situation is now dire enough to start slapping people "awake," despite the risk. I don't agree, but I don't think that merely being willing to engage in dialogue on a topic is the same thing as being reasonable or rational about it, either. We should be civil to each other because civility is a virtue, not because some of us choose to engage in conversation; otherwise, you would be saying that starLisa's insult is perfectly (and only) acceptable when directed at Christians who haven't posted on the SSM issue. I'd recognize her post as a gesture of exasperation and frustration; from her perspective, I'm sure it looks like the whole world is hemming her in -- and unlike Christians who feel this way, she doesn't have the advantage of a voting majority to assuage her fears.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I figured I'd address the cartoon, though it had moved on from there. Places like that described in the cartoon have been springing up in the last few years. Give it a look. I'd suggest that before you get into a tizzy about an inaccurate protrayal of Christians, you make at least a little bit of effort to find out if this protrayal is actually inaccurate.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is what I was responding to, JT. The belief that just because X person hasn't received X information from X source MUST mean no one has received it.
Okay. That's certainly valid; just not how I read Javert's statement.
Not how I meant it either.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:There's self-dobut all over the place. Matt calls it the Mormon Guilt and he's actually not a fan.
But as I understand the "Mormon Guilt" -- and "Catholic Guilt" and "Jewish Guilt" -- phenomena, the issue isn't one of "am I and my church wrong about this" but "my personal ethics conflict with my beliefs, and/or I have difficulty living up to the high standards of my professed church." (There are issues of Original Sin and other things wrapped up in there, but ultimately this guilt is a matter of perceived insufficiency, not "doubt.")
I've never heard the phrase "Mormon Guilt" applied to describe active disagreement with the church and its policies, or the conviction that a personal revelation received is almost certainly false. Is that how it's usually meant in your circle? If so, I'm going to have to look at some other statements in a new context.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: So you limit your egregious, bigoted personal attacks to people with opinions different from yours? That's disgusting.
No. I limit my attacks to people who make silly claims about hypothetical "harm" because they don't have the moral courage to admit that their position is purely a matter of their religious convictions.
It works like this. If you say that you oppose SSM out of religious convictions, my response is that I can respect that (and even agree with it, because I'm also against SSM in the context of my religion), but that this is the United States, and we don't limit the liberty of some because this or that religion says we should.
If you say that you oppose SSM out of reasons other than religious convictions, my response is to ask what possible reasons those can be. If you say that it's because you think it will harm society, or harm other people, I heap scorn on you. Because quite frankly, I think that's a load of crap. I think it's an utterly baseless position that people only use because we live in a culture where religion is so denigrated by so many people that it feels uncomfortable to simply own up to the fact that you have religious convictions and that they are important enough to you to act on them.
See, I like the fact that Scott has strong enough principles that he's willing to put them into practice. I wish to God that more Jews were willing to do the same. I just don't think he has the right to try and impose them on others.
And for the record, the idea that SSM somehow imposes something on Scott or other SSM opponents is as utterly ludicrous as the idea that SSM will somehow harm people or society. It's baseless. We've talked about the idea that my right to swing my fist ends where your nose starts. How seriously would you take someone who claimed that this rule/idea/concept is somehow a kind of imposition on people who like swinging their fists all over the place? That's crazy talk, and so is claiming that SSM imposes anything on anyone.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Hmm... on a certain level, you are correct. The scriptures were passed down through flawed human beings.
But the scriptures make up a very small part of what I know about God. Like love letters make up a small part of what I know about my wife.
Tom:
You're confusing self-doubt and doubt about God. The first I have aplenty. The second-- very little at all.
From the other SSM thread, page 2:
quote:5)As far as Mormonism knows currently, the only way for a man (or woman) to become like their Heavenly Parents is to marry someone of the opposite gender, and together be faithful to the laws that our Heavenly Parents honor.
It's possible we'll receive further knowledge contradicting what we "know" now. It's possible I really am a bigot, and the prejudice in my heart and in the heart of Mormons everywhere, is keeping God's children from benefitting the way He wants them to. (Not speaking of legal marriage here, but of eternal marriage-- which is what I'm concerned about)
However-- I *think* I am seeing this issue clearly. And I act as I think God wants.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure it is accurate of some Christians. Loud Christians. Not, by a long shot, most Christians. But they damn sure want to make people think that they represent all Christians. Do we really want to help them to do that?
You might have noted that one of the group members of the web site you linked is a Christian. That is an accurate portrayal, too.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:There are times when someone is hysterical and flailing in fear or anger and likely to hurt themselves or others, and a sudden slap in that situation might bring them around.
That's a folk remedy that only works in the movies, Tom.
Scott, sorry to have deleted the post to which you are referring. I thought I had caught it before it was seen.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:5)As far as Mormonism knows currently, the only way for a man (or woman) to become like their Heavenly Parents is to marry someone of the opposite gender, and together be faithful to the laws that our Heavenly Parents honor.
What about single people?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I'd suggest that before you get into a tizzy about an inaccurate protrayal of Christians, you make at least a little bit of effort to find out if this protrayal is actually inaccurate.
I lived in Dallas for 30 years and currently reside in Greenville, SC the home of Bob Jones University. I know more than enough evangelical and fundamentalist Christians to categorically state that the picture is an inaccurate depiction of even the majority of those fairly extreme examples, much less Christians as a whole.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
If it doesn't happen in this life, it will happen sometime later.
I think there will be a lot of sorting out later, considering not all married couples are equally desirous of the same outcome.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:5)As far as Mormonism knows currently, the only way for a man (or woman) to become like their Heavenly Parents is to marry someone of the opposite gender, and together be faithful to the laws that our Heavenly Parents honor.
What about single people?
Single people, in some cases, will be given the chance post-mortem, to be part of a couple. Those who refuse (in this life and/or the next) will at best be eternally incomplete according to the doctrine.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:How to respond when someone says, "My religion won't let me support SSM. My faith and my personal belief say that God is against it."
You say, "My religion insists I support SSM. My faith and my personal belief say that God is for love of all kinds--not Sex of all kinds, but Love. Marriage is more about demonstrating faithfulness, caring, commitment and love than it is about sex. So where do we go from here? Does your religion get to dictate what mine can do?"
I don't have any problem with religions teaching that homosexual couples are acceptable in the sight of God. I don't have a problem with churches marrying homosexual couples in religious ceremonies.
I have a problem with not standing up for what I believe is right when I'm specifically asked my opinion, when I am a part of and when I SERVE society. (Yep, starLisa-- you and I have a fundamental disagreement about MORE than God's view of homosexuality), and when that decision is going to affect society.
It's Lisa, Scott. Not starLisa.
And I don't have a problem with you serving society. I mean, I think it's a strange way to look at the world, but then, you're a Christian. And a Mormon. And there are any number of other groups of people in the world who look at things in a way that I think is strange.
My problem is when you try and make me serve. You may think that you're entitled to do so if you have a bigger mob than I do, and in fact, the law may actually allow you to do so if you have a bigger mob than I do. But I have zero respect for someone who is willing to subordinate other people, against their will, to some or other vision of society. That, in my view, leads to totalitarianism.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
FWIW, I agree that the comic is a distortion of even the extremist "Hell Houses." As much as I like Something Positive, the strip frequently rails against exaggerated straw men -- whether for comedic effect or for rhetorical advantage -- and that's one of its weaknesses.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:5)As far as Mormonism knows currently, the only way for a man (or woman) to become like their Heavenly Parents is to marry someone of the opposite gender, and together be faithful to the laws that our Heavenly Parents honor.
What about single people?
Single people, in some cases, will be given the chance post-mortem, to be part of a couple. Those who refuse (in this life and/or the next) will at best be eternally incomplete according to the doctrine.
Great. And I thought we non-breeders were considered second class citizens by Catholics! I feel a bit like those chosen last in gyn class. "Okay. I'll pick you but only after we're both dead." So are there even numbers of men and women of suitable age? What if one dies?
This is all very depressing....
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sure it is accurate of some Christians. Loud Christians. Not, by a long shot, most Christians. But they damn sure want to make people think that they represent all Christians. Do we really want to help them to do that?
How do you arrive at that? Even in this arc it is made clear that these people don't represent the whole of Christianity. And that's not mentioning the portrayal of several favorable Christian characters and references to Christianity in some cases as a positive thing in the wider strip.
This was a portrayal of a single instance, based on things that actually happen. Turning it into an attack on the whole of Christianity seems a bit much to me.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, kat. I want people to leave other people the hell alone. Why is that so hard to understand?
You can't equate your willingness to force me to do things with my willingness to not force you to do things. That's an abuse of language.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I lived in Dallas for 30 years and currently reside in Greenville, SC the home of Bob Jones University. I know more than enough evangelical and fundamentalist Christians to categorically state that the picture is an inaccurate depiction of even the majority of those fairly extreme examples, much less Christians as a whole.
Are you saying that incidents like what are described (with obvious exagerations for comedic effect) in this comic don't and/or couldn't happen? Because, as far as I can tell, they most certainly do.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sure it is accurate of some Christians. Loud Christians. Not, by a long shot, most Christians. But they damn sure want to make people think that they represent all Christians. Do we really want to help them to do that?
How do you arrive at that? Even in this arc it is made clear that these people don't represent the whole of Christianity. And that's not mentioning the portrayal of several favorable Christian characters and references to Christianity in some cases as a positive thing in the wider strip.
This was a portrayal of a single instance, based on things that actually happen. Turning it into an attack on the whole of Christianity seems a bit much to me.
I don't really know about the wider strip. I don't have a problem with the strip itself (I may even start reading it). My problem was with posting it here in the context of this discussion as yet more fuel for the "Christians vs. Gays" fire.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
"This is a really hard commandment for me to follow. It's breaking my heart. I don't think I can do this."
"I screwed up. I really, really, really screwed up."
In short:
quote:O wretched man that I am! Yea, my heart sorroweth because of my flesh; my soul grieveth because of mine iniquities. 18 I am encompassed about, because of the temptations and the sins which do so easily beset me. 19 And when I desire to rejoice, my heart groaneth because of my sins; nevertheless, I know in whom I have trusted.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
