quote:Um... this may seem like a silly question, but are you the same person who posts as Puppy? I ask, because your style seems very similar, and you appear to hold the same positions.
Yes, they are the same person. Dog is very confusing that way - most multiple screenname people switch in spurts; Geoff (which you will see him referred to as often) likes to do so daily.
Ah. That explains a lot. Thanks.
Oh, my goodness. I just did a search on the forum. Puppy/Dog/Geoff is Geoff Card? Man... did the turkeys dissing his Dad know that? If so, that's even more obnoxious.
Geoff (or however you'd prefer to be called), you write well.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since we cross-posted, there's a post of mine at the bottom of last page with additional questions.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Though I'm not sure what you mean by God being silent on the subject. We don't hold by personal communications by God that allow you to do things that the Torah forbids.
I meant God being silent on the subject of whether to resist arrest and conviction. My question assumes you've received some pretty direct communication from God.
Ah. Well, I don't take orders from God that aren't in the Torah already. He said not to.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Also, my understanding is that it would have to be an order to do something which God commanded at some point when revelation was ongoing, not something that contradicts clear edicts of Torah. Am I understanding that correctly?
I guess, except that if God commanded it, it can't be something that contradicts clear edicts of Torah. Sort of by definition, you see.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I only have a few moments because I'm rushing off to a meeting, but ...
1. Sorry, Lisa, for the confusion about my name ... I'm logged in with different names on different machines, and I'm way too amused by that fact to change it
2. I'm also sorry that I drew inaccurate conclusions about your history with your own faith. I think my impressions at least made sense, given what I knew, but your more complete account shows that I misunderstood quite a bit.
3. You said this:
quote:Some people would say that a woman having an abortion is doing something evil. Others would say that not allowing her to have one is doing something evil. What does God say? Well, according to the Catholics, God says it's murder. According to Judaism, it's forbidden except when the mother is in danger from the fetus. I don't know about Mormonism, but I suspect that it's somewhat closer to Catholicism.
Actually, compared to those standards, the Mormon position is even more moderate. I think our official stance (though I'm afraid of misstating it, so take this with a grain of salt) is that abortion is wrong, but that it is not murder. We accept that abortion is permissible in cases where the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother, or when the pregnancy was forced upon the mother through rape or incest. Beyond those cases, we find it very difficult to justify.
Perhaps I'll have more to say later, when I have more time. And thanks for your kind words about some of the turkeys on this forum I'm a little surprised by them myself sometimes ...
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
You may have already answered this, but how were your rabbis "wrong" about homosexuality and by what knowledge/authority are you basing your claim?
I take it then your obedience to God is based on if behavior is allowed (or not) in the Torah. If it isn't specific, then it's allowed? Is that an accurate assessment?
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
Hmm... I'm not sure that I'd go along with that characterization. As a major rabbinical figure once said, "Don't confuse Orthodox Judaism with Orthodox Jews."
In certain cases, what is done by the local community affects halacha, so I don't see how you can say that.
quote: You have to understand: given the way that Judaism and Jewish law works, I am entitled to follow the rulings I received from these rabbis. I don't, because I happen to know that they're wrong.
Those two statements are mutually incompatible. Moreover, my understanding is that the questioner has the responsibility to ask a rabbi who is well-versed in the issue. Particularly when it is an issue that are controversial or don't come up often. (I agree, however, that a rav who is not well-versed should say so -- and I have had that happen many times. Usually accompanied by a referral to someone who does.)
quote:And you know, in Judaism, it's really easy. If I say that I think I can eat chicken parmesan and someone says I can't, I can ask them to show me where it says so. If they can, they're right. If they can't, I can do as I see fit.
*blink* This is not my understanding of normative halacha.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
You may have already answered this, but how were your rabbis "wrong" about homosexuality and by what knowledge/authority are you basing your claim?
Those two rabbis were wrong because they told me that there were not sexual prohibitions between women. I base my conclusion that they're wrong on a number of things. The main one is that the law actually appears in Moses Maimonides' Laws of Forbidden Relations. It's cited in full by all major codes of law written since then, including the most authoritative one, the Shulchan Aruch, written by Rabbi Yosef Caro.
It's not even a question. In fact, there are only two questions that can be asked (where some clarity is lacking):
Is the prohibition Sinaitic or Rabbinic in nature. This doesn't make any difference in most cases, because we don't violate prohibitions regardless of the source, but it's important to make the distinction on a legal level, both because there is a Torah prohibition against creating new laws and attributing them to the Torah, and because there is a difference between the two in a case where there is doubt as to whether something has been done.
What, precisely, is the act that's forbidden. I mean, we know what it is for men, but the term used by the rabbis for what women can't do together is "women who mesollel together. The word I've left untranslated is used in only one other context in the Talmud, and it's not with two women.
As a consequence, a lot of people nowadays just translate it as "lesbianism" or "lesbian acts", because, well, it's not that big a deal. The thing is, it's a really big deal for me. So I looked to see what the various legal commentators over the centuries said about it, and reached my conclusions. I know some rabbis who've agreed with my conclusions. Others who said they don't care to discuss it. And others still who've said they disagree without giving any reason for the disagreement.
quote:Originally posted by estavares: I take it then your obedience to God is based on if behavior is allowed (or not) in the Torah. If it isn't specific, then it's allowed? Is that an accurate assessment?
<laugh> Oh, wow. Estavares, you can't know how funny it is that you asked that just now. But yes, if it isn't prohibited, it's permitted.
That said, you have to understand that when I use the word "Torah", that the Five Books of Moses, which constitute the written part of the Torah, are not the major part at all. That the primary corpus of law and lore in Judaism is the oral Torah. And it's not something that can be written down in stone. It's a living system. Even the Talmud can only be said to be a record of discussions about the oral Torah. It doesn't encompass the entirety of the oral Torah, because no book can. Books can't respond to situations. Only people can do that.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Hmm... I'm not sure that I'd go along with that characterization. As a major rabbinical figure once said, "Don't confuse Orthodox Judaism with Orthodox Jews."
In certain cases, what is done by the local community affects halacha, so I don't see how you can say that.
In certain cases. And it wasn't I who said it.
Still, a community response doesn't override Torah requirements. The laws regarding shmirat halashon (gossip) and rechilut (rumor-mongering) and ona'at devarim (hurtful speech) don't go away just because a community supposes that something is bad.
I'm not talking about how the community responds to the "gay community" as such. I'm talking about how they respond to Orthodox Jews who happen to be gay.
The majority of people in the US today think there's nothing wrong with pre-marital sex. Many even think there's something wrong with not taking a "test drive", so to speak. Would it be legitimate to assume that Orthodox Jews who are Americans hold the same views? Hardly.
Similarly, the lewdness and anti-decency stances of the "gay community" shouldn't be used to judge those of us who are serious Orthodox Jews and gay as well.
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote: You have to understand: given the way that Judaism and Jewish law works, I am entitled to follow the rulings I received from these rabbis. I don't, because I happen to know that they're wrong.
Those two statements are mutually incompatible.
How so?
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Moreover, my understanding is that the questioner has the responsibility to ask a rabbi who is well-versed in the issue.
And who would that be? Do you suppose I should have replied to the rabbis that I asked, "I'm sorry, rabbi, but you obviously don't know the law. Would you mind giving me the name of someone who knows more than you?"
Or is there a rabbi out there who is a known expert on lesbians? I'm just curious. I mean, it's the sole issue in all of Jewish law that doesn't impinge directly on men. You get that, right? And rabbis I've spoken with about this since the debacle in New York have agreed with me that it's a rarely discussed issue.
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Particularly when it is an issue that are controversial or don't come up often. (I agree, however, that a rav who is not well-versed should say so -- and I have had that happen many times. Usually accompanied by a referral to someone who does.)
And yet, that's not what happened in my case. Believe me, I would have followed the trail up the food chain had I been able to. If you'll pardon the mutilated metaphor.
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:And you know, in Judaism, it's really easy. If I say that I think I can eat chicken parmesan and someone says I can't, I can ask them to show me where it says so. If they can, they're right. If they can't, I can do as I see fit.
*blink* This is not my understanding of normative halacha.
I oversimplified. Rivka, if I was talking to just you, I'd have been a little more clear. You want me to give a shiur on this forum?
If I tell you that you're not allowed to eat bananas on Passover, are you really going to feel an obligation to go and ask? I doubt it. Maybe you'll ask me, "Since when?" But if I can't substantiate it, you're not bound by what I said to ask anyone.
Although... how do you create a new chumra? Tell a BT a joke.
(A chumra is an extra stringency a person can take upon themselves, and a BT is a person who is newly religious, for those who don't sling the lingo.)
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: I only have a few moments because I'm rushing off to a meeting, but ...
1. Sorry, Lisa, for the confusion about my name ... I'm logged in with different names on different machines, and I'm way too amused by that fact to change it
<grin> I'd probably be amused, too.
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: 2. I'm also sorry that I drew inaccurate conclusions about your history with your own faith. I think my impressions at least made sense, given what I knew, but your more complete account shows that I misunderstood quite a bit.
Thank you. You're a gentleman.
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: 3. You said this:
quote:Some people would say that a woman having an abortion is doing something evil. Others would say that not allowing her to have one is doing something evil. What does God say? Well, according to the Catholics, God says it's murder. According to Judaism, it's forbidden except when the mother is in danger from the fetus. I don't know about Mormonism, but I suspect that it's somewhat closer to Catholicism.
Actually, compared to those standards, the Mormon position is even more moderate. I think our official stance (though I'm afraid of misstating it, so take this with a grain of salt) is that abortion is wrong, but that it is not murder. We accept that abortion is permissible in cases where the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother, or when the pregnancy was forced upon the mother through rape or incest. Beyond those cases, we find it very difficult to justify.
Interesting. That's very much like the Jewish view.
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: Perhaps I'll have more to say later, when I have more time. And thanks for your kind words about some of the turkeys on this forum I'm a little surprised by them myself sometimes ...
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: I don't believe I asked for your "help".
I know you didn't, but the first step is to realise that you have a problem.
I am rather interested in this trick of your god's with not changing the laws. Kind of like a constitution, in a way. Like a constitution, though, it is easy for the state authority to circumvent if the army is on their side. All Yahweh needs to do is remove that commandment from the books, and from the memories of the people, and then send in a prophet. Easy for an omnipotent being, yes?
By the way, do you also believe that these tidbits of the books of Moses haven't changed either?
Leviticus 21:9 And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.
Deuteronomy 22:20-21 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
Deuteronomy 22:23-24 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well there you go then; with all that prayer going on, how can your god fail to step in and change me? However, you would think there are more worthwhile things to use your valuable prayer time on. Aren't the sufferings of those children in Dafur a bit more important than one Internet gadfly? Really, you'd think a lawyer would be able to prioritise.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, he could always convert. Then I wouldn't bother him anymore.
Edit : Also, I was only criticising his use of prayer-time, not total resources. While he's praying, he obviosuly isn't doing anything else for the children of Dafur; thus, at that particular moment, his best option is to direct his god's thoughts thataway. They might appreciate it; I don't, for if the entity described in the bible really exists, I want its homicidal, malevolent attention as far away from me as possible.
[ August 05, 2005, 07:49 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Thanks for the info. I'm a "big picture' kind of guy, so that perspective helps. Though it's unfortunate you consider my form of spirituality "naive" I can better understand why you approach your religion like a scientist––proof before faith.
Interesting...
Why was it so funny I asked that question? Is it in context with the discussion? Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
To quibble, King of Men, what gives you the idea that the chance of a prayer's success is a function of the amount of time spent on the prayer? Why is "prayer time" a limited commodity, in your view?
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, even if Dagsie prays 24 hours a day, he can only pray for so many different things. Surely that's obvious? Certainly you can argue that his god, being omniscient and whatnot, knows what he would like to pray for, so there's not actually a need for Dag to form the words. But then, that's kind of why I'm mocking the concept anyway.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is why people doubt the altruism of your motives, KoM. You routinely mock and insult, and it's almost certain you're intelligent enough to realize this is hardly an effective means of persuasion.
If you truly believed that it was for a person's good not to be religious, and actually wanted to help, you would not consistently use methods guaranteed to insult, annoy, and stop the hearer from listening.
You're just stroking your own ego.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am operating on the theory that religious beliefs are so ingrained that they need a bit of dynamite to dislodge. Certainly mere sweet reason isn't going to do it, or there would be no religions.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If someone accepts a new worldview because they fear mockery, how genuine do you think their transformation can really be?
And back on the original ridiculous subject, what makes Dagonee's prayer for someone other than a specific group of suffering children in a foreign country intrinsically less altruistic than your doing-nothing-at-all for those same suffering children during the same period of time? (That is, if we assume that he was doing something serious with that prayer, rather than simply mocking you )
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The mockery is not intended to cause conversion by fear, but to shake the beliefs loose by causing a small shred of doubt. Then I leave it to the target's own reason to examine their beliefs critically.
How do you know I'm doing nothing? If nothing else, I was encouraging Dag to pray for them and not me. But in any case, I wasn't comparing Dag to me, I was comparing him to the hypothetical Dag to prays for the children of Darfur. There is only so much Dag can do about the comparison between me and him; he only controls 50% of that transaction. But he can certainly do better than himself, once the better course is pointed out to him. But in any case, since prayer is about as efficient as swearing, he is actually less altruistic than he is by doing nothing, since he feels that he has done something.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:... he is actually less altruistic than he is by doing nothing, since he feels that he has done something.
Wait, so hold on ... a person who tries to do something good, believing it will work, and fails to accomplish anything is LESS altruistic than a person who doesn't try anything at all?
quote:The mockery is not intended to cause conversion by fear, but to shake the beliefs loose by causing a small shred of doubt. Then I leave it to the target's own reason to examine their beliefs critically.
So essentially, you're the equivalent of the most obnoxious Christian "witnessers" At least I know where to categorize you now.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The mockery is not intended to cause conversion by fear, but to shake the beliefs loose by causing a small shred of doubt. Then I leave it to the target's own reason to examine their beliefs critically.
There are times I don't like the new more hands-on moderator approach to Hatrack, because clearly this is male-cow excrement, King of Men.
You claim to know a lot about religious people, how they think, why they think what they think, blah blah blah. You think they haven't heard your sort of insulting, smug mockery before? You think they'll listen to you? Of course not.
You're not that stupid. You know that the people you claim to be trying to persuade are just going to turn off their ears because you're being a smug, self-impressed pompous jackass, and that you won't really dislodge anyone.
There isn't anything altruistic in your motives. You're not really trying to persuade anyone who disagrees with you. You're just using the opportunity to mock those you think are stupid, and compliment yourself.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gosh, for someone who criticises others for claiming to know how others think, you sure as hell know a lot about how I think.
Now, I think Puppy may have a point here; I am using the same methods as the most obnoxious Christian witnessers. So the question is, do those methods really work? I think they do; certainly there are many people who claim to have been converted by a street-corner preacher, or whatever.
Now, there is a valid criticism to be made here : I am possibly aiming at the wrong demographic by using such methods on the moderately literate, reasonable members of Hatrack. I have to admit, the street-corner preachers are not exactly aiming for the upper half of the population.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The mockery is not intended to cause conversion by fear, but to shake the beliefs loose by causing a small shred of doubt. Then I leave it to the target's own reason to examine their beliefs critically.
And if your mockery weren't based on clear misunderstandings of my beliefs on prayer, then you might have a hope of doing so. As it is, you're making asinine posts to no effect.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well then, would you please enlighten me so I can mock you more effectively? (I do feel it is rather difficult to mis-understand what has never been explained. By definition, in such a case, you would have to rely on preconceptions.) Perhaps you believe that prayer is good for the one praying, rather than the one prayed for, as I have seen some people here suggest? In that case, you should be thanking me for giving you such a splendid opportunity to improve yourself.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, you make it extremely obvious how you think about this, King of Men.
You are intelligent. You think religious people are misguided and stupid. You attempt to dissuade them from religion (by your 'first pebble in a rockslide' method) for altruistic reasons.
And yet your methods do not match these things, not by a long shot. One or more of them is obviously wrong. I don't think you aren't intelligent. I don't doubt you feel religious people are misguided and stupid. I don't doubt you'd be satisfied if more religious people changed their minds to match yours, or at least come into closer accord with yours.
All that's left are your 'altruistic reasons'. This is the only link in the chain that doesn't ring true, and it's obvious to anyone, King of Men. The only conclusion a reasonable person can reach is that your methods aren't entirely altruistic, and that you are, in fact, intellectually masturbating, if you'll pardon the crudity.
There are only two real options here: you're either too stupid to realize that your methods don't work (by the way, do you know a single damn thing about street-corner preachers other than what you've seen on TV? I challenge you to demonstrate you know squat about that issue; I frankly doubt you can do so), or you're lying to yourself and / or others about your motivations for using those methods.
---------
Basically you admit you're using the same methods as the most obnoxious Christian witnessers. I think we can all agree that that particular type of witnesser is not just doing their work for altruistic reasons, but in large part to feel better about themselves by showing to themselves how unwashed the masses are, compared to them.
And yet we're to take your identical methods to be altruistic? That's laughable. Though you're convinced, and tell us so at great length that incredibly stupid, religious people aren't necessarily.
------
Incidentally, I'd still like a response from Mr. Squicky.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
who gave us the right to tell people who they can and cannot commit the rest of their lives to? who is it really hurting to let a same sex couple take vows to be together for the rest of their lives in front of their friends and families? why should they not get the same benefits for staying in a monogomous relationship with one another and being good people?
there are a lot of heterosexual couples, a lot more in my experience, who cheat on each other and break up "happy, two opposite gendered parent families", and for some reason, no one says those people can't get married again because they made horrible decisions the first time around. heterosexuals can go around nailing everyone in sight while staying married to someone JUST SO THEY CAN reap the benefits of legalalized matrimony. and this goes on while homosexuals struggle under a blanket of oppression and prejudice that society and politicians conveniently and deceivingly label "moral correctness."
i'm so sick of hearing about how gar marriages would be detrimental to society as a whole. explain to me how that is. homosexuality is not a fad. it's been around forever. it's only now becoming a public issue because people are starting to feel more freedom in their religious and moralistic views and are feeling less oppressed by the blind christian standards that have dictated american society for so long. there are many other countries where homosexuality is not an issue, and hasn't been for a long time.
who cares what someone's sexual preference is. i would rather allow equality for all than to be so pompous as to push my moral beliefs on people just to whip them into obedience without mandate from god him/her/itself. christian doctrine, specifically catholicism, has persecuted anyone who didn't bow down to the male dominated, testosterone and money driven society they wanted for way too long. some sects of christianity have gotten better about this in recent years and seen that in order to truly call themselves christians they must practice what they preach (fairness and equality without persecution) but it's still not enough.
i find it interesting and sad that an organization like the catholic church can look down on homosexuality so harshly while so many of it's officials are accused of performing the exact "acts" they deem so immoral and sinful. but of course, none of them really did it right? yes, just like michael jackson wasn't guilty. if you're big, bad, and rich enough, you can make almost any discrepancy disappear.
and to end my rant for now, a lighter note to try and ease my own frustration, if not anyone else's. a quote from i don't know where that makes such a wonderful point, and thus makes me smile.
"IT ACTUALLY DID SAY ADAM AND STEVE, THAT'S WHAT YOU GET FOR READING THE ABRIDGED VERSION."
Posts: 52 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
delusional, it's anti-Christian attitudes like yours, at least in part, that make many Christians hesitate before signing on to your crusade.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anti-Christian surely describes me rather better; comrade delusional looks to be more anti-hypocrisy. Though, come to think of it...
Totally irrelevant aside : Why did you pick your particular screen names? I get Geoff Card, to be sure, but "A Rat Named Dog" doesn't really convey anything to me.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
a rat named dog . . . i am not anti-christian. i AM anti-hypocrisy. and that was my point. i don't have a problem with people who are true to the term christian. i just don't think most people who choose to rant about how "christian" they are really know the meaning of the term. i respect all religions. i don't think any of them are wrong, but i don't think any of them have gotten it entirely right, either.
ever seen the movie dogma? that movie makes a lot of points that i have believed for years. it shouldn't matter what you have faith in, just that you have faith. can anyone PROVE that their faith is the only right one like so many organized religions try to do? i have just as many issues with other religions that believe themselves to be "the one true" anything. the reason i have so much to say about christianity is because, being an american, i have had it forced down my throat my entire life as the end all be all religion of the masses and quite honestly am tired of being told that simply because my ideas about a higher power differ from what the crackpots in government office supposedly believe (though never even try to live up to) i'm some atheistic fool who shouldn't be given a voice or be allowed to be heard.
it's closed minded, one sided, intolerant, religious fanatics who cause more harm than good in my opinion, and until you can show me definite prrof beyond a reasonable doubt that YOU have been selected as the interpreter for whatever higher power does exist and can give me indisputable evidence that there is only one "right" way to believe, i will continue to observe my government granted right of free speach, and my, according to YOUR idea of god (as is also referenced in a wonderful book by Og Mandino entitled "the greatest miracle in the world") freedom of choice.
by the way, if your (the christian) god adored us so much as to put us above his angels by giving us the power to choose, how is it that you believe you have any right to limit someone else's ability to do so? doesn't that. in and of itself, make you a sinner and tyrant???
Posts: 52 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:ever seen the movie dogma? that movie makes a lot of points that i have believed for years.
That's all very well and good, but I certainly hope you aren't actually using a bad movie as a foundational -- or persuasive -- element of your philosophy.
quote: by the way, if your (the christian) god adored us so much as to put us above his angels by giving us the power to choose, how is it that you believe you have any right to limit someone else's ability to do so?
I think you misunderstand the way "choice" works. Two gay men do have the freedom to choose whether to have sex with each other. That choice brings with it consequences.
What you are saying, then, is that people don't have the right to decide how they're going to react to things that other people do. I'm rather skeptical that you'll convince someone of this.
Same-sex marriage, as an issue, is not about freedom of choice. It is about fairness and the recognition of homosexual relationships as valuable to society, but since many people do not grant the latter, I suggest you focus on convincing them of that first.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
first of all, dogma was a wonderful movie to anyone who is openminded enough to take it for what it was meant to be. and it's not the basis of my ideas or opinions, it's just a way of trying to get someone who may not understand my way of saying things to have a better understanding by relating it to something in pop culture they may be more familiar with.
secondly, i never said you can't have your own reaction to what someone else chooses to do. i said that your reaction to that choice should not dictate one's ability to do what they see as perfectly acceptable.
thirdly, who says that heterosexual marriages have a positive impact on society or are valuable to it? with over half of heterosexual marriages ending in divorce, and probably a comparitive number of them involving adultry, how exactly is it that you justify the value of marriages that often times end with one parent becoming the lone supporter of children conceived during that "sacred" union and not being able to do so alone and turning to the government for financial support? (i.e. food stamps, TANF, welfare, etc.)
i really don't see how homosexuals could screw up the "sanctity" of marriage any more than the majority of lustful heterosexuals already have.
and lastly, obviously, you still are not understanding me. the government nor any religion has the right to say, "because you are making a choice we think is immoral and wrong, WE CHOOSE to forbid you from binding yourself to this person you love and take away your rights and ability to choose for yourselves what is right." again, you are making a choice for someone that doesn't effect you in any way.
tell me, how does a same sex marriage make more of a difference in your life than the heterosexual imbicile who went and got all 5 of his wives pregnant multiple times then left them to fend for themselves, which required them to seek government assistance that YOU are paying for???
Posts: 52 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Misdirected indignation! What fun! (By the way, this is A Rat Named Dog using a different screen name.)
delusional, I don't quite understand what authority places you in a position to determine who is or is not being a "real Christian". But my main point was that your holier-than-thou attitude towards Christians makes them rather disinclined to listen to you. Your second post did nothing to improve or justify the attitude, so I'm not sure what purpose it served.
quote:ever seen the movie dogma? that movie makes a lot of points that i have believed for years.
Clearly, you have a strong background in serious theological discourse
quote:it shouldn't matter what you have faith in, just that you have faith.
What is the purpose of such faith, if issues like truth and moral integrity are irrelevant? Is faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster valid and worthy, or should there be more to it?
quote:can anyone PROVE that their faith is the only right one like so many organized religions try to do?
Of course not. Faith is internal and subjective. If a religion could be proven to an outside observer, it would be science or history.
quote:the reason i have so much to say about christianity is because, being an american, i have had it forced down my throat my entire life as the end all be all religion of the masses and quite honestly am tired of being told that simply because my ideas about a higher power differ from what the crackpots in government office supposedly believe (though never even try to live up to) i'm some atheistic fool who shouldn't be given a voice or be allowed to be heard.
So you're angry because you've had a bad experience with some Christians that has made you cynical about others, and over time, pretty much bigoted towards them all. I have friends that have been through the same experiences you have, and probably worse, and have NOT come out of it with the attitude you express ... which leads me to believe that you are judgmental and derisive towards Christians because you choose to be, and not because you have somehow earned the right through years of suffering.
You should note that I've done nothing to try to silence you, prove my beliefs to you, or call you a fool. Well, I've teased you a bit But the point is, there is no reason why you should heap scorn upon me, Dagonee, or any of the other Christians here on this board, because we are NOT the ones that made you the way you are.
quote:it's closed minded, one sided, intolerant, religious fanatics who cause more harm than good in my opinion
We agree on this point. I just think you accuse people of this far too readily. Opposing a particular change in our cultural institutions does not automatically imply that the opposer possesses whatever litany of horrible traits that you might choose to heap upon him.
quote:until you can show me definite prrof beyond a reasonable doubt that YOU have been selected as the interpreter for whatever higher power does exist and can give me indisputable evidence that there is only one "right" way to believe, i will continue to observe my government granted right of free speach, and my, according to YOUR idea of god ... freedom of choice.
When did I say that you shouldn't have the freedom to do or say what you want to? Since I wasn't trying to arrest you, I'm not sure where freedom of speech even comes into this.
(Hay, Dagonee, does Internet posting count as Freedom of Speech or Freedom of the Press? Does the distinction matter?)
quote:by the way, if your (the christian) god adored us so much as to put us above his angels by giving us the power to choose, how is it that you believe you have any right to limit someone else's ability to do so? doesn't that. in and of itself, make you a sinner and tyrant???
Clearly, you have chosen to jump right into screaming at me for having some horrendous opinion without actually bothering to read back and find out what my opinion IS
In theory, I believe that society DOES have the right to determine that certain choices are or are not to be sanctioned, and this works to both your benefit and mine. It means we can punish murderers, stop child molesters, break up polygamy rings, fight drug lords and racketeers, and even protect free speech.
I would be surprised if you didn't agree with me on this. The conflict here isn't over whether or not society has the theoretical right to endorse or prohibit some choices. The conflict is over whether a particular institution should be changed.
posted
Interesting. You get to call yourself 'anti-hypocrisy'. Then, anyone who disagrees with you is by definition not opposed to hypocrisy.
How very clever.
Dogma is a wonderful movie who want to be anti-establishment and anti-religion while still claiming they aren't, really. You get to stand above all of organized religion and play the victim, all at once.
I enjoyed the movie. I thought it made some decent points, and that it was pretty funny. But c'mon. They're old points, and they're points that people within the very churches you're villifying have made before it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Crap, Tom made the same point I was making, only he did it faster and better That should teach me to post at work in the midst of constant interruptions ...
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think having faith in a Flying Spaghetti Monster would be fun.
I could make up my own religion and, during services, we'd tie streamers to our bodies and run around with our arms outstretched yelling "Rrrrroowwwww, Neeeerrrrrrooowwww" and speak in Italian accents.
posted
delusional, RE: your last post, just a couple of points.
1. Being disappointed in the quality of religious thought in the movie Dogma does not make someone closed-minded.
2. The fact that there are bad heterosexual marriages in no way implies that homosexual marriage should be added to the law. The two issues are pretty much unrelated. Personally, I am much more horrified by the prevalence of easy divorce, illegitimacy, adultery, and single parenthood than I've ever been by gay marriage.
3. The structure of the society you live in communicates a great deal to you about the meaning of your own life, even when a particular institution or practice might not apply directly to you. I, as a heterosexual, care about the issue of gay marriage for the same reason that you (presumably, as a heterosexual) also care about it.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
okay, the stab at me bringing up the movie dogma is a bit silly. i explained why i chose that particular piece of work in the last post, so if it wasn't clear, oh well, i tried.
i don't see myself as standing above anyone or judging anything. my point is that the decision to ban same sex marriages is being based solely on religious beliefs about morality instead of factual evidence about the detriment it might cause to society. and since there is no factual evidence because no one has ever been given the chance to conduct such research, how is it that one can make that decision for everyone with nothing to back it up.
my problem is that i don't believe such decisions should be made based on moral issues alone. i live in texas, where, until recently, sodomy was against the law. that means that even a heterosexual couple practicing such acts in the privacy of their own homes could be arrested for what was consentual between 2 adults. did that every happen? not that i can find. however, the reason the law was fought, which led to it being retracted, was because it was used to persecute a monogomous homosexual couple in the privacy of THEIR own home.
now, just because you may not like the idea of sodomy, does that mean you should be able to tell consenting adults what they can and cannot do with each other in private when it's not effecting anyone else?
as far as laws against murder and molestation, rape and drugs, those are put in place because there is actual proof of their detriment to human beings. those things that physically, emotionally, or mentally scar a helpless victim should be voted on and decided by society. but telling somoene they can't marry someone else because you don't agree with the idea of 2 people of the same sex doing so, that's just silly.
think and feel however you want about it, and if you don't like it, then don't associate with those who are okay with it. THAT is your choice. but using the stance that we shouldn't change specific "institutions" is a cop-out. if that were the case, then women would never have had the right to vote, there would still be segregation, etc. things change, and like it or not, people have a right to change the rules and laws that govern them when times change and socially accepted ideals of the past are no longer fitting for the present.
and as far as me thinking that anyone who disagrees with me is wrong or not opposed to hypocrisy, that's just not the case. disagree with me all you want to, more power to you. but i don't think that i should be pummeled because i am passionate about an issue. i don't think that i should be accused of being holier than thou just because i am of the opinion that a lot of people who are overly ademant about their religions don't live up to what their religions teach them. that has been my experience. however, the majority of my family believes in christianity and i respect them and love them just as much for it. i have several friends who practice christianity who i love debating with because we open each other's minds to new possibilities.
i don't understand why when i, a person who chooses not to associate themselves with any organized religion but is still open to the teachings of them in a non-smothering way, state my opinion against the mass majority, i get every word i say picked apart and am accused of thinking i'm better than everyone else, while those who are tearing me down are doing exactly the thing i'm upset about. if you don't agree with me, that's wonderful. i appreciate the challenge of differing points of view, but don't personally attack me when the statements i've made are generalizations previously stipulated as being based on my experiences.
and with that, i will read any further responses, but i will refrain from replying because the joy of it has been demolished. i was under the impression that diversity of opinion was respected without forging personal attacks on those who have them. i certainly didn't point out every word of anyone else's posts and attack them viciously for points i disagreed with. i am a firm believer that healthy debates are a good thing as long as you remain fair, but apparently, i have yet to find that.
***edit*** i find that, as a single mother, i must say that my son is doing just fine in society with only one biological parent around. my boyfriend treats him as his own and my son couldn't be happier. he has a ton of people who love him and doesn't need someone who doesn't being forced to deal with him because he donated some sperm. single parents in many cases can be better for a child than 2 parents who show nothing but disdain for one another. i know, i am the child of divorced parents. and quite frankly, i think i would be a lot worse off had my parents stayed together. they did better jobs with us apart than they did with each other.
Posts: 52 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:my point is that the decision to ban same sex marriages is being based solely on religious beliefs about morality instead of factual evidence about the detriment it might cause to society. and since there is no factual evidence because no one has ever been given the chance to conduct such research, how is it that one can make that decision for everyone with nothing to back it up.
Holy crap, we have the same opinion Except that in the past, I have recommended caution in instituting gay marriage across the board for the same reason
As far as the rest of your post goes, I think you may be overreacting a bit. You do realize that you came in here with both fists swinging at people who either are moderates on this issue (like me) or are on your side (like Tom Davidson), without giving them any benefit of the doubt. You made sweeping judgments of the members of an entire religion, and tarred your opponents with accusations of the basest motivations.
While you did receive a bit of teasing, you were not viciously attacked for any of this. I quoted you line-by-line because I wanted to be clear about what I was responding to. When I saw the long, drawn-out post I had generated over the course of multiple interrupted writing sessions, I regretted it (because I actually hate that kind of debate), but it was too late to completely take it back. If it stressed you out, I'm sorry.
But you have to realize that people on Hatrack do have a sense of fair play. If you run in here with guns blazing indiscriminantly, people are going to want to show you why your arguments are unfair and misguided, even if, in the end, they actually agree with you. Sometimes, quoting back your own words and showing my immediate reactions to them is a good way to demonstrate that the words you are typing are not having their intended effects. But again, if that made the debate harder for you to continue, I'm sorry. I definitely value diversity of opinion. I just think that opinions should be rigorously formed and respectfully delivered, which is precisely why I contended with you. People on Hatrack are held to a very high standard of discourse. This is not the place for flame wars.
One final word of disagreement. Not everyone has the same experience with Christianity that you have had. The fact that you had these bad experiences does not mean that your generalizations about Christianity as a whole are accurate.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: as far as laws against murder and molestation, rape and drugs, those are put in place because there is actual proof of their detriment to human beings
Here's the problem: not everyone is convinced that homosexuality is harmless to individuals and/or society. Seriously.
Do you honestly think that people are lining up to vote against same-sex marriage because they just want to inconvenience two consenting adults who love each other? They do it because, for whatever reason, they're convinced that this sort of relationship is bad for society.
What we need to work on is that perception; whining about people who actually vote according to their sense of morality won't solve anything, and may even force them to choose between your political agenda and their faith.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
In 3 days, this thread will be 4 months old!
Why no possibility of resolution? I think it's because gay marriage proponents say they want one thing (equality) but ask for something else (approval); and one species of opponents, social conservatives, don't want to give an inch but can't articulate a reason proponents accept.
quote:...the government nor any religion has the right to say, "... WE CHOOSE to forbid you from binding yourself to this person you love."
If you believe this, D, why would you want to grant government this kind of authority? How is it freedom to be dependent on government sanction? Why not just let gay people marry, or whatever they want to call it, and forget the license?
Because it isn't about anyone being forbidden to make a commitment. It's about some people wanting the government to mandate that others have to approve of their sexuality.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should point out that pretty much every time I've confronted a gay-marriage opponent with specific instances when the lack of a sanctioned marriage causes difficulty for a gay couple (hospital visitation, inheritance, etc) ... universally, they've responded that the gay couple should get the same advantages as a heterosexual couple.
As far as I've seen, no one in the mainstream is trying to prevent homosexuals from pairing up, and no one wants them to suffer these horror-story disadvantages. ALL they want, from what I can see, is to keep the concept of "marriage" bound to the human mating/reproductive cycle, and not to relationships that fall outside that sphere. I think that if there were a way for homosexual couples to obtain a contract that gave them all the same legal rights as a married couple, everybody could live with that solution. People on the extremes would be dissatisfied on both sides, but ... I normally consider that to be a good thing Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
now that idea and statement is something i can agree with happily puppy. we agree on yet another point . . . scary, isn't it??? Posts: 52 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
