quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: The difficulty I have Pixiest is that say I allow homosexuals to practice freely, get married, and integrate their way of life more and more into mainstream society, I and my family down the road have to exist in that society. Sure I can raise my kids with my own values but that does not mean they will not be directly effected by the society they live in.
Certainly homosexual marriage is not the nail in the coffin for my kids, but its just one more thing that I think makes society worse, other peoples behavior does in fact effect me as much as people say it doesnt. Its not like people are homosexual inside their home and once they leave they arnt.
I'm trying to be as politely honest as I know how.
again I am not sure what the solution to all this is, and I suppose anything I write is not very useful as I very likely may change my mind in some regard down the road, possibly while debating in this very thread.
BB, honey, homosexuality isn't contagious. No one is trying to change how you live. But you don't get to live in America and only have contact with people who agree with you or are just like you. Some find this diversity a joy.
At any rate, I am glad to see that you may change your mind.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres: actually aren't they afraid of homosexuals impact on society? Isn't that the entire reason they want to opress us?
Though they still haven't expressed what they're specifically afraid of other than "it's bad, ok?"
BB: out of curiousity, what's your opinion on Atheists trying to remove symbols of christianity from society? "Under God" in the pledge, "In God We Trust" on the currency, crosses at war memorials, prayer in school? Wouldn't you like to express your religion regardless of what other people think your impact on society would be?
I take the christian's side on all of those issues despite being an atheist and bisexual, because I don't care if your christian and I don't care if you flaunt it. Just don't try to tell me how to live my life either. Either through law, sermons, or a fence in the middle of no where on a freezing winters morning.
quote:That isn't true. Claiming that homosexual relationships are problematic does not make you homophobic, unless it is based in some fear or hatred you have of homosexuals. That's the reason why being homophobic is inherently bad - precisely because being homophobic entails an unnecessary hatred or fear of other people that is not based in reason.
This is broaching on the fact that the term 'homophobia' is being used, commonly, in a manner which is technically incorrect.
It's true! The technical definition is, in its origins, entirely different. In fact, the term's technical relation to phobia makes it one of the worst possible terms to have become a catchall for the anti-gay. But, .. it is.
I'm not saying that it's wrong or right, just that it is.
Similar to how the lay usage of the term is a complete distortion of its true definition, let's talk about 'anti-semitism' and 'anti-semite.' This is another catchall term -- this one for anti-jewish sentiment -- which is being used completely incorrectly, based on what defines a semitic person. This creates the curious condition where semite and anti-semite aren't antonyms.
But it's recognized that an anti-semite is a person who hates or discriminates against jews. Despite the fact that you could make the argument that technically, anti-semitism is a correct term for discrimination against any one of the cultures that speak a language in the semitic family, or something. I've listened to people argue about it for hours.
But in defense of my complicit usage of the terms, keep it in mind that the way you are attempting to frame the correct usage of the word would make it so that practically nobody short of Fred Phelps could possibly fail to defend themselves from the application of the term, via motive.
Rick Santorum, Jerry Vines, Pat Robertson, Laura Schlessinger, Jesse Helms, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Gary Potter, David Trosch, Bob Dornan, -- all of these people make textbook examples of folk who have (in my eyes, rightfully) been labeled homophobes. When you say that a homophobe has to have their discrimination based on fear or hatred, then all of these people fail to qualify for a term that a great many people would qualify them under -- they can just escape by saying 'it's not hate, it's god's love' or something.
In this circumstance, it's the same word, but it's commonly used in a way that you are denying it can be used under. However, it's still used that way, all of the time.
This is not a criticism, it's not me telling you that you can't be right to define it this way, this is just a curious observation of a linguistic flux. I'm using a common, widespread definition which is completely at odds with how you are defining it. I would nominally want to continue using the term, since I find it very handy in circumstances where you have a person genuinely asserting that gay sex should be criminal and prosecutable in the United States like it is in many theocratic nations, but if it's really that controversial here, I'm open to not using the term ever again for anyone short of Phelps or Paul Cameron, or perhaps Randall Terry, since we don't have to speculate that their motivations are fear and hatred (which, under your disparate definition, have to be evidently manifest to qualify them for the label), and they don't get to hide behind plausible deniability.
I suppose I could substitute the relatively vanilla term 'anti-homosexual.'
/edit:
Wikipedia tried to give me an answer:
quote:As behaviors and thoughts that are frequently considered homophobic are often not fear based but instead reflect a disapproval of homosexuality, recent psychological literature has favored the term homonegativity.
... but 'homonegativity' and 'homonegativist' are so odd sounding that I don't think I'll use them.
posted
What I don't understand, BB, is how admitting and recognizing homosexuals is a threat to your kids.
I would believe it is a great educational opportunity. Your kids are going to see two boys holding hands, or two girls embracing, whether they are legally allowed to marry or not. They are going to ask you about it. That is a perfect time to both talk to them about the importance of the Christian view on this behavior, and the greatness that is our country for respecting those couples beliefs.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmbboots: This may be a bad example but how would you feel about people who are trying to legalize narcotics and all other forms of drugs? What they do in their own home is their business and they have a right to use drugs all they want, what right do we have to try and stop them?
The Pixiest: I grew up going to a Lutheran Private school where they considered Mormonism to be a non Christian cult. We had mandatory Chapels where there was prayer and the way they prayed was wrong to me. When they had interfaith chapel Mormonism was presented seperate from Christianity and what the spokesman was going to say had to be looked over first (not even the person representing the agnostics or even the atheists had to do that).
I was a member of the gymnastics team and unfortunately they had all their tournaments on sunday and I explained to my coach that I could not attend tournaments on sunday (I had 2 Mormons friends on the team that did anyway). You'd think a Christian Private school could understand Sabbath observance. At the end of the year they had a big party for the team and I was not invited because I, to use my coaches words, "Did not support the team by coming to tournaments." I had to put up with teachers and other students misrepresenting my religion, insulting me, ridiculing me.
Perhaps your horror stories far surpass mine, but I am merely trying to show that I know what its like to be persecuted for ones beliefs, beliefs I had every right to posess and harmed nobody as far I was aware of.
As for Atheists removing Christian symbology. I think was can honor the Christian values our great men and women had without making people unduely uncomfortable. I personally thought a school that acknowledges all schools of thought works fine, but if there must be that much of a seperationg between church and state I am fine with public schools allowing children to pray within their walls but not encouraging or discouraging the practice. If my child wants to go to school and pray before eating his/her lunch, I think that should be fine. If my child wants to express her beliefs in a discussion that should be fine. I am also fine with teachers not trying to endorse their own particular religion to their students.
Currency and pledges of allegience, are a national thing. If more people want the phrases "Under God" and, "In God we trust," removed from currency and the pledge then it ought to be removed, and vice versa. The pledge and currency exist for the America of today not the America of the founding fathers. If the American people as a whole do not feel trust in God or feel that we are a nation under God, then our pledge and currency should reflect that sentiment.
People who wish to express their faith as a memorial when they die on the battlefield ought to have that right. I do not believe in stifling the memory of the dead.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB: So having been persecuted, however mildly, by a fellow christian sect... how can you justify persecuting gay people?
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry to break into this debate again, but BB the drug user analogy breaks down.
Drug addiction is rarely confined to the limitations of one's home. It leads to all sorts of anti-social behavior, from theft to murder as the need to feed the addiction increases. It also makes a person less productive, dangerously so when others may have their lives in the hands of the participants. Finally there is the eventual health issues, that the government usually, eventually covers, or the increase in health insurance costs if they dont.
While some may argue there are higher health costs with homosexual practices, that is easily debated away (there are no unplanned pregnancies in a homosexual relationship for one thing).
Now you may compare sexual addiction to drug addiction, by the nature of that sex makes no difference in those arguments.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: kmbboots: This may be a bad example but how would you feel about people who are trying to legalize narcotics and all other forms of drugs? What they do in their own home is their business and they have a right to use drugs all they want, what right do we have to try and stop them?
The Pixiest: I grew up going to a Lutheran Private school where they considered Mormonism to be a non Christian cult. We had mandatory Chapels where there was prayer and the way they prayed was wrong to me. When they had interfaith chapel Mormonism was presented seperate from Christianity and what the spokesman was going to say had to be looked over first (not even the person representing the agnostics or even the atheists had to do that).
I was a member of the gymnastics team and unfortunately they had all their tournaments on sunday and I explained to my coach that I could not attend tournaments on sunday (I had 2 Mormons friends on the team that did anyway). You'd think a Christian Private school could understand Sabbath observance. At the end of the year they had a big party for the team and I was not invited because I, to use my coaches words, "Did not support the team by coming to tournaments." I had to put up with teachers and other students misrepresenting my religion, insulting me, ridiculing me.
Perhaps your horror stories far surpass mine, but I am merely trying to show that I know what its like to be persecuted for ones beliefs, beliefs I had every right to posess and harmed nobody as far I was aware of.
As for Atheists removing Christian symbology. I think was can honor the Christian values our great men and women had without making people unduely uncomfortable. I personally thought a school that acknowledges all schools of thought works fine, but if there must be that much of a seperationg between church and state I am fine with public schools allowing children to pray within their walls but not encouraging or discouraging the practice. If my child wants to go to school and pray before eating his/her lunch, I think that should be fine. If my child wants to express her beliefs in a discussion that should be fine. I am also fine with teachers not trying to endorse their own particular religion to their students.
Currency and pledges of allegience, are a national thing. If more people want the phrases "Under God" and, "In God we trust," removed from currency and the pledge then it ought to be removed, and vice versa. The pledge and currency exist for the America of today not the America of the founding fathers. If the American people as a whole do not feel trust in God or feel that we are a nation under God, then our pledge and currency should reflect that sentiment.
People who wish to express their faith as a memorial when they die on the battlefield ought to have that right. I do not believe in stifling the memory of the dead.
The drug example is not a great one, drug use does cause verifiable harm to people where homosexual behavior does not. However, for the record, I think we should legalize at least some narcotics and I do think that what people do in their own homes (with reasonable safeguards for children) is their own business.
Do you think what they did to you at your school was right?
"I think was can honor the Christian values our great men and women had without making people unduely uncomfortable."
And perhaps we can allow people to have the personal relationships that they want to have without being unduly uncomfortable.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmbboots: I do not think it was right, but I can understand why they did it. Nothing is more dangerous then evil in the guise of good. I belonged to a religion they believe embodies this.
quote:And perhaps we can allow people to have the personal relationships that they want to have without being unduly uncomfortable
From how I understand things, the law allows for homosexuals to be with each other all they want.
To bring things back full circle, polygamy does not even have that.
It would be interesting to see the media reaction if the man on the FBI's most wanted list as a homosexual instead of a polygamist.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
The only thing I guess I could be accused of as repressing homosexuals is that I am not in favor of them adopting children. Though the utilitarian arguement that its better for children to have any parents rather than none may be valid in this case. I have been trying to look up orphan demographics in the US but its proving difficult.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB: The law does not grant our families the same protections and obligations that it does for heterosexuals. Some states deny gay adoption. Imagine raising your child until she's 10 then your partner dies and oops, you're not the child's biological parent so we're taking your babygirl away and you'll never see her again.
As for polygamy, I already told you I'm on your side there.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
If you had a choice between being egotistical in order to save your friends and letting your friends die, what would you do?
*snort*
That depends on whether I think Blackblade is some kind of suffering authority on moral truth... I don't, he's just an ego.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Orincoro: It's not egotistical. It's caring about your friends. If you're worried your friend is going to go to hell, you warn them. And after the 5th time they tell YOU to go to hell, you need to give up or risk losing the friendship. [/QB]
See Pix, there is this assumption in that, that you are the bearer of some higher truth and you KNOW that you can save your friends because obviously you are so great. The way Blackblade said it, he assumes he knows the truth and is just busting at the seams to "save" people. This is egotism. If they are really your friends, first of all, you are comfortable sharing your beliefs with them, and you DON'T try to change them and "save" them. This is my problem, in general with missionaries and prothletizers, they are so sure of themselves, and so often wrong about everything. The assumption of this righteousness is egotism.
Edit: And it occurs to me that if I had a friend who was saving up his moral truths to save my soul, that would be a bad friendship, and wouldn't endure that lack of trust and understanding.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro: You missed the next part of my post
quote:Just remember though, BB, you think you're right, a suicide bomber thinks he's right, a hindude thinks he's right, a catholic thinks he's right... Isn't it better just to leave eachother to their beliefs?
posted
Orincoro: I do not "bust at the seams." to save people. But it would be lying to say that I do not feel joy when others find happiness in the truth I ahve found.
I am not an idiot when it comes to sharing my beliefs with others, I know when people want to hear them and when they do not.
Just because I believe the truth I posess is the greatest truth that could be known does NOT mean I think I am a great person. I have plenty of friends who are even less interested in my beliefs then you are, and we get along just fine because I do not require that my friends play audience to my religious beliefs in order to be my friends. Though most of my friends are quite willing to talk about beliefs of any sort.
Even when I WAS a full time missionary if I met somebody like you on the street I would probably talk about something else for just a few minutes as you would have probably made it pretty plain pretty fast that you were uninterested in what my message was, that does not stop me from engaging in interesting conversation with you.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB: You need to also remember that what makes one person happy will make another person miserable. Just because your faith brings you joy doesn't mean it works on everyone.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tres: actually aren't they afraid of homosexuals impact on society? Isn't that the entire reason they want to opress us?
No, I think homophobic people want to oppress homophobic people because they simply don't like them and/or don't like them around, or wouldn't want to run across someone gay at any point in their lives.
Thinking that homosexuality has negative effects on society is an entirely different justification for oppressing homophobic behavior, which is based in reason - reason that in my humble opinion is mistaken, but is still nonetheless reason rather than emotion. It is not homophobia.
Of course, you could assume that anyone in the latter group is actually someone in the former group who doesn't want to admit their true reasons for trying to restrict homosexuality, but I don't think it is fair to assume they actually hold a position that they don't claim to hold.
quote:In this circumstance, it's the same word, but it's commonly used in a way that you are denying it can be used under. However, it's still used that way, all of the time.
As I've frequently claimed in the past, I don't think that just because a word is misused commonly it is okay to misuse it. That only leads to confusion, because then people start getting the actual meaning of the word mixed up with how people are misusing it. For instance, kids can say "That's gay!" and by "gay" they just mean "uncool". The trouble is that the true meaning of "gay" is still attached to the word, so that by misusing it in that way, they mix themselves up into thinking that being gay in the homosexual sense is equivalent to being uncool in the other sense of the word. That is why you must be careful when you define words and use them.
In this case, a similar mix up is occuring. On the one hand, people are calling anyone who opposes homosexuality a "homophobe", even if they don't hate homosexual people. But then, when people hear that OSC is a homophobe, they think it means he must hate homosexual people - because that is what homophobe actually means. OSC only falls into the homophobe category under the mistaken definition, but once the label is given to him under that definition, people get confused and thinks he fits into the real definition too - even though he has said that he does not hate gay people.
The bottom line is this: It is possible to use "homophobe" to include ANYONE who considers homosexual behavior to be harmful. But if you use "homophobe" in that way, then it is no longer a very negative term. If you use "homophobia" in that way, it no longer has anything to do with hating or discriminating against people, and instead becomes simply a position on what is or is not moral behavior.
Feel free to do that - but if you do, don't go back and forth by then implying that being a homophobe is a terrible, hateful thing. Homophobia is only a terrible, hateful thing under the proper definition of it. Under this other definition, it is, at worst, just a mistaken belief.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: BB: You need to also remember that what makes one person happy will make another person miserable. Just because your faith brings you joy doesn't mean it works on everyone.
While this is undoubtedly true, I think it's important to look at this issue from the viewpoint of the person witnessing the faith.
What's at stake is the fate of the IMMORTAL SOUL. God has given you a mission to save people, and that mission is more valuable than making sure people are comfortable in a temporal sense.
Were I of a witnessing faith (I never would be, but that's besides the point), I would never, ever stop trying to convert them. The fate of their souls would likely be more important to me than friendship, politics, my reputation, etc.
Logically, not everyone in a witnessing faith is going to go to those extremes, but I imagine that it often comes down to a choice: betray your friends by stopping, or betray your own self-interest by continuing to drive them away.
Posts: 246 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is this turning into a game of who is the bigger martyr?
I always lose this game.
Know who always wins that game? Jesus. It's kind of his thing, though, so you can't really get mad at him for it.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: BB: You need to also remember that what makes one person happy will make another person miserable. Just because your faith brings you joy doesn't mean it works on everyone.
See I think my religion CAN make anybody happy who wishes to be happy. But you are right that in the hands of somebody who does not care that much for happiness my faith would probably not work for them
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To say that something is 'homophobic' has become the catchall term for attitudes or practices which are discriminatory against homosexuals.
What I'm looking for a distinction between hating and fearing a person's actions vs hating and fearing the person because they engage in those actions. The first is justifiable and open to reason, as it assumes that the person has many qualities and these actions are only a small part of their existence. Granted, they may not be terribly open to reason, but the possibility is there. Discussion can occur.
The second is not justifiable, because it is irrational and seeks to define the worth of a person entirely by their actions in this one situation. No discussion is possible; as soon as a person is labeled as a homosexual that person is no longer fully a person.
I have always defined "homophobe" as the second, and OSC does not fall into that category as far as I can tell (whereas I believe some of the others on your list do, regardless of what they say their reasoning is).
So if the term "homophobe" doesn't serve to make that distinction, what does?
[ August 03, 2006, 02:42 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB: Your faith would make me utterly miserable and probably would have pushed me over the edge of suicide had I been mormon growing up. (I got really really close as it was.)
Happiness is my Basis of Value, so you can not say that happiness is unimportant to me.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Dude, you went to a private Lutheran school. What made you think you had the right to the free expression of religion there?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: BB: You need to also remember that what makes one person happy will make another person miserable. Just because your faith brings you joy doesn't mean it works on everyone.
While this is undoubtedly true, I think it's important to look at this issue from the viewpoint of the person witnessing the faith.
What's at stake is the fate of the IMMORTAL SOUL. God has given you a mission to save people, and that mission is more valuable than making sure people are comfortable in a temporal sense.
Were I of a witnessing faith (I never would be, but that's besides the point), I would never, ever stop trying to convert them. The fate of their souls would likely be more important to me than friendship, politics, my reputation, etc.
Logically, not everyone in a witnessing faith is going to go to those extremes, but I imagine that it often comes down to a choice: betray your friends by stopping, or betray your own self-interest by continuing to drive them away.
But here's the thing. Those who DO go the extreme often turn a lot of people off to the faith.
posted
I believe "gay" originally meant "happy". I'm not sure how it came to mean "homosexual". Anyway, the point is that words don't mean anything at all by themselves. They only mean something when we assign them meaning. The meaning we assign them is completely arbitrary. I think one of the most exasperating things on this good Earth is when people try to argue that a "common" definition isn't right just because that's how it's used the majority of the time. If a word is commonly meant to signify something, then that's what it means. The word has no inherent meaning, it's just a vocalization. That's why I think the most common definition is the most correct one.
Posts: 127 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
Dude, you went to a private Lutheran school. What made you think you had the right to the free expression of religion there?
Come again? I never asked for the right to express my beliefs, I was simply saying I didnt appreciate being mistreated purely because I was a Mormon. As a student I didnt go around trying to convert people , but I had plenty of people have a go at me when I least expected it.
The Pixiest: You may disagree but I think one can still live a happy life even with a modified gender identity. If I was asked to live a celebate existance, I would hope that I would be strong enough to handle it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GForce: I believe "gay" originally meant "happy". I'm not sure how it came to mean "homosexual". Anyway, the point is that words don't mean anything at all by themselves. They only mean something when we assign them meaning. The meaning we assign them is completely arbitrary. I think one of the most exasperating things on this good Earth is when people try to argue that a "common" definition isn't right just because that's how it's used the majority of the time. If a word is commonly meant to signify something, then that's what it means. The word has no inherent meaning, it's just a vocalization. That's why I think the most common definition is the most correct one.
What is this in reference to? The quibble over the term "homophobe?" If so, it's not a valid comparison.
Posts: 246 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: kmbboots: I do not think it was right, but I can understand why they did it. Nothing is more dangerous then evil in the guise of good. I belonged to a religion they believe embodies this.
Okay. Now we've seen and understood how people can be misguided in their attempts to force their viewpoint on someone else. We need to be able to recognize that in ourselves as well.
I do understand your wish for your friends to be as happy as you are. Really, I do. But in this culture people are often repelled by aggressive evangelism. My best advice to you is to be an example. Wait till they ask. I know this is hard, but trust that a loving God will have a plan for those people that doesn't rely on you being pushy.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
pH: Its entirely possible to do all you can to share your beliefs in a positive way to others. If they say they are not interested your best bet is to simply live your faith in your actions, and hope that one day circumstances changed leading them to ask for more information.
For some people no words and only actions are the best initial approach.
But I honestly spend very little time thinking "who can I convert next?" more often I am going to class/work and the opportunities present themselves, I must admit to having failed miserably sometimes, yet I have had even more sucesses and those people are some of my best friends.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: The Pixiest: You may disagree but I think one can still live a happy life even with a modified gender identity. If I was asked to live a celebate existance, I would hope that I would be strong enough to handle it.
I know this is to Pix but this is not your call to make for someone else. Would you be so excited to live a celibate existance for someone else's religious reasons. Should women of every faith be veiled to accomodate those who believe women should be veiled? Should we all have to keep kosher?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd say for MOST people, actions are a better tool than words. Personally, I'm incredibly annoyed by, as kmb put it, aggressive evangelists. It makes it harder for me to even MENTION my faith because it's assumed that I'm going to be judgmental. I don't try to convert people because I don't think it's my place, but there are plenty of people who, upon hearing that I'm Christian, will become hostile toward me on many subjects or will outright attack me, even when religion has nothing to do with Thing X.
quote: The Pixiest: You may disagree but I think one can still live a happy life even with a modified gender identity. If I was asked to live a celebate existance, I would hope that I would be strong enough to handle it.
I know this is to Pix but this is not your call to make for someone else. Would you be so excited to live a celibate existance for someone else's religious reasons. Should women of every faith be veiled to accomodate those who believe women should be veiled? Should we all have to keep kosher?
I am having trouble placing the point you are trying to make. Where did I say to Pixiest, "You ought to be doing X?" I merely said that were I asked by God to live a celebate life (something I do not think is typically healthy) I would hope I would be strong enough to do it. I do think there is more to human beings then there sexual identity.
Maybe I came across that way but I was not suggesting that Pixiest should conform to my beliefs just because it makes me more comfortable.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB: Do you really think that all homosexuals would be happier if they joined your church and became celebate?
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I am having trouble placing the point you are trying to make. Where did I say to Pixiest, "You ought to be doing X?" I merely said that were I asked by God to live a celebate life (something I do not think is typically healthy) I would hope I would be strong enough to do it. I do think there is more to human beings then there sexual identity.
Maybe I came across that way but I was not suggesting that Pixiest should conform to my beliefs just because it makes me more comfortable.
It did, indeed, come across that way. Your concern over homosexuals "integrating themselves into society" and support for laws that would prevent that. If it wasn't a suggestion that homosexuals should remain celibate, what was it?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
sorry to sound like I am using the "undecided" line to weasel out of having said something wrong, but I think I was making the point that I can see why people are in favor for laws that supress homosexuality within society, as it appears to those who are against homosexuality that their views are being ignored.
again I AM NOT SURE HOW I FEEL ABOUT IT ALL. All I know is that RIGHT NOW I am ok with homosexuals being granted civil marriages, adoption rights may come down the road. Is there anything else I should be allowing in order to not be overtly anti homosexual?
The Pixiest: I need to think about that for a bit, but my initial response is, "If they are unwilling to give up homosexuality then no they wouldnt be happy, if they want to see if they could be happy without it then yes."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Orincoro: You missed the next part of my post
quote:Just remember though, BB, you think you're right, a suicide bomber thinks he's right, a hindude thinks he's right, a catholic thinks he's right... Isn't it better just to leave eachother to their beliefs?
I did miss that, but it sounds like we agree on this more or less. Maybe I am being mean, but I would rather be mean than be "saved." Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Just because I believe the truth I posess is the greatest truth that could be known does NOT mean I think I am a great person. I have plenty of friends who are even less interested in my beliefs then you are, and we get along just fine because I do not require that my friends play audience to my religious beliefs in order to be my friends. Though most of my friends are quite willing to talk about beliefs of any sort.
But see, you expressed earlier that you are wanting to preach to your friends, but are holding yourself back. I agree, hold yourself back, good impulse. But the distrust is there; the judging is there, and I can't see how you can be friends with someone who you see this way. I don't know what to say, I find this to be the most aggravating thing about missionaries. I have devoted time to studying the origins of "complete" philosophies: Aquinis, Plato, Kant, Nietzsche, and nothing has ever led me to believe that I know "the truth." I can't see how others can not only think they've got the answer, the ultimate final solution, but actually go and convince people of it. There is a feeling deep in my conscious mind, which tells me that this runs against everything I have ever learned on my own about anything. When people say they have "the truth" I laugh and cry because on the one hand its so naive and innocent, and on the other it seems so egotistical and cynical, to believe that understanding reaches a point and ends, and that you've gotten there.
That and experience, which has shown me no prothletizer who wasn't an arrogant fool, or just sort of foolish.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps but I got the same feeling when I took college philosophy: "Oh wow Socrates had some interesting ideas, oh hey Aristotle is even better, oh hey look Kant is AMAZING, well Mill is my favorite so far!"
You can by cynical that the truth I think I posess is not as impressive as I think it is. But at least grant me the possibility of having had a genuine experience with God that validated my belief in him.
Remember before you called my egotistical I said I , "Sometimes." feel that way. I don't lose sleep over it, and it does not depress me, but it does concern me on occasion when I wonder if I am a very good living example of Jesus.
Also I do not see my friends as hellbound souls in need of saving. I see them as my friends, and friends share what they have with each other. If my friend offers me icecream I politely decline, if he brings up religion and decides he really isnt in the mood to discuss it I honesly feel upset AT ALL about it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: BB: Your faith would make me utterly miserable and probably would have pushed me over the edge of suicide had I been mormon growing up. (I got really really close as it was.)
Happiness is my Basis of Value, so you can not say that happiness is unimportant to me.
*nod*
Its so easy to recognize the manipulation in BBs statement, forcing you or anyone to defend themselves "I really am happy!" No one need be on the defensive about their beliefs here, only in their carriage toward others and in how they act. BBs putting you on the defensive is a classic manipulation in missionary work: "be afraid, you don't even know happiness... but you could!" Instead of ever listening to what hapiness might be to you, it is all about how you are refusing to admit your need of faith to yourself... and you must always expend your energies fending off these mental assaults.
Pretty weak though, Pix saw right through that.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
