Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
  • 8
Why is religion the quintessential forum topic?
Topic Started: May 21 2008, 03:27 PM (2,769 Views)
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Dewey's religious tradition does seem to account for cooperative free will in establishing the relationship between God and the person. He does not force himself on anyone, and rather invites all people in a love relationship. It is up to the individual to open oneself and to avail oneself of the grace. All one needs to do is ask (but this requires a loss of ego, which a lot of people are unwilling to do).
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
ivorythumper
May 22 2008, 12:50 PM
All one needs to do is ask (but this requires a loss of ego, which a lot of people are unwilling to do).

Yeah, no kidding. I'm not giving those up, you crazy? Greatest breakfast food ever; 45 seconds in the toaster and you're set. Don't even need syrup. Dewey's a grown man, he can get his own at the store.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

:lol:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
Articulate does not always equate to being right, or even being the best messenger for God.

I suspect that a certain sheperd boy named David was somewhat less than articulate at times. Truth can be had with very little verbage.


I think you're confusing being articulate with word count. I'd also argue that at various times in the aforementioned shepherd boy's life, he was hardly the poster child for living and expressing God's truth.



Quote:
 
With respect to the behaviour you are speaking of, I feel Dewey is quite wrong. And while I am not possessed of the eloquence Dewey has, neither do I feel the need to hold a Bible up and argue with it.


I don't build my arguments on that issue upon eloquence, but rather, on the content and interpretation of Scripture.

Quote:
 
Of course, that can certainly stem from the way we view the Bible.


That's exactly where our difference comes from.

Quote:
 
I would suspect Dewey does not take the same view on inerrancy that I do.


True dat. I do not hold to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, a doctrine that I believe is inconsistent with the vast majority of orthodox Christian belief regarding the nature and authority of Scripture. This was just one of the five key tenets of Traditionalism, later called Fundamentalism (complete inerrancy/"plenary inspiration" of the Scriptures; the literal truth of the virgin birth of Jesus; the authenticity of the miracles in the New Testament; that human reconciliation with God is achieved solely through the substitutionary atonement seen in the death and resurrection of Jesus; and the physical resurrection and coming return of Christ), largely put forth by Charles Hodge, B.B. Warfield, and others in the late 1800's and early 1900's. I believe that this particular doctrine was an over-reaction to some of the excesses of historical criticism and liberal theology dating to that same time.

That's why you and I can have diametrically opposed opinions on the gay marriage issue, and we can both claim Scriptural authority for our positions.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
pianojerome
May 22 2008, 03:29 PM
Dewey, why would God choose to allow you to understand, but choose not to allow Moonbat?

I don't believe that's the case, Sam.

I believe that humankind is so mired in our sinful nature that we can't even "do the right thing" and choose God completely of our own will. We're so mucked up that we can't even wish for what is ultimately best for us, let alone actually take any first step in trying to obtain it. That's why I say that Moonbat - or anyone else - can't come to faith through any efforts of his own. We are reconciled by faith in God, but even the ability to have that faith is a gift that is first granted to us by the work of God.

Now, having set that up, I don't personally believe that God chooses to reveal God's self to only some people, and not to others. I do not believe that anyone is "born doomed," as it were. My belief that we are all created in God's image, and that God is the ultimate definition of love, eliminates that as a possibility. The only question is the timing that God chooses to give a person the opportunity to understand, and respond in faith to God. I believe that every person is offered that gift from God at least once in their lives. In reality, I believe that for most of us, the offer is there many, many times. But I don't believe that it's there all the time. I believe that God works in our lives as God wills, and that there are particular times in our lives that for whatever God's reasons (and I believe that those reasons are ultimately for our best interests), God is not calling us, or offering us the grace of the ability to have faith.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Lego o' my Ego! ^_^
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Aqua Letifer
May 22 2008, 04:54 PM
ivorythumper
May 22 2008, 12:50 PM
All one needs to do is ask (but this requires a loss of ego, which a lot of people are unwilling to do).

Yeah, no kidding. I'm not giving those up, you crazy? Greatest breakfast food ever; 45 seconds in the toaster and you're set. Don't even need syrup. Dewey's a grown man, he can get his own at the store.

u r such a d0rk. :lol2:
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
pianojerome
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Mikhailoh
May 22 2008, 05:23 PM
Aqua Letifer
May 22 2008, 04:54 PM
ivorythumper
May 22 2008, 12:50 PM
All one needs to do is ask (but this requires a loss of ego, which a lot of people are unwilling to do).

Yeah, no kidding. I'm not giving those up, you crazy? Greatest breakfast food ever; 45 seconds in the toaster and you're set. Don't even need syrup. Dewey's a grown man, he can get his own at the store.

u r such a d0rk. :lol2:

Maybe he's implying that Moonbat will never waffle in his position? Or maybe that after he dies and he meets God's wrath, he'll be toast? Or maybe that his faith will flour and rise like yeast in a bowl of dough when the time is right?

Perhaps I butter stop with the puns before the timer of your patience dings and our relationship is cooked.
Sam
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jane D'Oh
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
This thread would be much better with maple syrup.
Pfft.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Maybe you batter.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Quote:
 
I'd also argue that at various times in the aforementioned shepherd boy's life, he was hardly the poster child for living and expressing God's truth.


Can you make the argument that he was not one of God's Chosen? Or that at times he was possessed of miraculous insight and wisdom?

And...to address inerrancy...at what point do you say, "This is not true!" Because, at that point you've rendered the Scripture almost meaningless, other than a nice tale of the human condition and a decent historical reference.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Aqua Letifer
May 22 2008, 01:54 PM
ivorythumper
May 22 2008, 12:50 PM
All one needs to do is ask (but this requires a loss of ego, which a lot of people are unwilling to do).

Yeah, no kidding. I'm not giving those up, you crazy? Greatest breakfast food ever; 45 seconds in the toaster and you're set. Don't even need syrup. Dewey's a grown man, he can get his own at the store.

God and Eggos! :P
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
pianojerome
May 22 2008, 02:35 PM

Maybe he's implying that Moonbat will never waffle in his position? Or maybe that after he dies and he meets God's wrath, he'll be toast? Or maybe that his faith will flour and rise like yeast in a bowl of dough when the time is right?

Perhaps I butter stop with the puns before the timer of your patience dings and our relationship is cooked.

:biggrin: Omletting you get away with those bad puns.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
ivorythumper
May 22 2008, 06:10 PM
Aqua Letifer
May 22 2008, 01:54 PM
ivorythumper
May 22 2008, 12:50 PM
All one needs to do is ask (but this requires a loss of ego, which a lot of people are unwilling to do).

Yeah, no kidding. I'm not giving those up, you crazy? Greatest breakfast food ever; 45 seconds in the toaster and you're set. Don't even need syrup. Dewey's a grown man, he can get his own at the store.

God and Eggos! :P

Make it a trinity and pour on the Holy Syrup.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
It's butter than a big sticky brawl....
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Jolly
May 22 2008, 03:01 PM
And...to address inerrancy...at what point do you say, "This is not true!" Because, at that point you've rendered the Scripture almost meaningless, other than a nice tale of the human condition and a decent historical reference.

Who claimed it was inerrant and where is it stated that it should be taken literally?

Those two notions alone pretty much undermine the credibility many forms protestantism might offer for me. The rest of protestantism is either a misreading of Augustine or, at best, watered down Catholicism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
I hesitate to refer to Wiki, but in this case it may be the most concise explanation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
Can you make the argument that he was not one of God's Chosen? Or that at times he was possessed of miraculous insight and wisdom?


I don't think I was making the argument that David wasn't one of God's chosen. Actually, just the opposite; that God chooses, and uses, people who are flawed and don't measure up to God's ideal - sometimes royally so (no pun intended). I'd also point out, as did Jesus, that sometimes in carrying out God's will, David did things that were considered improper and quite wrong by the religious leaders of his day.

Quote:
 
And...to address inerrancy...at what point do you say, "This is not true!" Because, at that point you've rendered the Scripture almost meaningless, other than a nice tale of the human condition and a decent historical reference.


No, I don't do that at all.

Frankly, I don't think I ever look at any Scripture and say "This is not true!" I believe that everything in the Scriptures is there for a reason, the most significant of which is to be considered, along with all of the Scriptures as a whole, the description of who God is; how God works within creation and specifically in the lives of humanity; and most importantly, the authoritative witness of Jesus Christ as the physical incarnation of the eternal God the Son, in whom our reconciliation with God has been made possible and in whom we are called to devote our lives to as our Lord and Savior.

On the other hand, I can think of things in the Scriptures where I might say, "This is not fact!" but that is something very different from "not true."

Mostly, my understanding of Scripture requires that it be interpreted - through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, in light of the teachings of Jesus, the only, ultimate Word of God; in accordance with the entirety of Scripture; in accordance with personal experience, and in accordance with the traditions of the church. I do not believe that looking only at the "plain text" of the specific printed words of a specific verse is an adequate understanding of Scripture, nor do I think that it is how God intends for us to use Scripture. Again, using Jesus' example, his opponents periodically called him on doing things that contradicted the letter of the Law, and Jesus' response was always to look past the literal application and interpretation of those statutes, to seek out the actual, underlying intent of the whole of the Law - that is, love and mercy.

As to your suggestion that denying biblical inerrancy makes the Bible almost meaningless, I couldn't disagree with you more. Despite the fact that I do not believe the Bible to be inerrant, as currently defined, I still hold it in extremely high regard. I hold it to be the authoritative (not merely "an" authoritative), divinely inspired witness to Jesus Christ, and I've staked quite a large part of my life on the supposition that it contains the ultimate Truth that the world needs, and which has been given to us by God. In order for me to see the Bible as such, I do not have to believe that it is inerrant. I don't have to believe the relatively recent claim that the whole of Scriptures stands or falls on the absolute inerrancy of every word within it. I simply don't believe that's the way that God intends to speak to us through the Scriptures, or the way that god wants us to understand or interpret God's word.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Well...let us look at what Jesus said about the OT in Matthew: For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Jesus also referred to the OT as the Word of God.

If the Bible is the Word of God, and God is without sin and perfect, how can His word be imperfect? Or maybe it is just the New Testament that's a bit off-kilter. Of course, Paul wrote, All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Again, if we are to believe Paul, and the Bible is the inspired Word, how can that Word be wrong?

So...maybe we should take the position that while God may be perfect, the men who wrote the New Testament were only men, and thus, since not perfect they would be prone to error. But there are cases where man is perfect...Was not Jesus a man? God in flesh appearing, with all the problems of this earthly existence, but free of Sin? Perfect?

If that be the case (and I believe it is), is it not a very small step to say that since the Bible is the Inspired Word, that God has the ability to create Perfection from the ink and quills of man?

By saying that inerrancy cannot exist, are we not putting God in a very small box, indeed?
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
By saying that inerrancy cannot exist, are we not putting God in a very small box, indeed?


I've not said that inerrancy cannot exist, I've said that I don't believe that it does exist.

Quote:
 
Again, if we are to believe Paul, and the Bible is the inspired Word, how can that Word be wrong?


I've never said that the Scriptures are "wrong;" that's your word, not mine. This is the same mistake as confusing "truth" and "fact."

I believe that what is in the Scriptures is exactly what God wants in them, so in that sense, they're "right." What I believe is sometimes "wrong" is our understanding of what meaning God is trying to convey with the content and words of the Scriptures. For example, I think that Jesus' teaching about the way to interpret the Law, which I mentioned earlier, is a guidepost for us today as well. Just as the content of the Law, which Jesus was technically breaking at various times, was "true" and not "wrong," its meaning as intended by God was quite mistaken by the religious establishment of the time. Jesus taught that in order to truly follow God's intent of that Law, a person had to use his brain, and his heart, to understand the true intent of the Law in light of everything else found in the Scriptures about God and what God wills for us. The literalism and legalism of today's Fundamentalists are nothing more than a modern day version of the Pharisaic understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures that Jesus so frequently spoke out against. The authors of the OT Scriptures weren't "somewhat less inspired" than the authors of the NT Scriptures - or conversely, the NT authors are no more privileged in the inspiration of their authorship than are the OT authors. So if Jesus can teach us to look at the spirit, and not the letter of the OT Law as we are instructed to understand it's "right" meaning, we may - no, we must - understand that we are to use our hearts and minds in the exact same way, as we interpret the words of the NT.

True enough, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled," but that's a far cry from saying that the Fundamentalist's literalist understanding of Scripture is God's understanding of the meaning of Scripture, and how it will be fulfilled. Similarly, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works," but that is a far cry from saying that the Fundamentalist interpretation of Scripture, and how it is inspired, useful, etc., is God's view of the same. All that these passages say is that God has given us Scripture, and that God's intent within the Scripture is true, and that God's intent of the Scripture will ultimately be fulfilled. They do absolutely nothing to bolster the Fundamentalist/inerrantist view of Scripture over the extremely-high, authoritative-but-not-inerrant view that I hold. It may come as a surprise to you, but I agree with every word of those passages of Scripture, and I use them often when I discuss, and teach others, about the nature of Scripture, without the slightest bit of contradiction.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
kenny
May 22 2008, 08:09 AM
I agree that it is a natural reaction.
We all are influenced by the personalities presenting views.

I also have to force myself to look beyond the messenger and just focus on the message.

You bring a lot of charisma to the messages you present here. Of course the validity of an idea can stand on its own etc. etc. but you're here to convince people and you use your unique personality as part of achieving that goal. I am very willing to speak about these subjects as someone with knowledge of them. Who else should do that? Someone who has no experience of being gay and someone whose life is not affected by the kind of leisurely arguments we engage in? You might feel differently, but I am very willing to use whatever skills God gave me to engage in communication with other people, and if part of that involves my persona, I don't have a problem with it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
ivorythumper
May 22 2008, 07:59 PM
Moonbat
May 22 2008, 07:45 AM

I can tell you what it would take to change my mind, my religious opponents never can, if i ask them what it would take to convince they were wrong they have no answer.

OK, I'll bite: what would it take to make you change your mind that there really is a God?

(and I have a lot of fun follow up questions, but one thing at a time :wink: )

There are other ways but a message in the background radiation, or the realignment of all the stars so they spelled out a message frmo the bible when viewed from Earth.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Moonbat
May 23 2008, 01:36 AM
ivorythumper
May 22 2008, 07:59 PM
Moonbat
May 22 2008, 07:45 AM

I can tell you what it would take to change my mind, my religious opponents never can, if i ask them what it would take to convince they were wrong they have no answer.

OK, I'll bite: what would it take to make you change your mind that there really is a God?

(and I have a lot of fun follow up questions, but one thing at a time :wink: )

There are other ways but a message in the background radiation, or the realignment of all the stars so they spelled out a message frmo the bible when viewed from Earth.

How would that prove God exists? Sounds like a parlor trick.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Moonbat
May 23 2008, 10:36 AM
There are other ways but a message in the background radiation, or the realignment of all the stars so they spelled out a message frmo the bible when viewed from Earth.

Well, this is actually something that I also often wondered, and I'd like to hear the perspective of the Christians on this:

If god exists, why doesn't he give a crystal-clear proof of this existence, e.g., in the way Moonbat described?
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
1. The fact that Dewey is pro gay marriage is exactly my point. Just because someone is religious doesn't mean that they will therefore believe one single point of view, for the sole reason that that is the religious point of view. "The religious point of view" is a myth; as the saying goes, "two jews, three opinions."
You do know that 50.0% of my family is Jewish. On my father's side. I'm not totally unaware of things like "two jews, three opinions." LOL.

2. Just because a priest (Dewey) is pro gay marriage, doesn't mean that therefore all religious people (like me) should be pro gay marriage. I say that, because I believe all people should think for themselves, and not just believe something because a priest happens to believe it.
Of course. Except that Dewey happens to be correct. He knows what oppression is and he has seen in his heart that it must be denied.

3. Yes, my belief that I'm being ignored is a bit of defensiveness; I agree. If I happened to be religious, and I was 100% pro gay marriage, like Dewey, then I wouldn't be ignored, because I'd be supporting your cause. Why ignore me if I support you? But not only am I not 100% in support, I am religious; double-trouble for me.
I'm religious too. So what do you think about that? Does that shatter a stereotype you have? At any rate, what I meant to say was that you should not feel defensive or ignored and I am sorry if I made you feel that way.

4. I'm not a bigot. I can't really defend that in writing; if you don't believe me, so be it. I am not a bigot, and remember that I am not 100% opposed to gay marriage.
I think that 'marriage' in the context of this discussion means civil marriage and I do not think that civil marriage should be denied to same sex couples. If one does not tolerate gays having the same civil rights as heterosexuals, then I think that is bigotry. That is what I believe. I am not saying that you are a bad person, but I do think that there is a right and wrong answer to the question.

5. I have never said that gay marriage is the same as bestiality (I don't think I've even used that word here) or polygamy or incest. I have never said that if we allow gay marriage, then we must allow polygamy or incest. I have brought them up, because I am unconvinced by the "equality" argument. If that was the only argument, then yes, we'd have to allow incest and polygamy, too. But it's not the only argument.

Your thinking in 5 above is very convoluted. I don't have the energy to discuss all of this with you again right now. I will say that, yes, this is what I meant by comparing. Your sentence "I am unconvinced by the "equality" argument" is telling. It means you don't think gays are a legitimate group who should have certain rights per se (as near as I can tell). Maybe Dewey could help you understand why "equality" does not mean that we would have to allow incest and polygamy. I'll just note that your reasoning here is fallacious. It's a non-sequitur to assert that we would have to allow incest and polygamy, concerning equality. Not only is it a fallacious argument, it is patently absurd. There is same sex marriage in Canada. They didn't have to allow incest and polygamy in Canada. Homosexuality, incest, and polygamy are three discrete subjects. Someone as intelligent and educated as you are should be to refrain from stringing them together in a fallacious argument (i.e. if we allowed one we would have to allow the other two if the criterion we were using was equality).


Marriage is not an issue entirely of "equality", and there are arguments against incest and polygamy just as there are arguments against gay marriage. They are separate issues, and have many arguments in support and against them; what I am opposed to is the notion that the only real argument here is that all marriage is a matter of "equality". It's not.

This is where the convoluted part comes in. You admit that they are seperate issues but argue that equality is some kind of common denominator. This part of your post (all of 5) is very confused in terms of argument.

6. I've made arguments, but of course they aren't convincing to you. Of course? That's a logical fallacy called genetic fallacy. Don't attribute my views to the fact that I'm religious, to the fact that I'm Jewish. Sound familiar?


That doesn't meant they aren't legitimate concerns, that they wouldn't be convincing or resonate with a lot of other people; they just don't convince you (not least of all because they all imply you couldn't get married).

7. I am not opposed to homosexuality, because I know that it is a fact of life. People are free to feel whatever they feel, and although I don't always think people are free to act on those perfectly natural feelings (like in cases of murder out of natural anger, theft out of natural jealousy, rape out of natural horniness, etc), whatever two gay people want to do in their bedroom is none of my business, as long as they both want to do it. Homosexuality is a different issue than gay marriage. I have never said here that I oppose homosexuality.
You come very close here to implying that homosexuality is sin by giving as examples of natural feeling, murder motivated by anger, theft motivated by jealousy, rape motivated by lust, etc. Homosexuality in private just happens to be one of those exceptions concerning whether people are free to act. Maybe you don't see why these kinds of comparisons raise eyebrows?.

8. I think that if gay marriage were allowed in all 50 states, it definitely would affect society as a whole; whether in good ways or bad ways, it depends how you look at it. It would certainly be somewhat common, I think, so everybody would probably know gay couples. In schools, kids would be raised to believe that's a norm. Children's books would probably include gay couples, we'd see them more in movies and on T.V., teachers would be less private about it if they happen to be gay, kids would stop teasing each other for being gay because it would be a normal thing in society, etc. Personally, I think some of those are actually wonderful and would be great support in favor of gay marriage. As I said, I am not 100% either way. But what it means is that society would be very different, and traditional views of marriage (traditional does not = religious) would be very different. I think that is also something of concern; of course not all traditions are worth preserving, and we should never preserve a tradition simply because it is a tradition. While many people define marriage as a love agreement between 2 people, and nothing more, many other people (myself included) view additionally as a unit of society that is created for the purpose of making babies and raising a family, in addition to other functions in society. Of course there are heterosexual couples that get married and don't have kids, and there are heterosexuals who get married and are terrible parents and raise delinquent children. And I know from the bottom of my heart that there are gay couples that would make wonderful parents, if they were allowed to get married and adopt children -- another argument in favor of gay marriage which I heartily agree with.
There are countless natural things people do, make babies, have sex, and there are countless man made things people do, create laws, including civil marriage. If gay people got married, it would not stop you or anyone else from getting married and having children. If you, or anyone else, just doesn't like the idea of marriage including two people who can't have children, just because that's your ideal of marriage and society, that does not, to me, outweigh the consequences of denying civil marriage to same sex couples.

Heterosexuals get married in Las Vegas and divorced four days later, 50% of heterosexual couples who marry get divorced, our courts spend an untold amount of time and money dealing with settlements and ongoing issues of custody and child support. Many heterosexual couples never have children. Having children is not necessary in marriage. I might be interested in that argument if heterosexuals did not routinely make a mockery out of marriage in the sense of being committed to each other, let alone the option of having children.



So you see, I really am not a hateful bigot who is 100% opposed to gay marriage simply because I'm a religious nutjob.


And being around you and Kenny and Bernard *has* brought me closer to the side of 100% supporting gay marriage, because it's put a lot of weight for me on feelings that I already had in support, but it's also pushed me in the other direction, too, because you have demonized me (by saying if I don't support you, then I must be a hateful bigot; by not supporting you, I'm implying that you are second-class citizens; and other nonsense like that), and that's not a good way to attract support!!! For me it's a mixed bag that has absolutely nothing to do with hate or bigotry or being unable to accept nature. Although I can't deny my religious upbringing, which is certainly an important part of my thinking, not a single concern of mine about gay marriage has anything to do with religious ideas of sin; I would never quote the bible in a discussion about gay marriage, because doing so would be meaningless to me. I also believe it would be meaningless anyway in such a discussion, because we are a country that is founded on freedom of religion, and just because one religion teaches that something is wrong (and it would be a mistake to think that Judaism or Christianity are 100% in agreement within themselves on teaching that homosexuality is a sin), does not mean that the public laws need to be based on that.

I think you are someone who wants to (at least at this time) uphold the idea of marriage as reserved for couples who can have children (that's what you've said and that seems to be your best argument).

I disagree with you, Sam. And I do think that there is an element of whether gays are viewed as second class citizens, whether you want to believe that or not (and there are at least some people who believe as I do or gay marriage would not be legal in some countries and states). You use the word "ignore" to describe how you feel about how you have been treated. You've been honest and direct with me, so I'll tell you how I feel likewise. When you use words like "nonsense" when you talk about "second class citizens" and when you imperiously say things like that you are "unconvinced by the equality argument, " I feel like you are dismissing some very real concerns (not wants, Sam, concerns) that I have and that many other people share.

Thank you for your thoughtful and honest post.

I am going to have a busy day tomorrow and am not going to be able to return to this thread. Please feel free to PM me if there is anything you want me to answer or clarify.
:smile:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
  • 8