Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8943 total)
38 online now:
dwise1, Faith, GDR, PaulK, ssope (5 members, 33 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,980 Year: 19,016/19,786 Month: 1,436/1,705 Week: 242/446 Day: 40/98 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   On the verge of a break-through
rgb
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 112 (322429)
06-16-2006 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Jazzns
06-16-2006 9:04 PM


Jazzns writes
quote:
Have you actually been reading my posts or do you just reply to the first sentence that wags your tail?

When I converse with someone on here, I read everything they write. I try to respond to each point accordingly. However, sometimes I ignore (or seem to ignore) certain points people make because (1) I can't counter, (2) it's over my head, (3) I haven't made up my mind on the issue yet, (4) I agree with it, (5) I want to procrastinate on getting to it and hoping that I'd forget about it later, or (6) these points don't wag my tail.

quote:
And my point is if you haven't notice that those Christians are not basing such a view on anything but their own need to be the arbiter of morals in this world.

I can't speak for all christians. I can only speak for the ones I know.

quote:
It is not Bibilical and it is hypocritical given the other sins of the heart that are ignored over this issue of homosexuality.

As has been repeatedly pointed out by some people, all sins are.....

Anyway, the reason this issue seems to be hyped up so much over the others is because for some reason or other people are more interested in it. Try to go to those philosophical debates regularly held on college campuses. You'd notice that whenever the topic has anything to do with sex the room is always packed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Jazzns, posted 06-16-2006 9:04 PM Jazzns has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 460 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 47 of 112 (322516)
06-17-2006 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by riVeRraT
06-16-2006 7:19 PM


quote:
Can you do me a favor and explain how you got that I hate gays from any of this?

I didn't say you hated gays.

I quoted your own words, rat, or hadn't you noticed?

You said that you hated to look at "it", which I took to mean "affectionate behavior between same sex lovers", but that it was your problem.

I was talking about what I view as your overreaction to this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by riVeRraT, posted 06-16-2006 7:19 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by riVeRraT, posted 06-17-2006 12:43 PM nator has responded

    
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4660
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 48 of 112 (322527)
06-17-2006 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by riVeRraT
06-16-2006 1:17 PM


Seems to me like you are using your religious views, and interpretations to define morality for the nation. Can you think of a non-religious view why it is wrong?

Maybe we should make a national religion, and force you to follow it, or burn in hell

That's not it RR. In my post I said that freewill is there, that people are responsible for their choices.

If a homosexual makes a choice to follow his nature, then that's his freedom (as I said). But this doesn't mean I have to endorse it because secularists want me to.

I don't care about pleasing men. If they're pissed because I won't say "oh yeah, be gay and prosper", then that's their problem, because I believe in God, not gay pride.

Also, I didn't say that consentual relationships are the same as rape etc. I sure hope nobody thinks that's what I meant. Infact what I thought I made pretty clear, is that there is spirit and flesh, as the New Testament says. Sexuality comes under the flesh/natural.

My only real point in this thread, is to state that I will not endores/please men by voicing a condoning voice for the gays. Nor have I judged them.

Hey RR, I pretty much agreed with most of your post.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by riVeRraT, posted 06-16-2006 1:17 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by riVeRraT, posted 06-17-2006 12:52 PM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 64 by nator, posted 06-19-2006 7:26 AM mike the wiz has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4660
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 49 of 112 (322533)
06-17-2006 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by nator
06-16-2006 6:54 PM


mike won't join the happy clappy gay friendly celebration
Mike, I find it really distubing that you are seemingly equating someone who becomes sexually aroused by murdering children with the physical expression of sexual desire between two consenting adults of the same sex.

What I was saying is that both actions are the result of the same drive. Nothing more. It is the marriages itself, which would be God's blessing/cleansing, as far as I know.

Can you say that the Ukraine monster would have murdered those children, if he didn't have a sex drive?

I don't think you can. So my point is that the natural desires/traits, lead to sin in people. This is true.(not just lust, but feeding anger, hatred etc..)

Do you really despise, hate, revile, and loathe yourself, and indeed, all of humanity, so completely?

I loathe rapists, pedophiles, serial killers, killers of babas. Ofcourse I loathe these things that exist in us. None of them would happen if people obeyed God and feared God's justice that will come upon them for doing wicked things.

Where lust is concerned, and God's precepts, gays are not a special case like you're side is trying to tout. They also are under the rules as far as I read.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by nator, posted 06-16-2006 6:54 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by nator, posted 06-19-2006 7:38 AM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 66 by nator, posted 06-19-2006 7:40 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 210 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 50 of 112 (322553)
06-17-2006 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by nator
06-17-2006 8:42 AM


You know what, I wish I knew why I "hated" to look at it too. That bothers me about myself. I probably shouldn't have used the word hate, but dislike.

That is the battle of principals in my mind.

But there are many things that we dislike to look at, isn't it all just subjective?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by nator, posted 06-17-2006 8:42 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by mike the wiz, posted 06-17-2006 12:50 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded
 Message 55 by rgb, posted 06-17-2006 5:51 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded
 Message 68 by nator, posted 06-19-2006 7:43 AM riVeRraT has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4660
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 51 of 112 (322559)
06-17-2006 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by riVeRraT
06-17-2006 12:43 PM


You're not obliged to take pleasure in looking at it. It can even disgust you. You don't have to feel bad about that. Gays don't own the world. it's not racist to dislike gay action RR.

But God forbid if you tell this to the recent gay-pride culture, or they'll hang you for being a homophobic fundy.

Frankly, the whole protect-the-gays thing has just become a bore. They're not an endangered species for goodness sake.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by riVeRraT, posted 06-17-2006 12:43 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 210 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 52 of 112 (322560)
06-17-2006 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by mike the wiz
06-17-2006 10:54 AM


My only real point in this thread, is to state that I will not endores/please men by voicing a condoning voice for the gays. Nor have I judged them.

Yes, you have judged them. which really isn't a big deal, until you start passing that judgement onto others. we all look at things and judge them based on what we know. It's when we start voicing that opinion, we get into trouble.

The very right that lets you speak what you just spoke, according to your belief's, is the very same right that will eventually allow same-sex marriage. It has nothing to do with God.

It doesn't have to be a marriage in the church, or in God's eye's. Isn't it always a matter of heart?

Is there anything in the NT that tells us that we should be making rules in our governement, or punishing people for being who they want to be?

Even Jesus seemed to have wanted a separation between church and state, when he said give what's due to ceasar, and give waht's due to God.

So, to me, we are left with secular reasoning why we shouldn't allow it. Can you think of any? And if you can, it must be greater than our freedom, or be a threat to it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by mike the wiz, posted 06-17-2006 10:54 AM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by mike the wiz, posted 06-17-2006 1:06 PM riVeRraT has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4660
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 53 of 112 (322570)
06-17-2006 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by riVeRraT
06-17-2006 12:52 PM


Can you quote what I stated about same-sex marriages, and what specifically you took as me judging gays? I require quotes of my words which led you to believe this.

I've only told the truth, that I personally, will not say "I find gaydom to be fine by God". Lol. Why should I? Infact, logically, that's a distraction. It dissuades the Christian into saying, "oh well, if I'm evil by not supporting gays then I must endorse them".

Sorry but I'm too clever to fall for that. The actual issue is what God says. Gaydom is irrelevent, God says no fornication is allowed, and that marriage between a man and woman is the only correct course of action.

I don't care if you're gay, pink, or an alien, as long as you realize that God hasn't said that anyone is an exception to sin.

You see, all I know is that the scriptures only mentioned what sex is for. I didn't see that it said, "and when the gays rise up, support them in their gayness".

You see, society is so politically correct in Britain, it's quite pathetic. If I said that I don't enjoy an eyeful of gay action, or that it disgusts me the idea of two men going at it, then I would probably be sent to prison as a homophobic terrorist who desires to bake gays in an oven.

Listen, guys, please, mike hasn't fell for the guilt trip.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by riVeRraT, posted 06-17-2006 12:52 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by jar, posted 06-17-2006 2:42 PM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 56 by rgb, posted 06-17-2006 5:56 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 57 by riVeRraT, posted 06-17-2006 6:42 PM mike the wiz has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31519
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 54 of 112 (322599)
06-17-2006 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by mike the wiz
06-17-2006 1:06 PM


Gaydom is irrelevent, God says no fornication is allowed, and that marriage between a man and woman is the only correct course of action.

Really, where does GOD say that? I know that GOD did say, a guy and a gal should get together and screw like crazy and push them babbies out, but where did GOD limit it to the only option? I also know that you and Paul and some Sadducces and Pharisees and a few others have interpreted the rules to exclude other relationships, but where did GOD exclude other relationships?


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by mike the wiz, posted 06-17-2006 1:06 PM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by mike the wiz, posted 06-18-2006 11:47 AM jar has not yet responded

  
rgb
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 112 (322674)
06-17-2006 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by riVeRraT
06-17-2006 12:43 PM


riverrat writes
quote:
You know what, I wish I knew why I "hated" to look at it too. That bothers me about myself. I probably shouldn't have used the word hate, but dislike.

I suppose the feeling you get when you see same sex couples is somewhat like the feeling I get when I see people with big fat thighs eating big macs, KFC, super duper double layered whoppers, etc. This feeling comes from the fact that I am a health freak who watches everything that I eat and pay regular visits to the gym. You could actually make the comparason between me getting a panick attack when I gained a few pounds back in college and you finding yourself be aroused a little bit by a person of the same sex as you.

If anything, this sort of feeling is present in everyone because noone is a perfect person. My weakness seems to be about a healthy lifestyle and yours seems to be about sexual arousal.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by riVeRraT, posted 06-17-2006 12:43 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
rgb
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 112 (322676)
06-17-2006 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by mike the wiz
06-17-2006 1:06 PM


Mike the wiz writes
quote:
You see, all I know is that the scriptures only mentioned what sex is for. I didn't see that it said, "and when the gays rise up, support them in their gayness".

I'm just a little curious. What do you think about genetically engineered foods? How about selectively bred dogs? The scripture mentions plenty on the treatment of your animal and which ones are fine to eat and which ones are dirty, but as far as I know there is no mention of genetic engineering or selective breeding anywhere. Perhaps you could enlighten me?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by mike the wiz, posted 06-17-2006 1:06 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 210 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 57 of 112 (322686)
06-17-2006 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by mike the wiz
06-17-2006 1:06 PM


I've only told the truth, that I personally, will not say "I find gaydom to be fine by God".

You've said more than that. You've pushed that definition to everyone, even those that do not believe in God.

I agree that it is not ok by the standards set forth by the bible. But it was not my motivation for being against it. I knew from an early age, from studying grade school history, that religious morals exclusively, do not belong in our governement. Because religion is subjective and varies too much. I might get forced into believing something I don't, or pretending I do.

If smoking is legal, why can't being gay?
I wouldn't choose to do either. Does that mean I support smoking?

You still haven't given a secular reason to be against it. So I am now assuming you don't have one. That could only mean one thing, and that is that you wish there was no separation between church and state.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by mike the wiz, posted 06-17-2006 1:06 PM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by mike the wiz, posted 06-18-2006 11:58 AM riVeRraT has responded

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 1716 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 58 of 112 (322813)
06-18-2006 4:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by riVeRraT
06-15-2006 8:54 AM


I have not read through the whole thread yet, but I just wanted to throw my opinion in before I respond to any post in particular (besides the OP).

I am a lesbian and I respect that you have a degree of uncomfortability with homosexuality. Many people do and cannot explain it or reconcile it with other personal beliefs. That is acceptable to me because I have the same kind of feelings about other things that I cannot rationally explain.

On that note, I would like to address same-sex marriage. I respect religious views regarding marriage and I hold that each religion has the right to dictate how they will operate and what they believe, of course as long as they do not harm others. I do not think that same-sex couples should demand that they be accepted by every religious denomination and it follows that they should not demand to be married in certain houses of worship.
Marriage as we know it in western society stems from the Judeo-Christian view of marriage, however it is no longer solely a religious institution. In America, any heterosexual couple can go to Vegas and get married on the spot or get a piece of paper and stand before a judge. It has become as much a civil contract as a religious one and, as such, should not be confined by religious views of what marriage should be. I have a few religious gay friends who feel pained that they cannot be married in the eyes of their god in a church, but I know of no one personally who is demanding that they should. The most common theme I hear is that we should be able to enter in legally recognized unions for the purposes of easier adoption, hospital visitations, property rights, health insurance purposes and inheritance, in other words, civil rights. Personally, all I care about is consecrating my union in the eyes of the one I love and my family, but I can see where a legally recognized union (or even simply a piece paper granting the above-mentioned rights with or without recognizing a "union") could benefit my partner and myself and I will fight for these rights. Any opposition to these rights that stinks of religion is unacceptable to me. Christians have the right to define marriage however they want, as do Jews, Hindus, Muslims, animists, pagans, Zoroastrians, etc, but that definition should only apply to their particular ceremonies and should not be foisted on the larger public (and someone who has objections to my having these rights does not have to personally accept them, but if you think about it, the contract is really between the couple and the clerk who puts the rubber stamp on it...no one beyond that should give it a second thought...I know I sure don't give a hoot who is getting "married" in the courthouse today).

I'll probably get into more detail as I delve further into the conversation, but I'll leave it as this for now.

By the way, hello everyone...I'm new here. Don't feel like you have to take it easy one me, but I'm all for anyone kindly showing me the ropes :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by riVeRraT, posted 06-15-2006 8:54 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by riVeRraT, posted 06-18-2006 7:29 AM Jaderis has not yet responded

    
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 210 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 59 of 112 (322837)
06-18-2006 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Jaderis
06-18-2006 4:54 AM


Welcome Jaderis !

I respect religious views regarding marriage and I hold that each religion has the right to dictate how they will operate and what they believe, of course as long as they do not harm others.

Yes, I have always agreed with that. That is why I needed a secular reason why I should be against it.

But my secular reasoning could be taken as being a bigot, and a hypocrite, even though I don't feel like one, and have no desire to be one, so I am stuck between principals. If anything my Christianinty has pushed me to allow it, in the secular world.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Jaderis, posted 06-18-2006 4:54 AM Jaderis has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4660
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 60 of 112 (322884)
06-18-2006 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by jar
06-17-2006 2:42 PM


Really, where does GOD say that..[snip] also know that you and Paul and some Sadducces and Pharisees and a few others have interpreted the rules to exclude other relationships, but where did GOD exclude other relationships?

That sounds a bit "begging the question" because you have assumed that Paul cannot represent God, and therefore you guarantee I cannot answer on your own terms. IMHO, it's Argumentum ad nauseam for your own ideology, because you're just asserting that your own ideology is correct, via much repetition. So you also assume this is so, and mine isn't so.

Mainstream would agree with the NT, IMHO. Otherwise, can you list what is God's words and what isn't, and why that is so. Otherwise there is no reason to assume your position.

I cannot say that God says it, if you qualify that Paul/NT, isn't the word of God. But then, there is always a writer, so we have to assume that they tell us his word. Even if you believe Christ's words as God's, you have to assume this, because that's also only in writing. Likewise for Yahweh.

The NT says it. Since I am a believer in the NT, then as a believer in the NT, I am allowed to claim it is [my God's] law/rule, which is the reason why I, from my theological perspective, am not obliged to voice praise/confirmation for gay activity.

Why is this a problem to people? I can only guess that they find my own rights to what I believe, as unacceptable, or fallaciously conclude that they are intolerance.

The none-mention of gays in the bible doesn't mean they are not allowed to get married. I have never asserted the contrary. All I have said is that with the information I have, I cannot personally voice a condoning principle. Fair enough?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by jar, posted 06-17-2006 2:42 PM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by nator, posted 06-19-2006 8:07 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019