|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is It Bigoted To Have A Supported Opinion? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1504 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined:
|
dronester writes: Can I paraphrase?: Is there so much piety in life that we can waste it on imaginerary characters? quote: I get the impression from this passage that Jesus felt the same way. We should put our needs above the piety."You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1407 From: usa Joined:
|
Just to clarify, I think you mean "We should put our brother's needs above the piety.'
Good!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Straggler writes: Phat writes: I am using Biblical references as evidence. But are you? Heterosexual oral sex outside of marriage is idolatry (according to you) but once married the same acts are not idolatry. How does that coem from the bible?
Phat writes: The fact that you wont accept my evidence isn't on me. I think the problem is that you are picking your evidence to support your preconceived conclusion.....
Phat writes: Besides, all I am supporting are my beliefs. So if I said you were picking and choosing your biblical "evidence" to support your personal bigoted beliefs - Where would you suggest I have got it wrong? Phat writes: You expect me to form my beliefs from human consensus. Thats where you have it wrong. It is not I who pick and choose. But you obviously are picking and choosing and deciding on the basis of your own personal prejudices. How else could you possibly come to the conclusion that oral sex outside of marriage constitutes "idolatry" but inside of marriage doesn't? Where are you getting this stuff from if not your own prejudices?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Straggler writes: My intuition.
Where are you getting this stuff from if not your own prejudices?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined:
|
Phat writes: Straggler writes: Where are you getting this stuff from if not your own prejudices? My intuition. Exactly. The wisdom of man. Let go of your man-made wisdom, and do what Jesus says... love your neighbour.Love the gays, Phat, Jesus does. Gay sex is not a sin. If you think it is, you're relying on the wisdom of man. Stop judging your neighbour and love him instead.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Straggler writes: Where are you getting this stuff from if not your own prejudices? Phat writes: My intuition. Unless your intuition and the mind of God are one and the same we can conclude two things: 1) Your prejudices are unsupported2) Your prejudices can't really be blamed on God
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 612 days) Posts: 3228 Joined:
|
"intution" is a gut emotional reaction. It is only as good as can be verified in science, and nothing better than 'because I said so' when it comes to religion and ethics.
It sounds to me you are having an emotional reaction, and are trying to force your prejudices on others. The 'article' you presented is nothing but an opinion piece from a conservative Christian perspective, and therefore is not 'support', but merely saying' see, other people are prejudiced the same way I am'. tell me, why do you feel the need to force your choices for yourself on others?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined:
|
ramoss writes: why do you feel the need to force your choices for yourself on others? I think it's mostly personal validation and/or the fear of 'being wrong.' (Or the fear of "having other people think that you are wrong.") It is a basic instinct.It is instinctual for animals to want to act the same and have other people think that they "fit in." The whole strength-in-numbers idea. The fear of ostracization is very basic and can become very large. It takes the use of our (some would even say "God-given") intellect in order to overcome these basic fears/feelings.For those who can do this without much effort, it can be difficult to understand the ideas going through the minds of those who find this difficult to overcome. Hopefully those that rebuke and restrict gay marriage on what they think are Christian terms can follow Jesus to overcome their human-animalistic fears. I think it is very obvious that Jesus would gladly marry gay people.What is the more important sacrament for following Chirst and getting to reside with God in heaven? Marriage or Baptism? I think the answer of "Baptism" is obviously correct. Do you think Jesus would baptise a gay man?I think the answer is a very obvious "of course he would." If Jesus would baptise a gay man, and baptism is a more important sacrament than marriage... then obviously Jesus would also have no problems marrying two gay men, or two gay women. Gay marriage and gay sex are not sins.If anyone thinks they are, they are ignoring (or possibly manipulating) Jesus's commandments to Love God and to Love thy Neighbour. Restricting two men from being happy by having sex and getting married?That's definitely a sin. No love for God there, and certainly no love for your neighbours.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
To support you position and also to provide a little history and background, there are only two sacraments mentioned in the Book of Common Prayer, a protestant document that predates even the Authorized King James Bible; Baptism and Holy Communion. Marriage is among the services listed but it is "Celebrating and blessing a Marriage".
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
The 'article' you presented is nothing but an opinion piece from a conservative Christian perspective, and therefore is not 'support', but merely saying' see, other people are prejudiced the same way I am'.
And so the Nazis weren't bigoted against the Jews, because their views were all supported by Der Strmer, the Nazi propaganda newspaper. Theirs was a supported opinion, just like Phat's. No, I am not calling Phat a Nazi. Rather, his appeals for support from such articles are no more valid than Nazis' appeals for support from their own propaganda rags. It's just that everybody can more readily see that in the Nazis' case. Obviously, support for an opinion does not justify that opinion nor make it true. All that citing sources of that support does is to show others where that opinion comes from. From there, testing the validity of that supporting documentation is a separate matter. Even his citing the Bible for support is problematic. As Thomas Paine correctly pointed out, a document derives its authority from one of two qualities: the validity of its contents and its authorship. Euclid's Geometry is just as valid and valuable regardless of whether Euclid had actually written it, but the books of the Bible depend entirely upon their authorship so if they were not truly written by their purported authors then they lose their validity. Phat and several other people do believe in the claims about the authorship of the Bible and so they seek support in it, but many others do not believe those authorship claims and so appeals to the Bible for support are meaningless. For that matter, quoting from the Bible just amounts to baseless and bare assertions. In the topic that spawned this one, Phat even went so far as to make ludicrous pronouncements about what atheists think and believe all based on false assertions in the Bible. And of course there's the additional wrinkle that Phat and other Bible-believers are depending on their interpretations of assertions gleaned from the Bible and from other non-biblical aspects of their theology. Rather then futilely seeking support for his opinions, he needs to present an actual case for those opinions so that they can stand or fall because of their own validity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2
|
The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus "...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." - Barash, David 1995... "Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends." - Gandalf, J. R. R. Tolkien: The Lord Of the Rings |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
No, I am not calling Phat a Nazi. Rather, his appeals for support from such articles are no more valid than Nazis' appeals for support from their own propaganda rags. It's just that everybody can more readily see that in the Nazis' case. Despite the disclaimer, I'd suggest that Godwin's postulate has been invoked. Nazi comparisons are almost always over the top.
Euclid's Geometry is just as valid and valuable regardless of whether Euclid had actually written it Great example. Although I find it totally cool that we do know exactly who did write it and approximately when, you are right that it is valuable for other reasons that it's authorship.
but the books of the Bible depend entirely upon their authorship so if they were not truly written by their purported authors then they lose their validity I take some issue with this as a blanket statement. In many cases, the authors of books in the Bible are third parties uninvolved in the events that they describe, and the actual identity of the author is of almost no importance. For example, I'd argue that the authorship of Job is completely irrelevant to whatever value is offered by the text. Of course for Bible literalist, every tiny detail of authorship is of heightened importance.
Rather then futilely seeking support for his opinions, he needs to present an actual case for those opinions so that they can stand or fall because of their own validity. There is no real case to be made. I believe the real motivation for bigotry, is that Phat and his ilk find what gays do to be 'icky' (with the possible exception of deeds done by really hot lipsticks) and thus are willing to focus on Bible interpretations prohibiting the practice while ignoring clear prohibitions on the stuff they themselves do. I'll admit to finding gay sex 'icky' myself. I also find runny eggs to be icky, so I don't eat them, rather than taking the step of campaigning to make eating such eggs unconstitutional.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
NoNukes writes: For the record, I find what many hetero couples do to also be icky. I believe the real motivation for bigotry, is that Phat and his ilk find what gays do to be 'icky' (with the possible exception of deeds done by really hot lipsticks) and thus are willing to focus on Bible interpretations prohibiting the practice while ignoring clear prohibitions on the stuff they themselves do. I'll admit to finding gay sex 'icky' myself. I also find runny eggs to be icky, so I don't eat them, rather than taking the step of campaigning to make eating such eggs unconstitutional. I also do not associate myself with an "ilk". My opinions are strictly my own, though I may be accused of being an Ilkodocean. Finally, for the record..I oppose legislation to discriminate in any form. I never advocated campaigning against same sex marriage any more than I advocate campaigning against public free speech even if it borders on "hatred" or intolerance to some. What I have said and will continue to say is that the Spirit of God is alive and through communion with Him, less "icky-ness" will manifest through the fleshly nature of humanity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
dwise1 writes: Not at all. The fact is that you people are simply wrong. God exists and you have an inner nature that hates that fact. I myself am no better than you in my fleshly nature...but I will suggest that in Spirit, you are deluded and wrong. Keep trying to do your best though and don't hate. He loves you as much as He does me.
Phat and several other people do believe in the claims about the authorship of the Bible and so they seek support in it, but many others do not believe those authorship claims and so appeals to the Bible for support are meaningless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
My bad.
I thought this thread was about Bigfoot's opinions.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134 |
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024