Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

01/20/2010 11:34:35 AM · #4051

Originally posted by scalvert:

The Christian perspective is not the same as a secular one. Religious objections to homosexuality are based upon the idea that it's a sinâ�� a conscious choiceâ�� because if a perfect God actually created people that way, then it obviously couldn't be an abomination in His eyes. I already addressed Ray's point. You didn't.

Had you pointed this out earlier we could have avoided a whole lot. Notice your edit addition in your original post was put in after I posted my response. You could have simply said, "see my post above, I added some stuff that might pertain here." But you rather chose to say things like "your argument is absurd" and leave it at that. Be a pal and help people see your argument...

01/20/2010 11:34:54 AM · #4052

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Last night Ray made the argument that Johnny was a boob for judging homosexuality because it was genetic.

Your first response on the issue was a "pile on" comment which infers that you agreed with him Johnny was, indeed, quite a boob for doing exactly what Ray accused him of doing.

I came on and said, wait, we've been over this before and I thought we had come to the conclusion that that argument was a bad one.

Your replied that my argument (or analogy) was "absurd".

I take the time to restate my argument and perhaps do a better job (leaving out the provocative words).

Now without blinking you say, "oh, not applicable."

Correct. Johnny and Ray were speaking about religious views on homosexuality. You're trying to argue from an entirely different context. I would be more than happy to do the same in return, but I can guarantee you won't like it, and I'd be doing so knowing the argument was fallacious.

01/20/2010 11:35:40 AM · #4053

see my post above.

01/20/2010 11:36:55 AM · #4054

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Notice your edit addition in your original post was put in after I posted my response. You could have simply said, "see my post above, I added some stuff that might pertain here." But you rather chose to say things like "your argument is absurd" and leave it at that. Be a pal and help people see your argument...

See my last 4,000 posts. ;-)

01/20/2010 11:43:44 AM · #4055

Had I known the argument was specifically about that then I would not have chimed in because Johnny had responded with a decent answer.

01/20/2010 11:59:11 AM · #4056

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Johnny had responded with a decent answer.

I'm surprised you liked that answer since it implied both that homosexuality was a creation of God (and therefore not an abomination) and that animals must also have free will since they are guilty of the same "sinful choice."

01/20/2010 12:07:55 PM · #4057

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Johnny had responded with a decent answer.

I'm surprised you liked that answer since it implied both that homosexuality was a creation of God (and therefore not an abomination) and that animals must also have free will since they are guilty of the same "sinful choice."

Ya, that's not quite the way I read it...

01/20/2010 12:18:41 PM · #4058

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Except for two things......one, you didn't answer Ray's question.

Do you mean this question?

Originally posted by RayEthier:

If indeed sins are are abominations, and considering that a gay lifestyle is not a choice, does it not follow that you are calling gays an abomination due to factors beyond their control.

If so, here was my answer:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

So, to answer your question, yes. Gays, straights, and everyone else are sinners for reasons beyond control(remember actions are abominations, not people).

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

If homosexuality is not a choice, then how is it an abomination?

Make sure you're eyeballs are working this time, because I've already said this more than once.
Without Christ, everyone's actions are abominations in God's eyes. Christ provides forgiveness for our actions (abominations).
Let me make this even clearer to you. If you don't know and love God, then even your very breath (which is an involuntary choice) is an abomination. Hebrews 11:6, "And without faith it is impossible to please God". God is holy, which means that every voluntary and involuntary action, both good and bad, is an abomination without faith. But God is also loving, which means he gives us a chance to love him back rather than simply squashing us like we all deserve. Capiche?

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

I refuse to be branded for what someone supposedly did a couple of thousand years ago, which of course, you cannot prove in the first place.

Being a sinner just means you're spiritually dead and separated from God. Calling someone a sinner doesn't mean that their disgusting and unlovable, it just means that they don't know and love God. It's not really meant to be derogatory, it's just the state that unbelievers are in. In the Bible believers are not called sinners, they are called saints, because their identity is no longer in what they do but in what Christ has done, even though saints continue to sin.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Oh, another stellar choice! I guess you're unaware that alcoholism is a disease with a genetic predisposition?

According to evolution, isn't everything about us genetically predetermined? Even the good choices we make are genetically predetermined because they were passed down from our ancestors as beneficial to survival. Correct? So when we say we are helping others out of the kindness of our hearts, that's only because "kindness of heart" was at one time a helpful attribute to one of our ancestors.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Again, it seem like you really don't know much about people.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

If you choose to be deliberately obtuse...

So now I'm an obtuse, discriminatory, arrogant murderer that just doesn't understand anything... Thank you for all the kind judgments of my character!

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

If you choose to be deliberately obtuse, then you won't be taken seriously. You know exactly what Ray is referring to with his remarks. So long as you condone the discrimination, by your beliefs or otherwise, then you are tacitly supporting the more radical steps taken by fundamentalists. You may not like it, but that's pretty much the way it is.

By that logic, you could say that a person who does not vote for or against abortion rights is the same as a person who sets fire to a planned parenthood clinic. In other words, indifference is equivalent to radicalism. I'll think about that one, but I just don't see it...

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

What I cannot understand is why those of you who have these beliefs insist that despite all evidence to the contrary that it somehow affects your lives.

No one yet has remotely been able to address that. And as long as this country is based on the precepts of freedom of, and from, religion, you are encroaching on other citizens.

And that, is wrong.

Actually, I did address that in my very first post in this thread. Allow me to refresh your memory.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

12/17/2009 05:06:53 PM
Marriage is just a word. All Christians should accept that just because the government or secular society calls something "marriage", that doesn't change the definition or meaning of Christian marriage.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

01/20/2010 12:29:10 PM · #4059

And just because I can and no one will even notice, Allah and Islam must be the correct choices because God/Allah chose to give all the oil and wealth to those who are of the Islamic faith. And most of the camels, which is probably somehow significant. Haitians on the other hand are obviously immoral. Gosh it's fun to be back in the land where the press is in my native language....

Carry on.

01/20/2010 12:42:07 PM · #4060

Originally posted by Melethia:

Your thoughts have been around for a long time...

About that time some people came up and told him about the Galileans Pilate had killed while they were at worship, mixing their blood with the blood of the sacrifices on the altar. Jesus responded, "Do you think those murdered Galileans were worse sinners than all other Galileans? Not at all. Unless you turn to God, you, too, will die. And those eighteen in Jerusalem the other day, the ones crushed and killed when the Tower of Siloam collapsed and fell on them, do you think they were worse citizens than all other Jerusalemites? Not at all. Unless you turn to God, you, too, will die."

.....

This is what God does. He gives his bestâ��the sun to warm and the rain to nourishâ��to everyone, regardless: the good and bad, the nice and nasty.

Message edited by author 2010-01-20 12:42:28.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

01/20/2010 12:46:32 PM · #4061

Those aren't really my thoughts, you know. Just stuff spouted on the media in light of that TV minister guy's proclamation that the Haitians had it coming with respect to the earthquake.

01/20/2010 12:49:05 PM · #4062

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Ya, that's not quite the way I read it...

'Natch. Let's break it down. Ray's question, and my follow up:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Perhaps you could help this old fella understand the Christian perspective. If indeed sins are are abominations, and considering that a gay lifestyle is not a choice, does it not follow that you are calling gays an abomination due to factors beyond their control. Similarly, if God is angered by what Gays do, do you not find it problematic that this God supposedly loves everyone.

Originally posted by scalvert:

The whole religious argument against homosexuality is that it's a sinâ�� a free will decision against God's will. If it's NOT a choice, then the faithful would have to accept that they're vilifying God's willful creation. In the unlikely event that it IS a defiant act of free will, the the faithful face another problem: explaining why many/most mammals also exhibit homosexuality when the the same religion only ascribes free will to humans.

Johnny's explanation of sin:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

We are all sinners for reasons we can't control, but also for reasons we can control. Sin is basically anything that displeases God. We are all sinners from birth because we are born into a state of spiritual deadness to God, and God isn't pleased with the fact that we are spiritually separated from him. That is beyond our control.

OK, so by this statement, a perfect God is creating things that displease him without exception from the outset (and requiring salvation for this manufacturer's defect under a threat of eternal torment). This should be a non-starter. Per my earlier comparison, it's like Walt Disney considering Donald Duck mortally flawed for not wearing pants and threatening unimaginable torture over it (actually, it's more like Walt Disney being displeased with EVERY character he draws unless they profess faith that he murdered Roy Disney to satisfy the egregious error of being cartoon figures, but I digress).

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

However, everyone consciously chooses to do things their way instead of God's way sometimes. Therefore, sin is both a state (beyond control) and an action (within control). So, to answer your question, yes. Gays, straights, and everyone else are sinners for reasons beyond control(remember actions are abominations, not people).

Given that "homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them," if homosexuality is a sin and a conscious choice, then it must follow that 500-1500 animals have Free Will and are sinners. The only alternative from a religious standpoint must be that they were intentionally created that way by God and homosexuality cannot therefore be an abomination.

01/20/2010 12:51:52 PM · #4063

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

This is what God does. He gives his bestâ��the sun to warm and the rain to nourishâ��to everyone, regardless: the good and bad, the nice and nasty.

Apparently not just his best.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

01/20/2010 01:03:51 PM · #4064

I'm not sure how to answer your question Shannon. I could put a ton of effort into explaining what is, honestly, a very thorny issue, but would it be worthwhile? If I went through hours of discussing things, at the end wouldn't you just tell me, "well, I don't believe in God anyway" or "that's 2,000 year old hogwash".

The animals part is easy. In the Christian perspective animals are amoral. Their actions, like your examples of red hair and dwarfism, are not open to moral judgement. At least I don't think they are, and if they are, then that's the baboon's problem and not mine.

The rest is harder. The answer is likely to be found in Romans 6-9. I don't know if you want to take the time to read it and I don't know if you will like the ultimate answer. But I suggest you start there.

Message edited by author 2010-01-20 13:06:14.

Louis

Nikon D800

01/20/2010 01:10:54 PM · #4065

I think the point is that you can't ultimately reconcile your faith-based beliefs and the world around you, animals as well as people impacted by your religion included. Not that you've claimed to, or want to.

01/20/2010 01:12:57 PM · #4066

Originally posted by Louis:

Expand just a bit. I'm not quite sure I get what you are saying.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/20/2010 01:23:39 PM · #4067

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by scalvert:

But, God is not the creator or manufacturer of sin and evil. Satan is the author of evil. God created everything to be all good, and Satan's goal is to corrupt everything that's good. So, to revise your Walt Disney analogy... Walt Disney's original intention was that all his cartoon characters be drawn with pants. Walt's first character, Mickey Mouse, was created perfect just the way Walt wanted him. But one day, Roy Disney came along and convinced Mickey to take his pants off. As a result, all of Mickey's descendants (Donald Duck, Goofy, etc...) follow in Mickey's footsteps and also choose to willingly take off their pants. Now, Walt doesn't like his pant-less characters, but he doesn't want to force them to do want he wants, because then his characters are just robots with no capacity to genuinely love Walt. So, instead of forcing his characters to put their pants back on, Walt came up with a plan. Walt sent his son to fix the problem. Walt's son came as a cartoon character with all the power of his father to make new pants. Walt didn't want to just give the characters new pants for free because Walt wasn't the one who screwed up, and besides, when parents fix all the problems that their kids make, the kids don't learn anything. So the son sacrificed himself and offered new pants to all the characters. This way, a price was paid for the pants so they weren't just freebies, and the cartoon characters have to admit their wrong and believe in the son before they can get the new pants (so that they can learn their lesson). Now, the characters can have new pants and Walt is happy again. The End.

Man scalvert... that's the weirdest gospel analogy anyone has ever made me tell.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Again, that's not true because God does not create evil. The correct Christian view would be that all of creation is under the influence of Satan, and thus Satan tries to corrupt all of it. For example, God did not create disease and death, but Satan has corrupted life so that even small organisms and microorganisms are corrupted and no longer function how God originally intended. Like I said earlier, sin is both a state and an action. Humans with free will choose to go against God's will (act of sin). While all of creation, including animals without free wills, are subject to the reality that the universe is in a state of sin.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

01/20/2010 01:38:20 PM · #4068

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

As a result, all of Mickey's descendants (Donald Duck, Goofy, etc...) ...

I don't think I want to think about the procreative activities required for Mickey Mouse to beget Donald Duck ... though I guess they are easier to do without pants ... :-(

01/20/2010 01:46:06 PM · #4069

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This is what God does. He gives his bestâ��the sun to warm and the rain to nourishâ��to everyone, regardless: the good and bad, the nice and nasty.

Apparently not just his best.

Considering my above post, the corrupted state of the universe also explains natural disasters. God is capable of creating disasters and destruction, and he wielded that power in the Old Testament. Before Christ, God's anger was not yet satisfied (by Christ's death) and so his wrath was directed at mankind, so natural disasters were, at that time, just. When Christ died he bore God's wrath and satisfied his anger toward mankind, so God no longer uses natural disasters against mankind. Today, the universe and nature are still under the influence of Satan's corruption so that even the plates of the earth do not shift in the way that God originally intended them to. You might ask, "well couldn't God stop the earthquakes if he wanted?" The answer is yes, he could. So then you ask, "so if God is good and able to stop earthquakes then why doesn't he stop them?" The answer is that we don't know. This explanation is from The Reason for God by Timothy Keller that I recommended earlier. If you say, "there is no good reason to allow suffering, so God shouldn't allow it." What you are really saying is, "I can't think of any good reason why there should be suffering, so that means there is no good reason." In other words, if you don't agree with XYZ, nobody can agree with XYZ. This person has an immense amount of faith that their understanding is the only possible understanding. Sound familiar? That's what Christians believe, and it's called faith.

In order to avoid criticism that I don't have my own ideas, I will offer my own explanation for natural disasters. If God forces nature to do what he wants, but he doesn't force humans to do what he wants, that is an inconsistency. God is not inconsistent. God's character is consistent, and never changes. In other words, if God shielded all of creation from Satan's corruption except for humans, that would be a massive contradiction.

Message edited by author 2010-01-20 13:47:19.

01/20/2010 01:46:51 PM · #4070

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

God is not the creator or manufacturer of sin and evil. Satan is the author of evil.

Now you have a problem reconciling omniscience. God is supposed to be the creator of EVERYTHING.

01/20/2010 01:54:11 PM · #4071

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Today, the universe and nature are still under the influence of Satan's corruption so that even the plates of the earth do not shift in the way that God originally intended them to.

Whoa... that's giving pants-optional cartoon characters some serious competition on the weirdness scale. This is the first time I've ever heard anyone claim rocks were subject to corruption. You're also ascribing omnipotence to Satan. Is there some provision in the Bible for deities other than God wielding supernatural powers? Plate tectonics aren't evil, and shifting in any manner is what we call an earthquake.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Before Christ, God's anger was not yet satisfied (by Christ's death) and so his wrath was directed at mankind, so natural disasters were, at that time, just. When Christ died he bore God's wrath and satisfied his anger toward mankind, so God no longer uses natural disasters against mankind.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

God is not inconsistent. God's character is consistent, and never changes.

Oopsie... you just said he changed his policy toward natural disasters above. I'm pretty sure my insurance policy still calls natural disasters an act of God, though, and this is also the first time I've ever heard anyone claim that natural disasters were God's work before Christ and all Satan afterwards.

Message edited by author 2010-01-20 14:00:08.

01/20/2010 01:54:46 PM · #4072

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
God is not the creator or manufacturer of sin and evil. Satan is the author of evil.

Now you have a problem reconciling omniscience. God is supposed to be the creator of EVERYTHING.

He is the creator of everything. Sin, or evil, is simply using your God-created free will to choose to go against God's will. God gave Lucifer a free will and instead of freely and willfully choosing to love God, Lucifer chose to love himself and thus became Satan. The same is true for Adam and all of mankind. In other words God created free will, but he does not force anyone to oppose his will (evil). To put it plainly, evil is not created by God, evil is created when we willfully choose to be our own God and choose our own way. Evil is an outcome, or a consequence of an action. God does not create our actions for us, he let's us choose them for ourselves.

01/20/2010 01:56:53 PM · #4073

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

God is not inconsistent. God's character is consistent, and never changes.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Oopsie.

Can you explain "oopsie"? I'm assuming that you're suggesting my above explanation displays an inconsistency in God's character. I will gladly explain why there is not an inconsistency if you elaborate on "oopsie".

Message edited by author 2010-01-20 14:04:18.