Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

01/20/2010 04:56:42 PM · #4101

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

I think that "hunting" and "gathering" both qualify as "painful toil" and "the sweat of your brow".

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Back to......obviously not someone who's ever been out for a walk on a summer afternoon and stumbled upon a wild raspberry patch. Yeah......plopping down with a couple handfuls of one of the finest delicacies on earth is *such* a chore!

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Yes, and the early humans just spent their days aimlessly wandering day in and day out and there was enough of an abundance of raspberry bushes to sustain groups of humans wandering around together for days at a time. Yes, that's exactly what happened. But, I wonder what they did in the winter...

They migrated, they didn't eat much that grew, and they starved.

you'll find this is pretty basic stuff if you read about early man in the days before fire, making tools from stone, learning about pottery......then things happened like the bronze age, we learned about irrigation & agriculture.

Read a little.

Oh, WAIT!!!!!

Never mind, we just sprung up from nothing fully evolved and then there was that little nastiness in the garden......

Nope.....don't buy that whole garden thing, never did, never will.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

01/20/2010 04:59:49 PM · #4102

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

I never argued that humans can't wander around and gather food from plants that grow it naturally, I simply argued that gathering still requires work. In other words, food doesn't just fall into your lap.

So in ye good olde days food DID just fall into your lap? Was it only yummy stuff, with the bad fats and cholesterol magically removed, or did tripe and jackfruit jump in there too? OK seriously, how exactly do you think food was acquired before we had to suffer the indignity of picking or hunting it? In the tropics (including the Middle East), edible plants and animals grow year round all by themselves. And...?

01/20/2010 05:14:10 PM · #4103

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

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.

My eyes work just fine.

I do not buy into your beliefs. Period.

You may decide that I am an abomination because of that, but I don't judge you and decide you're this or that because of some arbitrary writings like what you want to hang your hat on.

I won't tell you how to live, or what you have to believe, I leave that to you, and that is exactly why I want nothing to do with what you hold as faith and beliefs.

I don't think I have to save you from yourself, you want to believe what I think is crazy stuff, that's your right, but I would never tell you how you have to live. Why do you feel that you can tell me?

You have made it abundantly clear, again and again, that we are all lesser unless we accept your way.

And you wonder why we get snarky with you?

If I tell you you are scum of the earth until you accept my idea of "how it is" how would you feel about that?

Of course, then I'd get all patronizing about it and infer that you have every right to live however you want, but then I'd remind you that you won't be saved unless you come over to my side.

It's arrogant, presumptuous, and the whole idea that a seemingly intelligent human being would be completely closed-minded to the distinct possibility that you could be wrong, which a reasonable and logical human should consider in the face of no proof whatsoever, then it's completely impossible to have a conversation with you.

The main difference between us is that there are those of us who understand the concept of, "What if you're wrong?".

Those of you who are blind in your faith, and willingly do things without a logical basis cannot entertain that concept because it would have the whole thing collapse. If you don't hold your beliefs to be unerringly true, then the whole thing falls down except as some allegorical lessons. Then you can't use the bible to strongarm people into bending to your will.

Unfortunately, as life goes on, and people continue to grow and learn, it becomes obvious that less and less of the bible is practical and applicable to real life any more. You can't stand it, and you refuse to acknowledge it. As long as this kind of rationale for things that just don't work any more continues, there will continue to be issues with the way you treat others outside your faith.

And an awful lot of us don't much like the way you act toward us.

ETA: Re: your comment above about my "very breath".....WTF is an involuntary choice????

Message edited by author 2010-01-20 18:20:29.

Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8L USM

01/20/2010 06:01:37 PM · #4104

Originally posted by yanko:

If you mean judging behavior then I would agree. If you're referring to simply the genetic component then no. There is no basis in which to judge for me personally or for society given it's laws. Now, I can see how you would on a personal level since for you the Bible is your rule book. Now if this country were also governed by the Bible it would also make sense for it to judge the genetic component but since that's not the case any judgement should be based on the Constitution, a fact you continue to avoid.

I'll pick your response to respond to Richard. I am not making the argument that merely being genetically homosexual is "bad" if that helps you. I do mean judging behavior.

I don't quite get the rest of your post, except I am not arguing that we become a theocracy. I buy into the constituiton and if the supreme court decides that gay marriage is protected under it, then so be it. Up to this moment it has not (people act sometimes like it is a foregone conclusion).

johnnyphoto

Canon EOS-450D Rebel XSi

01/20/2010 06:14:54 PM · #4105

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

You may decide that I am an abomination because of that, but I don't judge you and decide you're this or that because of some arbitrary writings like what you want to hang your hat on.

I think this is the fourth time I've had to say this, but it's still not getting through apparently. People are not abominations, not you, not anyone. That is what I believe.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

I don't think I have to save you from yourself, you want to believ crazy stuff, that's your right, but I would never tell you how you have to live. Why do you feel that you can tell me?

I'm not trying to tell you how to live. The idea that I'm trying to tell you how to live is your own assumption, and I have no idea why you think that. The entire time I've participated in this discussion I've only expressed what I believe, and explained those beliefs to those who have asked. I beg you to find one post in which I attempted to tell you how to live your life.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

You have made it abundantly clear, again and again, that we are all lesser unless we accept your way.

How did I do that? If I made that clear somehow, I assure you it was completely accidental, but I think it's just another one of your assumptions.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

If I tell you you are scum of the earth until you accept my idea of "how it is" how would you feel about that?

I would probably be offended. But again, I never called anyone the scum of the earth. On the contrary, I believe that I've stated repeatedly that I strongly believe in the idea that all humans are beautiful and lovable as they are created in the image of God, who is beautiful and lovable. I think that this is yet another one of your assumptions. Perhaps you have a preexisting notion that Christians believe all non-Christians are scum, and you are assuming I believe the same?

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

It's arrogant, presumptuous, and the whole idea that a seemingly intelligent human being would be completely closed-minded to the distinct possibility that you could be wrong, which a reasonable and logical human should be in the face of no proof whatsoever, then it's completely impossible to have a conversation with you.

Interesting... since you don't seem all that open to the distinct possibility that you could be wrong either. And I would argue that it is impossible to have a conversation with you for that same reason. Every time I mention anything about my faith, you immediately disregard it as absurdity, while calling me obtuse, arrogant, unobservant, clueless, and pathetic. If I want to argue with someone who will call me names in return, I will go to the local kindergarten.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

The main difference between us is that there are those of us who understand the concept of, "What if you're wrong?".

Those of you who are blind in your faith, and willingly do things without a logical basis cannot entertain that concept because it would have the whole thing collapse. If you don't hold your beliefs to be unerringly true, then the whole thing falls down except as some allegorical lessons. Then you can't use the bible to strongarm people into bending to your will.

I assure you that my faith is anything but blind. My faith is based experience, education, and sound reasoning. Logic and reasoning have been used in conjunction with religion and philosophy for thousands of years. Does Plato, Socrates, or Thucydides ring a bell?

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Unfortunately, as life goes on, and people continue to grow and learn, it becomes obvious that less and less of the bible is practical and applicable to real life any more. And you can't stand it, and you refuse to acknowledge it. As long as this kind of rationale for things that just don't work any more continues, there will continue to be issues with the way you treat others outside your faith.

Consider that you might be wrong as you suggested. What if the Bible is still completely applicable and relevant to real life, and society is just growing further and further away from the ideal? If that's true, then those that follow society will believe the Bible is irrelevant, while those that follow the Bible will believe society is just more corrupt.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

And an awful lot of us don't much like the way you act toward us.

You mean you don't like it when people respond to your questions and criticism? Would you prefer that I just accept everything you say as truth? You are contradicting yourself. You say that blind faith is unacceptable, but sound faith and the ability to defend one's faith is also unacceptable? Would you prefer that I not respond to your questions, believe everything you say, and just bend to your will? If so, that's another self-contradiction.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

ETA: Re: your comment above about my "very breath".....WTF is an involuntary choice????

My bad, I should have said "involuntary action".

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

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

01/20/2010 06:57:50 PM · #4106

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by yanko:
If you mean judging behavior then I would agree. If you're referring to simply the genetic component then no. There is no basis in which to judge for me personally or for society given it's laws. Now, I can see how you would on a personal level since for you the Bible is your rule book. Now if this country were also governed by the Bible it would also make sense for it to judge the genetic component but since that's not the case any judgement should be based on the Constitution, a fact you continue to avoid.

I'll pick your response to respond to Richard. I am not making the argument that merely being genetically homosexual is "bad" if that helps you. I do mean judging behavior.

I don't quite get the rest of your post, except I am not arguing that we become a theocracy. I buy into the constituiton and if the supreme court decides that gay marriage is protected under it, then so be it. Up to this moment it has not (people act sometimes like it is a foregone conclusion).

The point is you haven't offered a single Constitutional basis for denying gay marriage. You insist upon appealing to the masses and appeal to your belief as a basis and both are fallacious arguments and need not apply.

Correction: You did argue there's harm in allowing gay marriage. However, I've yet to see you address the inherit problem with this that Shannon brought up (i.e. interracial and interfaith marriages) unless of course you are also against those as well on similar grounds.

Message edited by author 2010-01-20 19:01:08.

01/20/2010 06:59:34 PM · #4107

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

You may decide that I am an abomination because of that, but I don't judge you and decide you're this or that because of some arbitrary writings like what you want to hang your hat on.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

I think this is the fourth time I've had to say this, but it's still not getting through apparently. People are not abominations, not you, not anyone. That is what I believe.

This is what you said:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

God is holy, which means that every voluntary and involuntary action, both good and bad, is an abomination without faith.

I don't have your faith, ergo, everything I do is an abomination according to your beliefs, correct?

How is that not judging, not telling me how to be, or conveying that by not having your beliefs that I am lesser?

That's just being dishonest by claiming that you don't specifically say that.

It sure implies all of those things.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Interesting... since you don't seem all that open to the distinct possibility that you could be wrong either.

I'm wrong on a daily basis, and I'll be wrong again tomorrow about something. It's called a learning process, which is something that I relish. Please show me where I ever claimed not to be open to being wrong.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Really??? Then how come there's so little proof of the claims of the bible?

Once again, you know perfectly well you cannot prove the existence of God, so just start with that omne little detail.

You also have yet to offer one shred of logic and reason to support your faith.

You cannot, it's faith, it's neither reasonable or logical. If you cannot realize that, then you don't understand what reason and logic are, or what faith is by definition.

I just looked up faith in a dictionary:

Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

But it's not......slavery, ergotism, concubines, pork, seafood, and the list goes on and on of things that have been proven to be dead wrong.

Therefore, you have to accept that other parts of it may be subject to question, and open to interpretation. I domn't know why this never seems to stick, but again, even Christian biblical scholars disagree on many points.

How, if that is the case, can it be completely applicable and relevant if people of your own faith cannot agree on its meaning?

Yet you claim that this ever-controversial publication has all the answers for life. That's just scary to me. It is not reasonable or logical to ignore the very real issues that surround that publication.

01/20/2010 07:08:14 PM · #4108

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

I think this is the fourth time I've had to say this, but it's still not getting through apparently. People are not abominations, not you, not anyone. That is what I believe.

Yay, I get to call bullshit.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

If you don't know and love God, then even your very breath... is an abomination.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

01/20/2010 07:08:29 PM · #4109

I can't do this any more.

This makes me nuts, makes me disagreeable, and I want to offer my apologies to anyone and everyone I may have offended, not that one random apology should carry much weight after all of this.

It is apparent to me, and maybe I'm the last one, that I just cannot reconcile the discrimination against gays based on the bible. It just is not right, decent, or fair on any level in my opinion, and it makes me nuts to listen to people try to justify it.

I think my ravings do not add anything to the discussion, so I will take myself out of it. I hope that someday people of faith will come to accept that gay people are just that......*people* who are good and decent, and just regular folks trying their best to go through life without messing with anyone. All they want is to be accorded the same decency and respect that anyone else in life is entitled to......I hope with all my heart that I will see that in my lifetime.

Again, my apologies.

Apple iPhone 5

01/20/2010 07:33:58 PM · #4110

** Warning: This post has been hidden as it may content mature content. Click here to show the post.

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

01/20/2010 07:43:07 PM · #4111

I think the answer is going to be, "All of the above."

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

01/20/2010 08:14:05 PM · #4112

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

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.

Are people really convinced by this stuff? It is like the beginning of a bad SF&F book.

How on earth have we got to the position that highly educated people would rather believe this gobbledigook than the basic facts. Pick up a half decent textbook that explains how the earth was formed and how and why tectonic plate movements cause earthquakes. There is no need for faith: we have actual facts and evidence.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8L USM

01/20/2010 08:41:52 PM · #4113

Originally posted by Matthew:

^ What he said. Yikes.

johnnyphoto

Canon EOS-450D Rebel XSi

01/20/2010 08:42:18 PM · #4114

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

You are not lesser. All men are sinners. I am a sinner and many of my actions are abominations. So if you're lesser, then I'm lesser with you. I'm not the judge. God is the judge. I'm not judging, I'm just relaying the words of the judge as best I can.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

I can't show you where you claimed not to be open to being wrong because you didn't say it. But I didn't say it either. That's my point. If I can't assume that you're not open to being wrong, then why can you assume that I'm not open to being wrong? I have said that I believe the Bible is truth, but I never said everything else is false and void of all truth.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Let's examine the definition that you found...

Faith is belief that does not rest on logical proof. What that means is that faith does not rely on logic. In other words, you do not need proof or logic in order to have faith. However, the definition does not mean that faith is illogical. What your definition basically says is this: Faith is belief that does not require logical proof or material evidence in order to be believable. Let me put it this way. Belief does not require logic, but logic can help to validate a particular belief.

Religious beliefs (or faith) are logical, but you need to be a person of that faith in order for the logic to make sense. The best thing to compare it to is scientific theory. Scientists take something known, something material, and use it to develop a theory about something else. The theory is of course not a proven fact, but it makes logical sense based on what has already been observed. Similarly, theologians take something material (such as historical text, or even something natural) and use it to develop a theory about God, which cannot be proven. Then you can of course take it a step further. Many new scientific theories are based on other previous scientific theories, but are still very logical. The same is true for religion. You can base some theological ideas on previous theological ideas, and they can be logical.

Basically, you're not going to think that the theory of everything is logical unless you already believe that string theory is logical. And it all becomes wacky when you consider that quantum mechanics and the theory of general relativity are incompatible. The same could be said for any given religious belief.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

But it's not......slavery, ergotism, concubines, pork, seafood, and the list goes on and on of things that have been proven to be dead wrong.

Yes, slavery and concubines and all the rest are unacceptable in many societies (but not all). However, while the Bible is 100% relevant for understanding God, the Bible is also 100% contextual. In the Bible some of the rules for living were only applicable to people that lived thousands of years ago. You need to study the Bible carefully in order to find out which teachings are applicable for living in the 21st century.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Therefore, you have to accept that other parts of it may be subject to question, and open to interpretation. I domn't know why this never seems to stick, but again, even Christian biblical scholars disagree on many points.

How, if that is the case, can it be completely applicable and relevant if people of your own faith cannot agree on its meaning?

Christianity has a diversity of beliefs just like science has a diversity of theories. You're saying that Christian theologians have differing beliefs, therefore it is impossible to know who is right, therefore all of them are wrong. By the same logic I could say that scientists have differing theories, therefore it is impossible to know which theories are right, therefore all scientific theories are wrong.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Yet you claim that this ever-controversial publication has all the answers for life. That's just scary to me. It is not reasonable or logical to ignore the very real issues that surround that publication.

Many people claim that science, with all it's controversial theories, has all the answers for life. That's scary to me.

johnnyphoto

Canon EOS-450D Rebel XSi

Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8L USM

01/20/2010 08:43:53 PM · #4115

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I think this is the fourth time I've had to say this, but it's still not getting through apparently. People are not abominations, not you, not anyone. That is what I believe.

Yay, I get to call bullshit.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
If you don't know and love God, then even your very breath... is an abomination.

For the fifth or sixth time...

Person = not abomination
action = abomination

Person breathing = not abomination
act of breathing = abomination

No BS, no contradiction.

Apple iPhone 5

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

01/20/2010 08:48:00 PM · #4116

Originally posted by Louis:

I think the answer is going to be, "All of the above."

According to johnnyphoto (if I've interpreted him correctly) question 1 is not an abomination, it's number 2 downwards that cause the problem.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

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

01/20/2010 08:50:22 PM · #4117

Funny, I think I'd find the act of not breathing to be an abomination ...

Apple iPhone 5

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

01/20/2010 08:52:15 PM · #4118

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Funny, I think I'd find the act of not breathing to be an abomination ...

Breathing is fine if you're a Christian. Only non-Christians have to hold their breaths for fear of displeasing god.

01/20/2010 08:56:33 PM · #4119

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I think this is the fourth time I've had to say this, but it's still not getting through apparently. People are not abominations, not you, not anyone. That is what I believe.

Yay, I get to call bullshit.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
If you don't know and love God, then even your very breath... is an abomination.

For the fifth or sixth time...

Person = not abomination
action = abomination

Person breathing = not abomination
act of breathing = abomination

No BS, no contradiction.

All of the verbal contortions in the world won't save you from the inherent absurdity of the beliefs you hold.

01/20/2010 09:20:41 PM · #4120

I think it would be fun to play 20 questions where we pick a topic, someone states a position and they have to answer the next 20 questions posed to them. Johnny is making a valiant effort (although I don't agree with everything), but so many people here have never been on the hot seat. Anybody else want to explain suffering in the world?

01/20/2010 09:24:09 PM · #4121

What's to explain? We're biological animals with nervous systems sensitised to pain and social behaviour that helps us survive but that, together with other evolutionary factors, paves the way for ingroup/outgroup behaviour that causes suffering. Also, the earth is made up of tectonic plates that shift.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

01/20/2010 09:47:21 PM · #4122

I really think that whole shifting thing needs to be fixed.

Also, for those of you who haven't, may want to read "A Short History of Nearly Everything". Shifting plates is only one of our worries. Volcanos can be more of a problem and in a really big way. But the book itself is fascinating. Has a little of everything. May actually satisfy both evolutionists and creationists when you get right down to it.

Jason, not buying your "harm" arguments. Still waiting for someone to conclusively explain to me why two gay people married to each other can cause harm to any other individual.

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

01/20/2010 10:20:16 PM · #4123

Originally posted by Louis:

Well, you yourself have said that "suffering is bad". Why do you attach this adjective to something that needs to explanation and is merely the way things are?

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

01/20/2010 10:31:09 PM · #4124

Is playing word games an immutable characteristic or a conscious choice?

Suffering is "bad" because it hurts the sufferer, and for beings with a sense of empathy and compassion it hurts vicariously. Or perhaps you'd like to argue that suffering is "good" ...