DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: MissusDe on October 17, 2008, 04:31:50 PM
-
The latest Protect Marriage Yes on 8 television ad in California shows an incredibly cute 8 year old Hispanic girl bringing the book King and King home to her mother saying "Guess what I learned in school today. . . I can marry a princess!"
The anti-Prop 8, pro gay marriage crowd is running ads charging this whole idea that public schools will teach gay marriage is just a "lie."
The latest press release from the Protect Marriage Yes on 8 campaign in California rather cleverly points out the same groups now charging its a lie public schools will teach about gay marriage whether parents like it or not ? were just in court in Massachussetts filing amicus briefs arguing parents don't have any right to opt their children out of the pro-gay marriage curriculum.
From the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Amicus Curiae Brief:
?In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where the right of same-sex couples to marry is protected under the state constitution, it is particularly important to teach children about families with gay parents.? [p 5]
From the Human Rights Campaign Amicus Curiae Brief:
?There is no constitutional principle grounded in either the First Amendment?s free exercise clause or the right to direct the upbringing of one?s children, which requires defendants to either remove the books now in issue ? or to treat them as suspect by imposing an opt-out system.? [pp1-2]
From the ACLU Amicus Curiae Brief:
?Specifically, the parents in this case do not have a constitutional right to override the professional pedagogical judgment of the school with respect to the inclusion within the curriculum of the age-appropriate children?s book?King and King.? [p 9]
Which side is really telling the truth here about its aims?
http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?action=post;board=1.0 (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?action=post;board=1.0)
-
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-samesex-teachable-oct11,0,4278379.story (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-samesex-teachable-oct11,0,4278379.story)
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=77734 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=77734)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/11/MNFG13F1VG.DTL (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/11/MNFG13F1VG.DTL)
But there was a question of justifying the field trip academically. Jaroflow decided she could.
"It really is what we call a teachable moment," Jaroflow said, noting the historic significance of same-sex marriage and related civil rights issues. "I think I'm well within the parameters."
Yes, a line has been crossed , and that commercial with the little girl seems realistic in the lee of this incident.
In the first line of some of these ,the teacher is absolved of blame by the statement that she was surprised by the presence of her class. Then she picks the blame back up by speaking of it as a teachable moment.
On the bright side , this does bring voters to the polls who might not have been excited by lesser issues.
-
Out of curiosity, why would it hurt children to teach them that some children (very few) have gay parents?
It is a fact. What is the harm in teaching them this? I have two children and I'm a Christian, so I'd like to know.
-
Out of curiosity, why would it hurt children to teach them that some children (very few) have gay parents?
It is a fact. What is the harm in teaching them this? I have two children and I'm a Christian, so I'd like to know.
I don't know what would be the equivelent for you , what a teacher could tell your child that would fill you with horror .
Should one of your chillds teachers tell your child that there is no point in study of scripture?
-
Out of curiosity, why would it hurt children to teach them that some children (very few) have gay parents?
It is a fact. What is the harm in teaching them this? I have two children and I'm a Christian, so I'd like to know.
I don't know what would be the equivelent for you , what a teacher could tell your child that would fill you with horror .
Should one of your chillds teachers tell your child that there is no point in study of scripture?
That is an opinion. I expect my children to know the difference between an opinion and a fact.
It is a fact that some children have homosexual parents. One may form an opinion about that, but it does not change the underlying fact.
-
Out of curiosity, why would it hurt children to teach them that some children (very few) have gay parents?
It is a fact. What is the harm in teaching them this? I have two children and I'm a Christian, so I'd like to know.
I don't know what would be the equivelent for you , what a teacher could tell your child that would fill you with horror .
Should one of your chillds teachers tell your child that there is no point in study of scripture?
That is an opinion. I expect my children to know the difference between an opinion and a fact.
It is a fact that some children have homosexual parents. One may form an opinion about that, but it does not change the underlying fact.
It is a fact that every sort of person has become a parent at one time or another , this absolves every sort of problem ?
I have no idea what you feel you have a right to object to.
Imagine...
Speaker one..
"I am a bank robbing , drug smuggleing , evoloutiong teaching, slave owning ,Satan worshiping , gay , tax avoiding, draft dodgeing , Communist , Klansman , running for congress."
JS_ " I would take issue with you on one or two of those....."
Speaker one...
" And I am a parent."
JS_ " Oh well then , Ok."
-
A few days ago I linked to a site that listed acts of violence against gay people. They have been tortured, mutilated and murdered. While Christian preachers whip up hatred against them, the schools are their last line of defence - - SOMEBODY has to be teaching the kids that it's OK to be gay, that gays don't deserve to be beaten to death in the name of Jesus. We have to change a mindset that teaches all kids through comments from parents, churches and ignoramuses in general that gays are unnatural and "outsiders" - - i.e., fair game.
Shame on anyone who opposes teaching tolerance of alternative lifestyles and sexual diversity.
-
We're told to be tolerant of others. It's clear liberals are not tolerant of views they disagree with. They use the courts to force them on others. One more reason to vote McCain.
-
A few days ago I linked to a site that listed acts of violence against gay people. They have been tortured, mutilated and murdered. While Christian preachers whip up hatred against them, the schools are their last line of defence - - SOMEBODY has to be teaching the kids that it's OK to be gay, that gays don't deserve to be beaten to death in the name of Jesus. We have to change a mindset that teaches all kids through comments from parents, churches and ignoramuses in general that gays are unnatural and "outsiders" - - i.e., fair game.
Shame on anyone who opposes teaching tolerance of alternative lifestyles and sexual diversity.
They are teaching Natzism next, why not?
-
We're told to be tolerant of others. It's clear liberals are not tolerant of views they disagree with. They use the courts to force them on others. One more reason to vote McCain.
You are told to be tolerant. But you like being intolerant of people who deny you your right to be intolerant. So you should vote for someone who believes that intolerance is a God-given right.
McCain has to go alone with intolerant people,because without them he's toast.
-
The intolerant side is heard from. Didn't make much sense, but we heard him.
It is of course true that the only way the left can push it's perverted view of the world on to others in through the courts. Spread the wealth, spread the perversion, spread the disease, spread the misery, it's the only way they get anywhere.
-
We're told to be tolerant of others. It's clear liberals are not tolerant of views they disagree with. They use the courts to force them on others. One more reason to vote McCain.
You are told to be tolerant. But you like being intolerant of people who deny you your right to be intolerant. So you should vote for someone who believes that intolerance is a God-given right.
McCain has to go alone with intolerant people,because without them he's toast.
You really need to look up the meaning of the word tolerance.
It does not mean putting up with what you like , it means allowing what you do not like.
In proper terms are you actually tolerant?
-
<<They are teaching Natzism next, why not?>>
What makes you equate Naziism with homosexuality? Do you really believe them to be equally evil?
-
I think it's clear from some of the comments in this thread that we are past the point of reasoning with these people. We know their thoughts on GLBT people, and we know what they think of teaching tolerance in the schools. We just can't afford to debate with them endlessly about this, to deal over and over again with their hatred, with their irrationality, with their extremism.
We have to go to the school boards and let them know in no uncertain terms the results of this wave of deliberately provoked hatred of GLBTs, crime by crime, murder by murder, torture by torture. These are Americans and Canadians, with families and friends, and we have finally got to stick up for them and do what is in our power to do, and that is RE-EDUCATE from the bottom up, starting in the school system.
Whether the haters and the fanatics like it or not is irrelevant. Yes, Benni Has Two Mothers is going to be in the public schools,all the public schools, and the kids are going to learn to love, to respect, to honour and dignify GLBT people just as they would any other person; they will defend them from attacks and bigotry. The debate is gonna be closed. Public schools have an obligation to teach civic virtue. Tolerance is a civic virtue, hatred, bigotry and intolerance are not. End of story.
-
I'm not voting for any law taking away rights from any citizens, not now or ever.
I do not care if Adam marries Steve, or Jane marries Eve.
It's up to them.
I do not see any problem with children knowing that gay people exist.
-
The anti-Prop 8, pro gay marriage crowd is running ads charging this whole idea that public schools will teach gay marriage is just a "lie."
The latest press release from the Protect Marriage Yes on 8 campaign in California rather cleverly points out the same groups now charging its a lie public schools will teach about gay marriage whether parents like it or not ? were just in court in Massachussetts filing amicus briefs arguing parents don't have any right to opt their children out of the pro-gay marriage curriculum.
Say WHAT?
-
...parents don't have any right to opt their children out of the pro-gay marriage curriculum.
sirs, that's exactly what bothers me. I don't have any problems with same-sex relationships, but I do have a problem with any group that thinks they should decide what my children need to learn beyond the basic subjects; i.e., math, reading, grammar, spelling, writing, history, and geography.
In our district, sex ed classes have always contained an 'opt out' choice. Each school has a Health Curriculum Advisory Board comprised of both teachers and parents who review and choose the course materials for the upcoming year. Parents are invited to view the materials before the unit is presented, usually during the regular "Back To School" night. Then the permission slips are sent home for the parents to either agree or opt out of the class.
As far as I'm concerned, this is the best way to handle the issue of sex ed in public school. The school satisfies what they see as their duty to educate students about a subject that may or may not be taught in the home, and parents retain their right to decide whether or not the subject matter and manner of presentation are appropriate for their own child. When government - in the form of the school board - decides that it can and should override a parent's judgment regarding what their child is taught, the government has gone too far.
Now...if you think having your child's school take over your right to teach them about sex, same-sex relationships, or birth control in the way that's best for your family, how would you like to have to deal with this issue?
Stunned Parents Protest
Uproar over teacher's gender change
By Ryan Chalk
When Angela Weinzinger's children returned home at the start of the new school year, she was surprised to learn from them that one of their music teachers, formerly a "Miss," was now to be addressed as "Mister."
The startling revelation sent Weinzinger scrambling for answers to questions of how this happened, and why she had to hear about it from her children who attend Foxboro Elementary School. Weinzinger has two daughters, ages 6 and 9, along with an 11-year-old son who attend the school.
A growing number of parents feel the school could have done more to inform them of the teacher's gender change. They also charge that there was no support for the students who had questions about their teacher. Last Friday, a handful of concerned parents spent time before and after school handing out fliers notifying others of the change.
"They told them (students) to go home and ask your parents about it," Weinzinger said. "But how can we answer when we don't even know about it."
Principal Lisa Eckhoff said she was not at liberty to speak on the matter, citing confidentiality issues. The teacher did not respond to e-mail inquiries from The Reporter.
Weinzinger said that more than 30 parents have contacted the school requesting to have their kids removed from music class. On days when her children would attend music, they are attending activities with other instructors, according to Weinzinger.
Jim Dorigatti, whose daughter attends sixth grade at Foxboro, said that, like many parents, he respects what people do in their private lives.
"But this isn't a private issue," Dorigatti said. "This is something the kids can't not know about. It's hard to call the issue private when it's right there in your face."
Dorigatti has gone as far as removing his daughter from band class as well, enrolling her in private music lessons to keep her prepared for middle school band.
The parents say they would have liked some advance notice about the instructor's decision to identify with the opposite gender.
Travis Unified School District Superintendent Kate Wren Gavlak, issued a statement saying, "We want to assure the community that staff will not be discussing private or personal matters with students, parents or the community."
Dorigatti and Weinzinger said they would be keeping their kids out of the teacher's class as long as the teacher remains there.
"I know the school is frustrated because parents are pulling their kids out of class," Weinzinger said. "I would hate to think the school could lose funding because parents are pulling their kids out of those classes."
Travis Unified Governing Board Trustee Edwin Sanderson said he did not have all of the facts yet but that the board may consider addressing the matter in closed session during its next regularly scheduled board meeting on Tuesday.
"This is not a matter for amusement, this is a matter for careful deliberation," Sanderson said. "It is my understanding that the administration is working very diligently to preserve the rights of both the parents and the teachers."
For the most part, parents just want to feel like they have some level of control over what their children are exposed to in school.
"As a family, we have our values, and we don't push them on anybody," Weinzinger said. "But we don't feel it's fair that someone pushed their values on us."
Jennifer Mikolajcik has also taken steps to keep her children out of the music class. The parent of second- and fourth-grade boys said that the matter has become a distraction.
"This is not an issue of the teacher's choice. It's an issue that our kids know about it and are seeing it."
Like many parents, Mikolajcik doesn't know what to do next, realizing that her children may not be able to be kept out of the music class forever.
She says the next step may be to get a group of concerned parents to rally at Tuesday's board meeting.
"It's very frustrating for parents because you want to do what's best for your children," Mikolajcik said. "We just feel respect has to go both ways. The rights were looked out for the teacher and not our children."
http://www.thereporter.com/news/ci_10697147 (http://www.thereporter.com/news/ci_10697147)
-
I wonder if the parents didn't want their kids to know about black people, could they pull their kids from a class with a black music teacher? If they didn't want their kids to know about Jewish people, could they pull their kids from a class taught by a Jew?
This has got to be the most abysmal example of parental ignorance and bigotry, passed directly on to the kids. No, a parent does not have the right to deny a child knowledge of the real world because they are stunting the kid's development as normal functioning members of a community. When you pull a kid out of a class because you don't want him to know that people like that teacher even exist, then you are fundamentally making a statement that denies the humanity of the teacher and making the school complicit in endorsing the statement, at the expense of the dignity of that teacher.
Cross-dressers, transsexuals, etc. exist in the real world as citizens with equal rights. Whether or not the parents wish their kids to know about these people, those people exist in the real world and those kids will sooner or later encounter them. The function of the school is not to teach the kids that the world is a fantasy world without GLBT people in it - - that is teaching a lie, the parents may want their kids to be taught a lie, but the schools must not become complicit in teaching that lie.
I'm glad these issues are surfacing the way they do. I am learning more about hatred and bigotry just by being forced to consider the issues as they arise than I've ever thought about them in this context (public schools and GLBT teachers) before. It's amazing to me how really clear this issue actually is. How wrong the one side is and how right the other.
-
This has got to be the most abysmal example of parental ignorance and bigotry, passed directly on to the kids. No, a parent does not have the right to deny a child knowledge of the real world because they are stunting the kid's development as normal functioning members of a community.
Complete and utter nonsense. This is a perfect example of mismanagement in the schools.
A growing number of parents feel the school could have done more to inform them of the teacher's gender change. They also charge that there was no support for the students who had questions about their teacher. Last Friday, a handful of concerned parents spent time before and after school handing out fliers notifying others of the change.
"They told them (students) to go home and ask your parents about it," Weinzinger said. "But how can we answer when we don't even know about it."
Principal Lisa Eckhoff said she was not at liberty to speak on the matter, citing confidentiality issues. The teacher did not respond to e-mail inquiries from The Reporter.
The district and the state needs to work on parental notification on issues like this. This situation did not happen overnight.
There seems to be an assumption of bigotry from our flamer on the left ( bogus empty rhetoric as usual) , when what really has happened is parents were blindsided and searching for answers to questions that had no idea they would have to answer so early in their childrens lives.
-
...parents don't have any right to opt their children out of the pro-gay marriage curriculum.
sirs, that's exactly what bothers me. I don't have any problems with same-sex relationships, but I do have a problem with any group that thinks they should decide what my children need to learn beyond the basic subjects; i.e., math, reading, grammar, spelling, writing, history, and geography.
PRECISELY. This isn't about having some strong disagreement with where Columbus landed, or what 2+2 is, or how to conjugate a verb. School is SUPPOSED to be about education of the basics. The Child's morality & spirituality, and how they're to be raised is the domain of the parents, and PARENTS ALONE. The School, if anything is to support that concept, unless the parents are perpetrating some crime. Except for those who supposedly know better than the rest of us
Enter Obama & company >:(
In our district, sex ed classes have always contained an 'opt out' choice. Each school has a Health Curriculum Advisory Board comprised of both teachers and parents who review and choose the course materials for the upcoming year. Parents are invited to view the materials before the unit is presented, usually during the regular "Back To School" night. Then the permission slips are sent home for the parents to either agree or opt out of the class.
As far as I'm concerned, this is the best way to handle the issue of sex ed in public school. The school satisfies what they see as their duty to educate students about a subject that may or may not be taught in the home, and parents retain their right to decide whether or not the subject matter and manner of presentation are appropriate for their own child.
Absolutely. Options, options, options. So much for the party of "choice". That apparently has to do with what they choose for you, and screw the parents if you disagree. They apparently know better.
I challenge folks like Js & Fat to argue against such an approach
-
The school could have handled this so much better by notifying the parents ahead of time. Instead, they abdicated their responsibility to the students, who should be their first concern, by telling them to "go home and ask your parents."
It's possible that many of the parents wouldn't have removed their children from the class if they'd been given the chance to talk to their kids beforehand. While I'm sure that some of the parents acted out of their own views on the transgender issue alone, I imagine that for some, the action is a protest against the administration's lack of communication. The school pre-empted the parents' choice of when and how to discuss the issue with their kids. I don't believe that the teacher's right to work trumps the responsibility of the school towards the parents and students in this case.
-
I challenge folks like Js & Fat to argue against such an approach
Both sides of this issue have some good points re: specific points of the issue. I'll take up a partial challenge tomorrow, when I've had time to think and articulate a (hopefully) coherent response.
-
Good...I was hoping you'd post on this, and am looking forward to seeing what your thoughts are.
-
<<There seems to be an assumption of bigotry from our flamer on the left ( bogus empty rhetoric as usual) , when what really has happened is parents were blindsided and searching for answers to questions that had no idea they would have to answer so early in their childrens lives.>>
It's hard to think of a more asinine concept of parental responsibility than that. Life doesn't hand a parent a weekly Sunday morning advisory of the problems that they will be required to resolve for their children in the coming week. Life means that a parent has or should have already acquired for himself or herself a basic set of guiding principles that hopefully he or she will be able to pass on to their kids as and when the occasion requires. For example, a firm and abiding belief that all individuals are worthy of respect and dignity at a certain basic level just for being human beings; that sexual preferences are a matter of personal choice and that no one such choice is worthy of any more or any less respect and dignity than any other. Then when the kid comes home from school and asks why Miss Jones is now Mr. Jones, you tell the kid that that is how Mr. Jones now wants to be identified, for reasons best known to him and deal with the kid's questions as best you can, consistent with your own guiding principles. If you're stumped by anything the kid wants to know, there is nothing wrong with admitting you don't really know or you need some time to think about it. This is not rocket science.
A parent would have to be a total fucking moron to be "blindsided" by anything the kids could ask about the situation, but even if you could find someone that stupid, what on earth would prevent him or her from telling the kid, "Geeze, honey, lemme think about that a minute?"
I'm always amazed at the ingenuity of bigots in rationalizing every act of their bigotry as something else, in this case, their revulsion at the teacher becomes an "intellectual quandary" for them - - they're not revolted by the individual, they're just "blindsided." An amazingly complex problem, comparable to the decoding of the human genome, has suddenly been presented to them without warning, so now they are all discombobulated and just don't know what to say about it, and gosh darn it, it's all the fault of that damn school for not WARNING them about it, so they could first think it through. Gimme a break. At least have the balls to face up to your own bigotry and take responsibility for it.
I went back and re-read the parental comments again to see how much of it had to do with "being blindsided" and how much had to do with the person of the teacher, and it's pretty clear to me that almost all the parental comment was that as long as the teacher is in the class the kid will be out of it. If BT wants to misrepresent that sentiment as anger at being "blindsided," that's of course his privilege, but that is pure bullshit, as the parental commentary makes abundantly clear.
-
It amazes me that students are sent home for wearing T shirts because it might offend someone and then when parents question the handlin of a situation in school they are the intolerant ones.
I could care less if the teacher chooses to change gender. I think the school did a poor job of presenting that change.
And I think the larger debate is whether the state or the parent is the arbitrator of when is the correct time to introduce and explain the different layers to the onion. I side with the parents. My guess is you side with the state.
-
<<They are teaching Natzism next, why not?>>
What makes you equate Naziism with homosexuality? Do you really believe them to be equally evil?
Probly not , Natzis killed a lot of people and Homosexuals don't have that problem .
Communism is more equivelent with Natzism , they might have killed more people with no more need.
But that is entirely beside the point , to teach something to children that their parents are not persueded is true is evil and it isn't anything but evil.
Natzis swept up likely youths for indoctrination by the state , Communists also...
But why should our government be involved in makeing children into strangers within their familys?
The parents right to teach children right from wrong should not be so lightly ursurped wholesale .
If you want to persuede adults I don't object , but the notion that the children will learn a new right and wrong as approved by the state is anathema to freedom and free men.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwTpZpwjtIE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwTpZpwjtIE)
-
<<It amazes me that students are sent home for wearing T shirts because it might offend someone and then when parents question the handlin of a situation in school they are the intolerant ones.>>
You're comparing apples to oranges. The T-shirt issue is about protecting the dignity of the individual student against assault by another student. It's basically an equal-protection issue in conflict with freedom of speech. The cross-dressing teacher issue involves parental rights over the moral education of their own children in conflict with the equal-protection rights of the teacher. I think the handling of both cases was consistent - - in the T-shirt case, the dignity of the offended student was protected against the wearer's 1st amendment (freedom of speech) rights, and in the cross-dressing teacher case, the dignity of the teacher was protected against the parental 1st amendment (freedom of religion) rights.
<<I could care less if the teacher chooses to change gender. I think the school did a poor job of presenting that change.>>
I don't think the school should be in the business of commenting upon or explaining a perfectly legal decision taken by a teacher in a purely private matter. It would be singling out the teacher. If the teacher had entered into a heterosexual marriage and become Mrs. Grant instead of Miss Jones, would the school "present the change" to the students or parents? "Presenting " every single change of every teacher would be treating all teachers equally, "presenting" only the non-standard changes of unconventional individuals is singling-out. The school could probably be sued for that. It really IS the job of the parents. It's natural the kids would have questions about it - - which is why the schools should have a comprehensive sex-ed program in place - - but if there's no sex-ed course, or if the course hasn't reached that part of the text yet, then there's really no alternative but to leave it to the parents to explain as best they can.
<<And I think the larger debate is whether the state or the parent is the arbitrator of when is the correct time to introduce and explain the different layers to the onion. I side with the parents. My guess is you side with the state.>>
Actually with our own kids my wife and I were the sole arbiters of every aspect of their education. ON at least two occasions that I can think of now, we took violent exception to the way the public schools handled things. I taught my kids about sex, basically by answering honestly every question they asked, regardless of when they asked it. Once they got past a very early age, our two daughters seemed to be a lot more comfortable discussing stuff with my wife, and our son actually - - once he got the basics under his belt - - wasn't comfortable discussing stuff with either one of us. Strangely enough, they all turned out OK.
I believe in the principle that certain basics be taught by the state in the public schools to all students to prepare them for citizenship, and further that no parent has a right to opt his or her kids out, because good citizenship is not optional. A white supremacist parent, for example, can't opt the kids out of classes that discuss 14th Amendment rights. There has to be a basic sex-ed curriculum set up for all grades, JK to 12 or 13 and that also is not optional, it's a case of the health of the child. But even subject to that curriculum, as a parent, I would be proactive. I would make sure my kids knew certain things earlier than the curriculum requirements if I thought fit, and in certain issues such as obedience to teachers and principals, I was very clear in letting my kids know that they NEVER had to follow instructions that to them appeared clearly wrong or even irrational, regardless of who was issuing the instructions.
I guess the short answer is that I'm happy in general to let the state be the arbiter of all aspects of the kids' education but I would never abdicate the parental oversight role. And in a conflict between the state and I, I am going to be the final arbiter. But I was always very pleased with the Toronto School system and in general had very little conflict with them. I especially admired their Anti-Racism Initiative, which wasn't initiated until after our own kids had passed through the system. Any kid would be in good hands in our public schools.
-
I guess the short answer is that I'm happy in general to let the state be the arbiter of all aspects of the kids' education but I would never abdicate the parental oversight role. And in a conflict between the state and I, I am going to be the final arbiter. But I was always very pleased with the Toronto School system and in general had very little conflict with them. I especially admired their Anti-Racism Initiative, which wasn't initiated until after our own kids had passed through the system. Any kid would be in good hands in our public schools.
I can't agree with that.
When a parent is mistaken about something , the child suffers a mistaken knoledge that he might or might not learn better than later.
When a State is wrong about something , it turns out a cohort of kids shareing an institunalised error.
It is far safer for the well being of the society to allow individuals to think for themselves , than to try to standardise them in their thinking.
-
Mandatory ROTC.
Should parents be allowed to opt out their children?
-
When a parent is mistaken about something , the child suffers a mistaken knoledge that he might or might not learn better than later.
When a State is wrong about something , it turns out a cohort of kids shareing an institunalised error.
It is far safer for the well being of the society to allow individuals to think for themselves , than to try to standardise them in their thinking.
=========================================================
One of the problems with that is that the state is a lot less likely to be wrong about anything than an individual parent. And the lower you go down the socioeconomic ladder, the more parental error you're likely to find, until at the bottom of the pile you've got a bunch of dope-smoking lumpen dropouts, single teenage mothers, unemployables and general morons who are not in a condition to teach their kids how to tell time from an analog watch, let alone the 14th Amendment or the egg and the sperm.
I taught my kids to think for themselves, to stand up against their teachers and principals (and I backed them up when they did) but their day-to-day instruction was unexceptionable and, as I say, they did a great job. I actually can't think of one error that our school system passed on to our kids.
Maybe it's a lot different in the South, where the school system probably passes on a lot of ignorant nonsense about the War Between the States, the Peculiar Institution, the Happy Slaves Singing and Dancing, Ginrul Lee, crap like that and I can appreciate how somebody like me might want to keep a close eye on them, but frankly, I'm very surprised that YOU would have a problem with what the schools might be teaching in your neck of the woods. I would have thought you'd eat it up.
-
Mandatory ROTC.
Should parents be allowed to opt out their children?
================================
Only if they enrol them in something even more violent instead.
-
And the more serious answer - sure, if they're pacifists
Do high schools have ROTC? I thought this was in post-secondary educational institutions only.
We have high school cadet corps in Canada but the high school I went to was very progressive. We didn't have one. My dad's high school had a cadet corps, and it WAS mandatory.
-
So the choice for parents to opt out of programs that they feel are contrary to their beliefs should be retained?
If your position concerning pacifists and cadet schools is universal then you and plane are not far apart.
-
I really don't think you have high school ROTC.
-
I really don't think you have high school ROTC.
I made cadet Major in AFJrROTC.
Got PE credit for marching.
-
I really don't think you have high school ROTC.
Our local high school has it. It is officially called JROTC.
Semi funny story from a few years ago.
The weekend after ethics complaints were filed against the mayor at that time, the JROTC camped out on the Green as part of an orientation program. Some people thought the embattled mayor had declared martial law. He was cleared of all charges by the way.
-
So thanks for clearing that up for me.
Sure I think parents should be able to pull their kids from JROTC. I'd probably pull mine. It's all about leaders, orders, following orders and preparing for war and killing people. Fuck that. You know, when the war finally came to England and the U.S.A., they raised massive citizen armies and produced huge numbers of officers on short notice. None of the business is rocket science and people can be trained to kill reasonably quickly. Just look at the army of low-hanging fruit the U.S. has assembled. They're not the kind of people you'd want helping your kids with their homework, but they're reasonably adept at the murderous tasks the Army has in mind for them. The likelihood of England, Canada or the U.S. ever being called on to fight a war in their own defence is close to zero. All of this training for killing relates to invading other people's homelands and killing hundreds of thousands of them at a time. It's a small cog in a much bigger war crimes machine.
-
Just look at the army of low-hanging fruit the U.S. has assembled
Hmm. My son is in the Navy. And he definitely isn't low hanging fruit.
-
Present company excepted, of course. Nothing personal, BT, I was speaking in generalities. In the same sense as some of our other posters go on about "liberals" or "Democrats" or "commies."
-
I apologize for the delay, as I had meant to reply to this post sooner. Please note that I will be cherry picking specific quotes, if you feel that I have missed something important, please bring it up and I'll debate it. Please note also that I will speaking in generalities unless I name a specific poster, and do not take personal offense over an argument with a quote, for it is only an argument and not an attack on the poster him/herself.
With the qualifiers out of the way, let's begin!
I don't know what would be the equivelent for you , what a teacher could tell your child that would fill you with horror .
The equivalent for me (if I had children, which I don't), would be to have a teacher tell my child that gay people are morally inferior and that they should not be married. Frankly, I'm sort of confused as to what most of the fuss is about. Gay couples exist. Gay married couples exist. Chances are pretty good that most public schools have children of gay couples in attendance, it's almost a certainty that most of the students there know a gay person. If you want to for your children not to be exposed to homosexuals (now there's an exercise in futility), send them to a private Christian school. If this issue bothers these parents that badly, they should be attending the school board meetings and expressing their concerns there. I've attended a lot of school board meetings, mostly when I was still in high school. They're generally pretty unpopulated. I prefer that schools keep up with modern means, whether it's morality or math curriculum. For parents to decry the teaching of homosexual tolerance is on a par with a parent decrying the teaching of the earth being spherical because they adhere to some 15th century version of Christianity.
Should one of your chillds teachers tell your child that there is no point in study of scripture?
No. They should tell your child that Christians, as with Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and yes, even Moslems, are people deserving of human respect and love. They definitely should not be telling my child that Jesus will save them or died for their sins or mandating that they pray, unless I have enrolled them in a private Christian school. Nor should they be teaching a Christian morality that even now is disagreed upon by a range of Christian churches, unless they are offering a theology class.
We're told to be tolerant of others. It's clear liberals are not tolerant of views they disagree with. They use the courts to force them on others.
You may be told to be tolerant of others, but it's your decision whether you choose to exercise that tolerance or to withold it. There are examples of liberals and conservatives both that have intolerance of disagreeing views. If conservatives were so tolerant of a disagreeing view, I don't see why they would push DOMA through and make anti-gay marriage issues an underpinning of their domestic/social platform. And yes, I'm aware that Biden and some other Democrats voted for DOMA, but it is by and large a social conservative cause. As for using the courts for the agenda, the whole purpose of the courts is to protect the rights of the people from encroachment by the legislature. Our government is composed of three branches, each with equal weight and responsibilities. It is the purpose of the judicial branch to hold the legislative and executive branches accountable to the standards set forth within the Constitution, and a Court's opinion is usually the final say in a matter. But think where we would be as a nation without the courts and their infringement on the legislature: huge, monolithic companies would have actual (as opposed to virtual) monopolies on goods and services, several of the New Deal programs that FDR would like to have seen enacted would have been in effect, if the Court hadn't said no, and segregation may well be alive in the South, for though the Civil Rights Act of 1964 went a long way to burying Jim Crow, it was the Court decisions in the 50's that were the impetus for that movement.
And let's face it, both liberals and conservatives go crying to court when they don't get their way. It is the court's duty and responsibility to make the decisions in a rational, non partisan rendering. I am interested in what will happen when the gay marriage issue gets to SCOTUS, because a lot of people on both sides are confusing judicial conservatism with social conservatism, and they're definitely not the same animal.
They are teaching Natzism next, why not?
They shouldn't teach Nazim, or are you arguing that they should teach that Nazism is morally acceptable? It is of great importance for future generations to learn of the horrors that the Nazi's perpetrated, how they came to power, and how they abused that power once in high positions. I've never seen a school that taught that Nazism is morally acceptable, yet Nazi's (or at least Neo-Nazi's) still exist. This would suggest to me that despite the effort of schools to teach moral behavior (at least concering Nazism), people are still capable of coming to their own conclusions and forming their own morality (though it may be sick and reprehensible), despite the best effort of educators to portray the horrors for what they were.
It does not mean putting up with what you like , it means allowing what you do not like.
In proper terms are you actually tolerant?
Are you? I think that I'm pretty tolerant, though no doubt some would disagree. I try to see an opposing view, even if it conflicts morally or politically with my own. But it seems that there are many who are loathe to entertain the thought, much less make any sort of compromise to resolve the issue.
We just can't afford to debate with them endlessly about this, to deal over and over again with their hatred, with their irrationality, with their extremism.
Why not? That is how negotiations are conducted, and legislative consensus built. If we each remain in our houses, esconced in our isolationism, how does that do anything toward resolving the conflict. Because while the conflict is a money maker and vote getter for both sides of the issue, there are actual people in the middle hurting because of it.
These are Americans and Canadians, with families and friends, and we have finally got to stick up for them and do what is in our power to do, and that is RE-EDUCATE from the bottom up, starting in the school system.
I don't favor a moral re-education in the schools, though I do favor the teaching of tolerance for a lifestyle that some may find morally wrong but is legal in every which way. I think that a social education is more effective and more likely to cause less controversy, if someone doesn't like Will & Grace they can find whatever is playing on the Hallmark Channel. I personally favor that avenue as opposed to an in your face confrontation.
Now...if you think having your child's school take over your right to teach them about sex, same-sex relationships, or birth control in the way that's best for your family
Same sex issues are not even in the same category as birth control and sex ed. That would be like including a discussion of segregation in that category, because you didn't like the outcome of that conflict and felt that we should still be a segregated society (speaking hypothetically, not personally). Gay people exist. Married gay people exist. There is no moral judgement to be made in the acknowledgement of their existence. So I don't see how teaching that gay couples exist and are as worthy of respect as any other couple, is anywhere near related to sex ed. If you wanted to talk about including gay sex in sex ed, that's another discussion entirely and one that I would be happy to continue in another thread, but I don't see its relation to this one.
Cross-dressers, transsexuals, etc. exist in the real world as citizens with equal rights. Whether or not the parents wish their kids to know about these people, those people exist in the real world and those kids will sooner or later encounter them. The function of the school is not to teach the kids that the world is a fantasy world without GLBT people in it - - that is teaching a lie, the parents may want their kids to be taught a lie, but the schools must not become complicit in teaching that lie
I can't argue with this.
when what really has happened is parents were blindsided and searching for answers to questions that had no idea they would have to answer so early in their childrens lives.
A teacher had a medical procedure that was probably a treatment for a diagnosed medical disorder. I don't see the problem? Would you deny that bigotry is a driving force for many of the parents (I'm not sure who would be in the majority, the parents you bring up or the parents MT does)? That they don't want their children exposed (and being taught by) a freak, a degenerate? If a teacher sees a therapist for depression, should the parents be notified, or if they take an anti-depressant? What if they have a stroke, should it be the schools responsibilty to notify that Mrs. Whatshername will now be talking funny and her face will sag? I don't agree with all of MT's analysis in this case BT, but I don't necessarily agree with yours either.
School is SUPPOSED to be about education of the basics. The Child's morality & spirituality, and how they're to be raised is the domain of the parents, and PARENTS ALONE.
There is a blurry line between the responsibility of the school to the child, the parents, the taxpayer, and the society in general. Be that as it may, how can you argue that teaching that gay couples exist, and that they should be given the love and respect that is given to any other couple, is wrong, or at least not the responsibility of the school? Because, unless I've misread this whole debate and the title article incorrectly (which we all know is always a possibility), that seems to be the issue. There is a larger issue that I'll address at the end of the post, of enablement, which I think is the root of the matter.
So much for the party of "choice". That apparently has to do with what they choose for you, and screw the parents if you disagree. They apparently know better.
Are the Republicans that push for amendment to both the state and federal constitution banning gay marriage, and in some cases, civil unions, any better? It seems to me from where I sit that they're a lot alike. One side mandates one thing, the other side mandates another. I may not choose to marry my partner, but that should be our decision and uninfluened by the State. Yet there are many social conservatives that will not allow us to have the right to make that decision. We've gone over this issue before and we know where each of us stands on it, and you're not in the group that I used, but a lot of Republicans are.
I don't believe that the teacher's right to work trumps the responsibility of the school towards the parents and students in this case.
I disagree. As stated before, a sex change involves a lot of medical and psychological treatment. If you're going to deny the teacher the right to work based on its (sorry, I don't know the proper terminology) transgenderism, that sets a bad precedent, and I wonder where it will end? Stroke, heart attack, depression, psoriasis, obesity? The teacher has every right to work, and parents isolating their kids in some kind of fairy tale does no one, the school, the child, the parent, or society in general, any kind of good. The parent has every right to teach their child that transgenderism is wrong, sick, whatever. It may be hateful, ignorant, and crude, but that's their right. What they don't have is the right to remove the teacher because it had a medical procedure overseen by competent physicians, and probably covered by an insurance carrier, as these operations are very expensive. All of which point to a diagnosed disorder being treated.
It amazes me that students are sent home for wearing T shirts because it might offend someone and then when parents question the handlin of a situation in school they are the intolerant ones.
I agree. There's some incredibly stupid stuff that goes on under the guise of a no-tolerance policy. I don't know what happened to the days when schools were able to make an intelligent decision benefiting all parties, it seems to me that the no-tolerance thing is easier. Easy isn't always better. Suspending a kid for a bottle of aspirin or a girl for a bottle of Midol borders on the absurd, if it wasn't so serious.
I think the school did a poor job of presenting that change.
I'm still at a loss as to why the school needs to present anything? Is it different because it's a medical-sexual issue as opposed to just a medical issue? I tend to agree with MT on this, that it isn't the intellectual quandary that it's made out to be. How hard is it to explain to a child that there is a medical issue undergoing treatment, because when you get down to it that's what it is. I tend to think that the lines about a parents right to explain are overblown. Does the parent have a right to explain to the child before the school does if someone has a heart attack? If the school teaches about diabetes before the parent has had the chance to discuss with their children a disease that makes you blind and results in the amputation of limbs, has that infringed on a parent's rights? I think it's a bunch of hogwash. For some, it's bigotry masquerading as concern.
But that is entirely beside the point , to teach something to children that their parents are not persueded is true is evil and it isn't anything but evil.
Then send your kids to a private school that will make those teachings. There are many choices for education in this country, people act like there's only one way. I don't see why I should send my kid to a school with my tax dollars only to have a teacher discuss a Christian lifestyle and the "evils" of homosexuality. And yes, I went to a public school that had teachers like that. If you want that, then by all means feel free to open your wallet and send your kids to a school that espouses things like that. Just don't expect me to pay for it.
If you want to persuede adults I don't object , but the notion that the children will learn a new right and wrong as approved by the state is anathema to freedom and free men.
Isn't that what happened in the South when it was desegregated? All of a sudden, all of these black children were sitting side by side with the white children. Were their parents in an intellectual quandary as to how to explain it? Do you think that public schools should teach that homosexuality is wrong, that it's "not okay to be gay"? Because the only difference I see between your example and the one cited in this thread, is that one causes hurt, alienation, and possibly violence, while the other only espouses respect towards someone else. These high words about morality being approved by the state sound good, and make a great sound bite. But they are generally historically ignorant. History as taught in public schools is rife with controversy about moral judgements passed on in the textbooks. Should there be waivers for a history class too? Right and wrong is taught by the parents, if the parents are either too lazy, too uninformed, or too apathetic to pass that on to their children, then someone should. I'm not saying that it should be mandated, but not all parents are great, or even mediocre. Some are flat out awful, even (and sometimes especially) when it comes to handing out moral direction.
Mandatory ROTC.
Should parents be allowed to opt out their children?
Yes and no. They should be allowed to opt out, but only after viewing a presentation by the ROTC. That way both sides are presented, and it may plant a seed for the child to enter the ROTC after high school, when not subject to the whim of the parent.
I think the major issue of this article and this thread is that teaching about homosexuals and homosexual lifestyles (and in a lesser, slightly related way, transgenderism) is enabling homosexuals and the supposed "gay agenda". But I see it as presenting both sides of an issue. I would bet a large sum of money that these lessons aren't going to make anyone gay, any more than gay parents make someone gay. If a parent wishes to drill it into their child's head that homosexuality is wrong and perverted or whatever, they still have that option, though it will be in conflict with what the school teaches. Such conflicts are not uncommon and are usually resolved without going to court. But also in my perception, this is both political sides utilizing a conflict, with no effort at resolution, to further their respective agendas.
In the meantime, the people in the middle, in this case the kids, get screwed.
-
>>Just look at the army of low-hanging fruit the U.S. has assembled. They're not the kind of people you'd want helping your kids with their homework, but they're reasonably adept at the murderous tasks the Army has in mind for them.<<
Unbelievable.
No way this bastard would have the balls to say this shit to a live person. I'd love to see what would happen.
Why is this asshole here? Are there no limits to this?
-
As far as teaching morality in schools goes, anyone care to explain these videos that were shown in public schools, once upon a time equating homosexuality with pedophilia?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-Tu8KHBwAA[/youtube]
What about the anti-gay bullying in public schools? The refusal to allow gay couples to attend formal dances at the high schools?
Those are issues that are gay/public school related. I'd be interesting in hearing anyone's take on those situations.
Here are some videos of a controversy in CA about a junior high school bullying case of a child of two male partners:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=si40BzefPXk[/youtube]
And the father's response to the school board:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qp5lZEF2KdU[/youtube]
Acting like gay couples don't exist only exacerbates the problem. It does nothing to resolve it.
-
>>As far as teaching morality in schools goes, anyone care to explain these videos that were shown in public schools, once upon a time equating homosexuality with pedophilia?<<
At this point in time I really don't give a damn. Sorry, no offense meant, really. This is the least of our problems. Besides, if Barry is elected and Republicans can no longer filibuster in the Senate you'll have all the pro-homosexual legislation your heart desires.
-
At this point in time I really don't give a damn. Sorry, no offense meant, really.
None taken
This is the least of our problems.
While I wouldn't qualify this as a major problem, I wouldn't say it's the least either. I am in agreement with you though that there are larger issues of war and the economy, but not everyone agrees on what more important and what's less.
Besides, if Barry is elected and Republicans can no longer filibuster in the Senate you'll have all the pro-homosexual legislation your heart desires.
What makes you think that? The Democrats are no better in regard to gay rights than Republicans, less so actually because when they have a chance to stand up for gay rights and get behind the cause, most of them don't, no matter how much lip service they pay. My reasons for disagreeing with you about the role of the courts are a fundamental argument, because almost every advance in gay rights have come at the hands of the courts, not the legislators, Dem or Rep. Please don't equate me to some Dem loving gay rights advocate, because I watch, I pay attention, and they haven't done squat. Biden voted for DOMA, not against it. Nor do I expect Democrats to do a damned thing until they've squeezed the last contribution from a gay rights group by saying that they'll look out for our rights. As I said in my long post above, both sides are using the issue for funds and votes, in the meantime the people in the middle of the argument get squat. And it's my belief that it's going to continue that way for some time. That's why I think that the courts are important in this issue.
The guitar is playing great BTW. If only my singing sounded as good!
-
Nothing to argue about here.
>>The guitar is playing great BTW. If only my singing sounded as good!<<
Glad to hear it. Have you built up good calluses?
-
Depends on your meaning of good. Definitely more than I had before, but less than what I really want to play well. How's your playing coming?
-
I'm coming along pretty good I guess. I'm learning a lot of chords, but I'm not much of a soloist. My teacher was Tim Russerts brother-in law. He played at russert funeral. Here's a youtube:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzvwHNLe6dk[/youtube]
-
<<While I wouldn't qualify this as a major problem, I wouldn't say it's the least either. I am in agreement with you though that there are larger issues of war and the economy, but not everyone agrees on what more important and what's less.>>
When a high-school kid is denied equal protection of the laws, bullied, assaulted and generally treated as a second-class citizen, IMHO that is a much greater problem then whether the Iraqis get to vote for their leaders or exist under a dictatorship like everyone else in the Middle East. It's actually a bigger issue than whether Harry and Sally get to keep their home or lose it to the mortgagee.
Civil rights are the be-all and end-all of the American political entity. It is absurd and outrageous that the rights of high-school students, gay-headed families and others take a back seat to the right of Iraqis to vote. A more screwed-up system of priorities is hard to imagine. The victims of homophobia are American citizens. Same as the black victims of white racism. I hope when Obama assumes office, REAL CHANGE means real change. Means that the efforts to build a puppet government in Iraq to steal their oil will no longer be able to be masked by phony cover-up motives such as "We are building democracy" because the answer will be "Who gives a shit, pull the plug NOW on the whole thing and start focusing on American people and American problems."
-
<<No way this bastard would have the balls to say this shit to a live person. >>
Of course not. I'm way too polite.
<<I'd love to see what would happen.>>
What do you THINK would happen?
-
It does not mean putting up with what you like , it means allowing what you do not like.
In proper terms are you actually tolerant?
Are you? I think that I'm pretty tolerant, though no doubt some would disagree. I try to see an opposing view, even if it conflicts morally or politically with my own. But it seems that there are many who are loathe to entertain the thought, much less make any sort of compromise to resolve the issue.
Eh , ...
Just because you don't fly off the handle on occasions such as this , you are better than most.
There is definately a line crossed when Homosexuality is presented as a normality to children young enough that it is quite possible that they have never been told about sex at all yet.
Children should be off limits for the government to improve this way , this is a discussion appropriate for adults , but children are defenseless against it.
Historical examples of governmental success at indoctranateing children includes Hitler youth no less often than any positive development , a bright line should be drawn on this side of recruiting.
-
Historical examples of governmental success at indoctranateing children includes Hitler youth no less often than any positive development , a bright line should be drawn on this side of recruiting.
What do you mean? That Hitler Youth indoctrinated childen to make them homosexuals? What do you mean by a "bright line"?
-
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTm5rp8r6fE[/youtube]
-
It is a fact that every sort of person has become a parent at one time or another , this absolves every sort of problem ?
I have no idea what you feel you have a right to object to.
Imagine...
Speaker one..
"I am a bank robbing , drug smuggleing , evoloutiong teaching, slave owning ,Satan worshiping , gay , tax avoiding, draft dodgeing , Communist , Klansman , running for congress."
JS_ " I would take issue with you on one or two of those....."
Speaker one...
" And I am a parent."
JS_ " Oh well then , Ok."
Plane, this is a completely unfair portrayal of what I've said and I think you know that.
I'll give you a real-life scenario. My next door neighbors are lesbians. They are NASCAR and Football loving lesbians. Very nice ladies who love kids. All the children on the block, including my son like to go next door and hang out, especially when the neighbor has her nieces over.
Now the kids just say that she has a "roommate" and I have not bothered to explain differently. What would you have me tell them Plane? Not to play there?
Would it make a difference to you if I told you that they also have a McCain/Palin sign prominently displayed in their yard?
-
<<Children should be off limits for the government to improve this way , this is a discussion appropriate for adults , but children are defenseless against it.>>
Children are defenceless against ideas, period. If they learn nothing about the matter at school, they will definitely be "learning" about it at home and in the streets and playgrounds. All the evidence indicates that what they have learned in the streets and playgounds is enough to turn life into a living hell for tens of thousands of GLBT youth, often with deadly results.
<<Historical examples of governmental success at indoctranateing children includes Hitler youth no less often than any positive development >>
Leaving aside the issue of just how successful the government actually was in indoctrinating the Hitler Youth, I think it's outrageous to compare the Hitler Youth movement to raising kids to be tolerant and non-violent towards alternative lifestyles and sexual diversity. You don't seem to be against the Pledge of Allegiance, so I take it your anti-indoctrination views are fairly selective.
<< . . . a bright line should be drawn on this side of recruiting.>>
Your use of the word "recruiting" makes me wonder if you have ever viewed the actual material used in schools relating to this issue. It seems highly unlikely to me that such material would include anything remotely resembling "recruiting" - - teaching non-violence, tolerance and mutual respect for another lifestyle or non-conforming sexual orientation is a far cry from "recruiting," IMHO.
"Recruiting" would imply some sustained argument that the alternative is somehow far superior to conventional life, that the kid would be better off or happier on the other side of the normal lifestyle or something of that sort. Tolerance is not advocacy of the thing tolerated.
I assume that the material you are referring to is something that you have not personally reviewed and would suggest in the interests of simple basic fairness that you become familiar with it before denouncing it.
Rich: the video brought a lump to my throat. It's absolutely beautiful. Sad that those kids seem to scare you, and really unnecessary. That's the future of America - - an America without war and fascism. An America without evil, deceitful, lying leaders like Bush and Cheney. An America that once again will enjoy the respect of the world.
-
It's right up your ally Mikey.
What would really get you off is if they were all handed red scarfs, Kalashnikov rifles, and went home and turned in their parents.
-
Rich, it sounds like your entire political education consisted of watching 1950s-era Hollywood black & white propaganda movies on late-night TV.
They were happy, beautiful, optimistic kids singing about a future free of hate, racism, fascism and war. Their parents aren't colour-blind. If they wanted red scarves for the kids, they would have gotten them red instead of blue.
-
Historical examples of governmental success at indoctranateing children includes Hitler youth no less often than any positive development , a bright line should be drawn on this side of recruiting.
Never mind the audacity of comparing homosexuality to Nazism for a moment, the Hitler Youth were not a very successful program of encouraging children to be Fascists. It was basically simple nationalism, not a lot different than the Scouts or schools forcing kids to say the pledge of allegiance every morning. Pope Benedict XVI was in a Hitler Youth program and it did not create a Fascist Fr. Ratzinger.
Moreover, this is a bizarre view of human sexuality. There aren't different sides "recruiting." There isn't a marketing strategy to sell people on heterosexuality, homosexuality, or any other variant. Good lord, do y'all not remember what it was like to be a young man? Did you really have to look to an external source to determine who were attracted to? I knew that Anne Marie Collins was the girl for me at a rather young age. (And Paula Abdul, Janet Jackson, Molly Ringwald but I didn't tell Anne Marie that ;) ).
I just don't understand this worldview you all have. There's no "recruiting." A woman is attracted to other women and a guy to other guys. Just because we don't understand it, does not mean there is some sinister conspiracy afoot. They likely went through the same feelings at that some young age. How can you attack someone for that any more than attacking someone for the color of their skin?
-
>>Rich, it sounds like your entire political education consisted of watching 1950s-era Hollywood black & white propaganda movies on late-night TV.<<
It does huh?
::)
-
It sure seems that way. You think Joe McCarthy was some sort of hero, you blab on and on about what a great idea Vietnam was. If you were not so totally ignorant about US history, I imagine you'd tell us about what heroes Alan and John Foster Dulles and John Birch, Madame Chiang and Ydigoras Fuentes were.
-
Who knew huh?
::)
-
Historical examples of governmental success at indoctranateing children includes Hitler youth no less often than any positive development , a bright line should be drawn on this side of recruiting.
What do you mean? That Hitler Youth indoctrinated childen to make them homosexuals? What do you mean by a "bright line"?
Well ,yes they did. Even though in later times that same party used Homosexuality as an excuse to kill , ironys run all over Natzi history.
But that isn't the point I was after , the government should not be trusted to indoctrinate children in anything seriously important and certainly not anything seriously contriversial. If after the government establishes its right to make kids into something other then what the childs parents want , it starts makeing the children into something that you can't stand , will you complain on grounds of...?
-
It is a fact that every sort of person has become a parent at one time or another , this absolves every sort of problem ?
I have no idea what you feel you have a right to object to.
Imagine...
Speaker one..
"I am a bank robbing , drug smuggleing , evoloutiong teaching, slave owning ,Satan worshiping , gay , tax avoiding, draft dodgeing , Communist , Klansman , running for congress."
JS_ " I would take issue with you on one or two of those....."
Speaker one...
" And I am a parent."
JS_ " Oh well then , Ok."
Plane, this is a completely unfair portrayal of what I've said and I think you know that.
I'll give you a real-life scenario. My next door neighbors are lesbians. They are NASCAR and Football loving lesbians. Very nice ladies who love kids. All the children on the block, including my son like to go next door and hang out, especially when the neighbor has her nieces over.
Now the kids just say that she has a "roommate" and I have not bothered to explain differently. What would you have me tell them Plane? Not to play there?
Would it make a difference to you if I told you that they also have a McCain/Palin sign prominently displayed in their yard?
Oh yes they are absolved for the sake of Republicanism.
If you are volentarily allowing them to influence your kids your rights are not being trampled , your wisdom or not will be proven by time and the eventual cost of your decisions that you have a right to make.
-
Historical examples of governmental success at indoctranateing children includes Hitler youth no less often than any positive development , a bright line should be drawn on this side of recruiting.
Never mind the audacity of comparing homosexuality to Nazism for a moment, the Hitler Youth were not a very successful program of encouraging children to be Fascists. It was basically simple nationalism, not a lot different than the Scouts or schools forcing kids to say the pledge of allegiance every morning. Pope Benedict XVI was in a Hitler Youth program and it did not create a Fascist Fr. Ratzinger.
Moreover, this is a bizarre view of human sexuality. There aren't different sides "recruiting." There isn't a marketing strategy to sell people on heterosexuality, homosexuality, or any other variant. Good lord, do y'all not remember what it was like to be a young man? Did you really have to look to an external source to determine who were attracted to? I knew that Anne Marie Collins was the girl for me at a rather young age. (And Paula Abdul, Janet Jackson, Molly Ringwald but I didn't tell Anne Marie that ;) ).
I just don't understand this worldview you all have. There's no "recruiting." A woman is attracted to other women and a guy to other guys. Just because we don't understand it, does not mean there is some sinister conspiracy afoot. They likely went through the same feelings at that some young age. How can you attack someone for that any more than attacking someone for the color of their skin?
So itis quite ordinary for a class to be bussed to their teachers wedding?
I was under the impression that this was unusual and was a teaching oppurtunity for the San Francisco teacher.
I didn't say I didn't understand it , I am talking about an overreach of government usurping a parents responsibility, if the Hitler Youth was less successfull , that is good news but hardly excuses an approach to the method for what our civic authoritys think is right .
The worst part of the Hitler youth was not the NATZIsm , some of them would have become Natzis anyway , perhaps just as many , we can't tell. It is that these kids were taken from their parents without giveing the parents a choice about it and taught exactly what the government thought was good. Generally when this happens thereis a lot of nice promise about what is being taught is good for the children , but in practice what is taught is what is good for the government.
-
<<Children should be off limits for the government to improve this way , this is a discussion appropriate for adults , but children are defenseless against it.>>
Children are defenceless against ideas, period. If they learn nothing about the matter at school, they will definitely be "learning" about it at home and in the streets and playgrounds. All the evidence indicates that what they have learned in the streets and playgounds is enough to turn life into a living hell for tens of thousands of GLBT youth, often with deadly results.
<<Historical examples of governmental success at indoctranateing children includes Hitler youth no less often than any positive development >>
Leaving aside the issue of just how successful the government actually was in indoctrinating the Hitler Youth, I think it's outrageous to compare the Hitler Youth movement to raising kids to be tolerant and non-violent towards alternative lifestyles and sexual diversity. You don't seem to be against the Pledge of Allegiance, so I take it your anti-indoctrination views are fairly selective.
<< . . . a bright line should be drawn on this side of recruiting.>>
Your use of the word "recruiting" makes me wonder if you have ever viewed the actual material used in schools relating to this issue. It seems highly unlikely to me that such material would include anything remotely resembling "recruiting" - - teaching non-violence, tolerance and mutual respect for another lifestyle or non-conforming sexual orientation is a far cry from "recruiting," IMHO.
"Recruiting" would imply some sustained argument that the alternative is somehow far superior to conventional life, that the kid would be better off or happier on the other side of the normal lifestyle or something of that sort. Tolerance is not advocacy of the thing tolerated.
I assume that the material you are referring to is something that you have not personally reviewed and would suggest in the interests of simple basic fairness that you become familiar with it before denouncing it.
Rich: the video brought a lump to my throat. It's absolutely beautiful. Sad that those kids seem to scare you, and really unnecessary. That's the future of America - - an America without war and fascism. An America without evil, deceitful, lying leaders like Bush and Cheney. An America that once again will enjoy the respect of the world.
When did I tell you that I liked the Pledge of allegience?
It origin was an attem,pt to indoctrinate children of the South with the idea that to devide the USA is sin , I will like the Pledge a lot better when the edit the " indivisible " out of it.
-
So itis quite ordinary for a class to be bussed to their teachers wedding?
I was under the impression that this was unusual and was a teaching oppurtunity for the San Francisco teacher.
I didn't say I didn't understand it , I am talking about an overreach of government usurping a parents responsibility, if the Hitler Youth was less successfull , that is good news but hardly excuses an approach to the method for what our civic authoritys think is right .
The worst part of the Hitler youth was not the NATZIsm , some of them would have become Natzis anyway , perhaps just as many , we can't tell. It is that these kids were taken from their parents without giveing the parents a choice about it and taught exactly what the government thought was good. Generally when this happens thereis a lot of nice promise about what is being taught is good for the children , but in practice what is taught is what is good for the government.
Nice...but now try facing the issues that I raised, which are at the heart of the issue. This garbage about the Hitler Youth and government over reaching is the long road to Albuquerque.
-
Oh yes they are absolved for the sake of Republicanism.
If you are volentarily allowing them to influence your kids your rights are not being trampled , your wisdom or not will be proven by time and the eventual cost of your decisions that you have a right to make.
So, you think that homosexual neighbors should be shunned?
-
So itis quite ordinary for a class to be bussed to their teachers wedding?
I was under the impression that this was unusual and was a teaching oppurtunity for the San Francisco teacher.
I didn't say I didn't understand it , I am talking about an overreach of government usurping a parents responsibility, if the Hitler Youth was less successfull , that is good news but hardly excuses an approach to the method for what our civic authoritys think is right .
The worst part of the Hitler youth was not the NATZIsm , some of them would have become Natzis anyway , perhaps just as many , we can't tell. It is that these kids were taken from their parents without giveing the parents a choice about it and taught exactly what the government thought was good. Generally when this happens thereis a lot of nice promise about what is being taught is good for the children , but in practice what is taught is what is good for the government.
Nice...but now try facing the issues that I raised, which are at the heart of the issue. This garbage about the Hitler Youth and government over reaching is the long road to Albuquerque.
Well I tried , what point did I miss?
-
Well I tried , what point did I miss?
OK.
1. You believe that homosexuality is a choice and not an attraction these individuals had from youth?
2. You believe that homosexuals actively "recruit" people to their lifestyle?
3. #2 automatically assumes that heterosexuals are vulnerable to this "recruiting" so we can infer that you believe this as well?
Can you explain some of the logic that goes into these beliefs?
-
Oh yes they are absolved for the sake of Republicanism.
If you are volentarily allowing them to influence your kids your rights are not being trampled , your wisdom or not will be proven by time and the eventual cost of your decisions that you have a right to make.
So, you think that homosexual neighbors should be shunned?
That is so entirely beside the point that you are going to have to struggle hard to get this point.
You should have the right to shun them even if it is wrong to shun them.
If your neighbors were NATZIs and I made you visit them a lot I would certainly be doing both of you wrong , but if I thought otherwise because I was terribly foolish perhaps I would sneak your kids into a NATZI celebration just so they would not have the impression that NATZIS wern't ordinary people. Why Hitler himself was a sunny and cheerfull person that was kind to animals and children , fun to be around and uplifting to the people he was wont to encourage. No way a kid could come back from an evening with the Hitlers in a bad mood.
So no you should have no right to shun anyone , unless the government says it is alright , as you and I know the government is never going to be wrong about stuff like that.
-
So, you think that homosexual neighbors should be shunned?
That is so entirely beside the point that you are going to have to struggle hard to get this point. You should have the right to shun them even if it is wrong to shun them.
GREAT point, Plane
-
No Plane...again you are equivocating Nazis and homosexuals, that isn't going to fly. As a parent, I know when something isn't kosher and I certainly would not allow my child into such a situation.
But I asked you a question, directly. Do you, Plane, think that homosexual neighbors should be shunned?
-
GREAT point, Plane
Strawman...I never said you could not shun anyone you want, hence why I asked the question.
-
Well I tried , what point did I miss?
OK.
1. You believe that homosexuality is a choice and not an attraction these individuals had from youth?
Definitely , sexual attraction is trainable .
2. You believe that homosexuals actively "recruit" people to their lifestyle?
Yes , should I look up a discussion of this ?, I don't really like to go there too often, washing my computer in three waters afterwards is hard on the circuits.
3. #2 automatically assumes that heterosexuals are vulnerable to this "recruiting" so we can infer that you believe this as well?
To some degree , do you think that people are born with a complete set of instincts that with no instruction produces a well rounded person? Human beings are very teachable and reprogrammable even to great depths of the sub conscious. Do you think that people are born with Bestiality or Rape in their system ? Do you think that people are born thieves or born leaders , born to Football or born to Soccar? There are really very few things we depend on instinct for as adults and more things in which we use reason for overcoming our instincts.
Can you explain some of the logic that goes into these beliefs?
No more than you can I guess , can you point out the "logic" in accepting Homosexuality as unalterable from conception?
This strikes me more as a large assumption or hypothesis rather than logic. As though I were to state that rape can't be discouraged because the desire is innate. If that sounds silly then you understand what I am getting at.
-
GREAT point, Plane
Strawman...I never said you could not shun anyone you want, hence why I asked the question.
Now you are holding up the strawman.
I didn't tell you that you had to shun them.
So I thought you asked the question as a deflection from my main theme ,
Which is;;;
........ the government should not be directing your kids attitude twards right and wrong without giveing you prior and proper right to refuse. This should be the rule with few exceptions because far and away parents have their childrens welfare at heart more than even the best govenment agency.
I am afaraid that I failed even to criticise you for allowing your kids to visit the Lesbians , did I mention that you were within your rights? If I think you are not smart to do this , I also think it is not my business. You were not really asking for advice were you?
-
GREAT point, Plane
Strawman...I never said you could not shun anyone you want, hence why I asked the question.
No, it's not. This whole bullying technique in trying to suppress criticisms of homosexual behavior is what's not going to fly. You can NOT take an obvious Christian principle of immorality, and PC it to death in order to make everyone all acceptant. We can respect the person (even love them, as I do my brother), while still condemning any acts our God has taught us as being immoral.
-
It isn't about my rights or asking for advice. I don't need your permission to teach my children anything. I don't even know if you have children. I know that Sirs does not. I doubt seriously that I'll require either of your permission or advice when it comes to my children. That is entirely irrelevant.
My question was direct and simple, your refusal to answer it (or even address it) is noted.
But onto the questions you did answer and I thank you for that.
1. You believe that homosexuality is a choice and not an attraction these individuals had from youth?
Definitely , sexual attraction is trainable .
How so? When you were an adolescent you looked for guidance in determining your sexual attraction?
2. You believe that homosexuals actively "recruit" people to their lifestyle?
Yes , should I look up a discussion of this ?, I don't really like to go there too often, washing my computer in three waters afterwards is hard on the circuits.
I'm just going to give two real-life examples and you tell me why these two aren't actively "recruiting." I have a really good friend who is an Oxford graduate (England, not Ole Miss) and now lives in London who is most certainly gay. He has never once tried to "recruit" me or any of our common friends. Also, I've been a moderator of this board for a while and I've never had anyone complain that Fatman's behavior is anything less than impeccable. Are these two individuals out of the loop on "recruiting" policy?
3. #2 automatically assumes that heterosexuals are vulnerable to this "recruiting" so we can infer that you believe this as well?
To some degree , do you think that people are born with a complete set of instincts that with no instruction produces a well rounded person? Human beings are very teachable and reprogrammable even to great depths of the sub conscious. Do you think that people are born with Bestiality or Rape in their system ? Do you think that people are born thieves or born leaders , born to Football or born to Soccar? There are really very few things we depend on instinct for as adults and more things in which we use reason for overcoming our instincts.
Rape is not comparable as it can and does happen across different sexualities. Sporting events are not comparable because they are not biological functions innate to the natural world. To some degree people are born leaders - or at least with the personality traits that would lend them towards leadership roles. Thievery is obviously learned and again not innate to the natural world.
Of course humans learn as any animal does (and obviously more so considering our high cognitive abilities), but that does not mean that there are no biological traits at all. This is a poor argument. Because you cannot be born a thief you cannot be born with blue eyes. That makes no sense.
-
GREAT point, Plane
Strawman...I never said you could not shun anyone you want, hence why I asked the question.
No, it's not. This whole bullying technique in trying to suppress criticisms of homosexual behavior is what's not going to fly. You can NOT take an obvious Christian principle of immorality, and PC it to death in order to make everyone all acceptant. We can respect the person (even love them, as I do my brother), while still condemning any acts our God has taught us as being immoral.
Oh please.
What canNOT do is invent garbage that has nothing to do with science or reason and then apply it to an entire community of individuals all the while trying to strip them of the same rights that others enjoy and then turn around and pin that onto Christ. That isn't His burden - it is yours.
-
Please yourself. If your walk with God, has no problem with you supporting and/or condoning immoral behavior, that's between you and your God. Nor would you expect me to have you alter my walk. A simple concept actually
-
It isn't about my rights or asking for advice. I don't need your permission to teach my children anything. I don't even know if you have children. I know that Sirs does not. I doubt seriously that I'll require either of your permission or advice when it comes to my children. That is entirely irrelevant.
My question was direct and simple, your refusal to answer it (or even address it) is noted.
But onto the questions you did answer and I thank you for that.
1. You believe that homosexuality is a choice and not an attraction these individuals had from youth?
Definitely , sexual attraction is trainable .
How so? When you were an adolescent you looked for guidance in determining your sexual attraction?
My parents and animals / the parents were much better sources but the horses were more demonstrative.
2. You believe that homosexuals actively "recruit" people to their lifestyle?
Yes , should I look up a discussion of this ?, I don't really like to go there too often, washing my computer in three waters afterwards is hard on the circuits.
I'm just going to give two real-life examples and you tell me why these two aren't actively "recruiting." I have a really good friend who is an Oxford graduate (England, not Ole Miss) and now lives in London who is most certainly gay. He has never once tried to "recruit" me or any of our common friends. Also, I've been a moderator of this board for a while and I've never had anyone complain that Fatman's behavior is anything less than impeccable. Are these two individuals out of the loop on "recruiting" policy?.
Yes, they probably already have a toaster oven.
3. #2 automatically assumes that heterosexuals are vulnerable to this "recruiting" so we can infer that you believe this as well?
To some degree , do you think that people are born with a complete set of instincts that with no instruction produces a well rounded person? Human beings are very teachable and reprogrammable even to great depths of the sub conscious. Do you think that people are born with Bestiality or Rape in their system ? Do you think that people are born thieves or born leaders , born to Football or born to Soccar? There are really very few things we depend on instinct for as adults and more things in which we use reason for overcoming our instincts.
Rape is not comparable as it can and does happen across different sexualities. Sporting events are not comparable because they are not biological functions innate to the natural world. To some degree people are born leaders - or at least with the personality traits that would lend them towards leadership roles. Thievery is obviously learned and again not innate to the natural world.
Of course humans learn as any animal does (and obviously more so considering our high cognitive abilities), but that does not mean that there are no biological traits at all. This is a poor argument. Because you cannot be born a thief you cannot be born with blue eyes. That makes no sense.
Blue eyes are not a belief nor a behavior. Your argument is poorer than mine.
Rape is an attitude towards other persons and a behavior set .A good argument could be made for its agreement with instinct, but that is no moral nor leagal excuse for a rapist its being natural to a person is nothing to the law and nothing to social opprobrium.
Leadership is a partly innate and partly learned quality even if you have the innate qualities that lend themselves to leadership you can still learn to do it badly.
Observe a tree full of squirrels if onehas a nut he either eats it or hides it , if he doesn't hide it well enough another squirrel will eat it. Thievery is a very natural behavior , children are trained not to thieve else they would pick up what they wanted , refusing to thieve is unnatural.Even people who are quite cultured often revert to thevery sometimes even if they cover it up with rationalisations and euphemisms.An intelligent theif can tell you many reasons that what he is doing is a good idea , he may even be telling himself exactly the same thjings.
People train themselves to be cool , people train themselves to like turnips , people trainthemselves to smoke and with great effort train themselves to quit , so what about homosexuality makes it a habit immune to training?
-
Please yourself. If your walk with God, has no problem with you supporting and/or condoning immoral behavior, that's between you and your God. Nor would you expect me to have you alter my walk. A simple concept actually
Not so simple. I don't like the idea of you imposing bigotry on others. The Southern Baptists used to preach that African-Americans were the descendants of Ham and therefore not to be treated with the same dignity and respect as a white person, though both were Christian. I love the idea of anyone finding his or her own path to God...but that isn't a license to use Christ for one's own disingenuous purposes.
There are many laws and corrections in the Bible. I doubt either you or Plane follow them all with any regularity. So I take your little jibe on "condoning immoral behavior" for what it is worth.
-
I'm not even sure how to respond to your post Plane.
Rape is an attitude? Quite clearly it is an action. Try using "rape is an attitude" in a court of law. I've heard of nuanced definitions before, but that takes the cake.
You can learn to be a bad leader? Sure. You can learn to be lousy at anything. I don't recall saying you couldn't. That's completely irrelevant and off-topic.
What you explain with the squirrels is not "thievery" but survival and hunger - biological impulses. Note that squirrels don't take acorns and then sell them for a profit.
Refusing to be a thief is unnatural? Really? So God created little heathen thieves? Interesting. I thought I was a cynic.
People train themselves to be cool , people train themselves to like turnips , people trainthemselves to smoke and with great effort train themselves to quit , so what about homosexuality makes it a habit immune to training?
Because it isn't a "habit."
My parents and animals / the parents were much better sources but the horses were more demonstrative.
So when you saw your Anne Marie Collins, or picked up your first Playboy you were thinking about your mom and dad and horses?
-
Please yourself. If your walk with God, has no problem with you supporting and/or condoning immoral behavior, that's between you and your God. Nor would you expect me to have you alter my walk. A simple concept actually
Not so simple. I don't like the idea of you imposing bigotry on others.
See?.....exactly my point (and Plane's as well), trying to bully someone into repressing any condemnation towards what they've been taught as immoral behavior, by trying to call them a bigot. News flash Js, unless you want to go on record as claiming Christianity is a religion of overt bigotry, I'd suggest you cease the judging of someone else's walk. Last time I checked, God wasn't so supportive of such an effort
-
Please yourself. If your walk with God, has no problem with you supporting and/or condoning immoral behavior, that's between you and your God. Nor would you expect me to have you alter my walk. A simple concept actually
Not so simple. I don't like the idea of you imposing bigotry on others.
See?.....exactly my point (and Plane's as well), trying to bully someone into repressing any condemnation towards what they've been taught as immoral behavior, by trying to call them a bigot. News flash Js, unless you want to go on record as claiming Christianity is a religion of overt bigotry, I'd suggest you cease the judging of someone else's walk. Last time I checked, God wasn't so supportive of such an effort
Are you trying to claim that the history of Christianity has been one of openness and toleration?
-
I'm claiming that Christianity is a religion advocating free will, choice, and an adherence to living a moral life, as God would want (as referenced in the Bible)
Your walk with God is for you and he to figure out, so best stop trying to judge others and their walk.
-
I think it is pretty clear that the sex drive is a biological instinct. In Freudian terms, it is part of the "Id", the center for instinctive behavior. In society, it is not permitted for a person to simply grab and rape anyone he is attracted to. The Ego is the force that controls the instinct. Since sex is a drive, like hunger and a need for warmth and shelter from the elements, the Superego reconciles the desire of the Id with the restraint of the Ego. You must court the object of your affections in a socially acceptable way.
If one is homosexual, one is attracted to members of his/her own sex. If one is heterosexual, one is attracted to members of the opposite sex.
In societies where homosexuality is frowned upon, there is normally a subculture which arises to provide for courtship rituals that are acceptable to the homosexuals and invisible to the heteros, so as to avoid being jailed, stoned or in some way punished.
I don't think that Plane is correct in his belief that it is as simple for a homosexual to indoctrinate himself into heterosexual desires as it is to teach oneself to enjoy eating turnips or spinach. Sex is a different drive than hunger, and operates differently in the mind.Of course, eating turnips or refusing to eat them is not something society bans or encourages as much as sexual preference.
-
I'm claiming that Christianity is a religion advocating free will, choice, and an adherence to living a moral life, as God would want (as referenced in the Bible)
Your walk with God is for you and he to figure out, so best stop trying to judge others and their walk.
Best for you to follow your own advice.
Interesting that in this sentence: "I'm claiming that Christianity is a religion advocating free will, choice, and an adherence to living a moral life, as God would want (as referenced in the Bible)" in which you define Christianity - you never once mentioned Christ. You went out of your way to point at the individualist aspects of Christianity (free will, choice, individual moral life) - but you neglected to mention Jesus, His two commandments, His ministry, The Kingdom of God, the Apostles, Faith, the Holy Spirit.
That is a telling description. In your sentence you could easily substitute Islam or Judaism for Christianity and the sentence would hold true. There is nothing in there that truly defines Christianity at its essence. I'm not attacking by any means...I just find it fascinating. The essence of Christianity is not free will, choice, or adherence to a code of ethics from written text.
-
Your walk with God is for you and he to figure out, so best stop trying to judge others and their walk.
Best for you to follow your own advice.
I have been. I'm not telling you how to run your walk, or anyone else for that matter, but you sure as hell are trying to do it with me (and Plane). Pulling out the ol bigotry calling card is pretty pathetic. Even trying to decipher my view of Christianity as some twisted version. That's what's really telling
-
I'm not going to get into a juvenile argument with you Sirs.
I love studying theology, plus it helps with what you call my "walk with God." I do find your definition interesting because it focuses so much on the individualist notions in religion as opposed to the higher theological principles that make Christianity what it is. The primary among those being the reincarnation of God into a human messiah of Jesus Christ who led a remarkable ministry where He discussed the Kingdom of God, which led to his crucifixion at Golgotha. In His ministry Christ and the apostles were very much people of Orthopraxy whereas many of the Christian leaders today (and throughout history) have been people of Orthodoxy.
You tend towards stressing orthodoxy and I believe that is why we have conflicts on religious issues. Both are obviously important and I'll leave it at that.
As for using the term "bigotry" - I'll call it when I see it. I make no qualms about it. The Southern Baptists hid behind their "walk with God" too. That didn't make it right Sirs. I'm all for leaving people alone, but not when it starts hurting others and selectively isolates people who have done nothing to deserve it.
-
I'm not going to get into a juvenile argument with you Sirs.
Not asking you to. I'm asking you to leave my walk with God alone, and refrain with the juvenile attempts at kneejerk labeling anyone a bigot for daring to support the notion that some acts, clearly articulated in the bible, are immoral. Simple as that
-
I'm not even sure how to respond to your post Plane.
Rape is an attitude? Quite clearly it is an action. Try using "rape is an attitude" in a court of law. I've heard of nuanced definitions before, but that takes the cake.
You can learn to be a bad leader? Sure. You can learn to be lousy at anything. I don't recall saying you couldn't. That's completely irrelevant and off-topic.
What you explain with the squirrels is not "thievery" but survival and hunger - biological impulses. Note that squirrels don't take acorns and then sell them for a profit.
Refusing to be a thief is unnatural? Really? So God created little heathen thieves? Interesting. I thought I was a cynic.
People train themselves to be cool , people train themselves to like turnips , people trainthemselves to smoke and with great effort train themselves to quit , so what about homosexuality makes it a habit immune to training?
Because it isn't a "habit."
My parents and animals / the parents were much better sources but the horses were more demonstrative.
So when you saw your Anne Marie Collins, or picked up your first Playboy you were thinking about your mom and dad and horses?
Oh no Playboy is what it is , but before I ever had one I knew something about Sex.
Ssquirrels do not sin of course , but they do take what they find , as do children too young to have been trained , that training is the diffrence between thevevery and not (I know how to spell theveveverey but I don't know when to quit) either way it is a behavior that is completely natural. Could you find for the the scriptures that urge one to be completely natural?
Rape is most certainly an attitude , so is murder a closely related attitude , people who are civilised enough to hold the lives of others in great esteem do not perform these as acts because they do not consider them legitamate acts in their attitude. Both Rape and murder have a lot to do with rage , hatred and power, can you imagine a hate crime being done with no hate at all? Murder is natural to mankind even though it is corrosive to everything about us as victim and as perpetrator and as society . Rape is only the same thing with added humiliation and reduced lethality. that they are natural results of inborn traits does nothing to make them good , acceptable or fair or leagal , you are right about it being a very lousy defense in court even though it is truely a natural phenominon it isn't much of a defense to say so.
As one can learn to be a bad leader , one can learn to be bad at sex, this seems to be one feild at which we value both skill and lack of practice , I am sure you could catch my drift if you weren't trying to avoid it.
People train themselves to be cool , people train themselves to like turnips , people trainthemselves to smoke and with great effort train themselves to quit , so what about homosexuality makes it a habit immune to training?
Because it isn't a "habit."
Oh Great! now we need a definition of" Habit " that we can agree on , as well as a definition of Homosexuality that is exclusive of it.
Then you can start telling me what makes Homosexuality unique of all human attributes in that it is not the result of training and it is immune to change by training.
-
I think it is pretty clear that the sex drive is a biological instinct. In Freudian terms, it is part of the "Id", the center for instinctive behavior. In society, it is not permitted for a person to simply grab and rape anyone he is attracted to. The Ego is the force that controls the instinct. Since sex is a drive, like hunger and a need for warmth and shelter from the elements, the Superego reconciles the desire of the Id with the restraint of the Ego. You must court the object of your affections in a socially acceptable way.
If one is homosexual, one is attracted to members of his/her own sex. If one is heterosexual, one is attracted to members of the opposite sex.
In societies where homosexuality is frowned upon, there is normally a subculture which arises to provide for courtship rituals that are acceptable to the homosexuals and invisible to the heteros, so as to avoid being jailed, stoned or in some way punished.
I don't think that Plane is correct in his belief that it is as simple for a homosexual to indoctrinate himself into heterosexual desires as it is to teach oneself to enjoy eating turnips or spinach. Sex is a different drive than hunger, and operates differently in the mind.Of course, eating turnips or refusing to eat them is not something society bans or encourages as much as sexual preference.
Did I say it was simple?
Did I say that quitting smokeing was easy?
I only suppose it to be complex and difficult because my experience is not first hand , you have first hand experience?
I have quit some bad habits , but I havent had to quit smokeing.
-
I quit smoking in 1986, right after my father's second heart attack.
It wasn't easy, but the idea of being dead was a great motivator.
I do not think that homosexuality can be equated with a taste for turnips or an addiction to cigarettes.
The best way to think about it would be to consider what it would take to convince yourself to like men, as opposed to women.
What would I need to do to get turned on by thinking of Ricky Martin, George Clooney or some other guy?
-
I don't think that you guys are asking and debating the right question. I don't think whether or not homosexuality can or can't be trained is particularly important (I don't think it is, but that's my take).
I think that the big question is whether or not homosexuality should be trained out. And I would say that in an open, tolerant society, the answer would be no. But gay marriage opponents are perfectly happy to penalize and punish homosexuals for not adhering to their sense of morality, though homosexual acts are not illegal. They see letting homosexuals marry as rewarding homosexuality. That's not true, it's simply allowing them the same rights as anyone else. It's not like someone is going to cut me a check for $1000 for being gay. It goes back to the enablement argument that I tried to address in my post. And JS is right, there were religious groups that hid behind the Bible to justify segregation. Today, there are many Christian churches that accept and welcome homosexuals into their fold. There is a disagreement as to whether or not homosexuality is fundamentally immoral, that argument is tearing the Episcopal Church apart. My theology accepts homosexuality, some others don't.
But I think that it is the place of the Church to decide the morality of a person who engages in a legal activity. It is not the place of the government to make that determination, nor should religious people force the government to make that determination.
-
I don't think that you guys are asking and debating the right question. I don't think whether or not homosexuality can or can't be trained is particularly important (I don't think it is, but that's my take).
I think that the big question is whether or not homosexuality should be trained out. And I would say that in an open, tolerant society, the answer would be no. But gay marriage opponents are perfectly happy to penalize and punish homosexuals for not adhering to their sense of morality, though homosexual acts are not illegal...."
But someone who beleives it is the result of indoctrination and is trying to raise a child without this indoctrination might be dismayed to find his chillds school working against him. Why indeed was this class of small children taken to a wedding in San Fransisco ?
-
I don't think that you guys are asking and debating the right question. I don't think whether or not homosexuality can or can't be trained is particularly important (I don't think it is, but that's my take).
I think that the big question is whether or not homosexuality should be trained out. And I would say that in an open, tolerant society, the answer would be no. But gay marriage opponents are perfectly happy to penalize and punish homosexuals for not adhering to their sense of morality, though homosexual acts are not illegal. They see letting homosexuals marry as rewarding homosexuality. That's not true,
Yes it is. Civil Unions can obtain the same rights as a marriage between a man & a woman, Fat. This is a fair compromise, which to many Christians, would be wrong to do...it'd be like compromising their faith. You have to remember.....to most Christians, homosexuality is a sin. No different than adultery. The fact that it has attained mass PC support, doesn't, in any way, lessen the sin that it is deemed by God to be. Nothing phobic about, nothing about hate, simply that it's a sin & immoral. As Christians we are taught to love our neighbor, as well as the sinner. Not supporting your choice in lifestyle isn't hateful. For some idiots, they do cross the line. The bastards that killed Matthew Shepard should have been hung from the toenails, and skinned for good measure. But the issue you have with a vast majority of the rest of the country is the foundation of morality that the bible has instilled in so many. You can't PC that out of the way, and like I tried to tell Js, you can't bully it out either, by calling such followers of their faith, names such as bigots. Last I checked there is no scientific or anthropological conclusion that Homosexuality is anything other than a choice. A person can't chose their race or their gender, so folks who hate because of those reasons really are phobic
And yes, there's all kinds of rationalizing arguments as to why would anyone chose such a lifestyle. My answer is, I have no answer. Why do people choose to commit adultery? Why do people choose to want to have sex wearing rubber suits and all tied up? I don't know......but its their choice. so yes, granting "marriage" which has been a cornerstone in the bringing together that of a man and a woman, is an overt effort at normalizing what a vast majority of folks believe to be immoral. So the compromise is Civil Unions, with full rights, equal to that of marriage. I wasn't supportive of it originally, but Bt has helped "show me the light"
-
Sure Sirs, and people thought that separate but equal was a "fair compromise" and they also used Christianity and tradition to defend it. Using Christ to single out a group of other people and deny them the same rights as others is not anything new. It is also not right.
Don't forget that Christ saved the adulteress from the finality of the law. He healed on the Sabbath. His first miracle was what?
Turning water into wine at a wedding party in Cana, at the request of his mother. What Christ repeatedly disliked were the Pharisees who loved legalism. They looked upon the prostitutes and the tax collectors as contemptible people who were beneath them.
Are you and Plane doing the same thing? Are you better and more holy than Fatman and other homosexuals? Are you better than an adulterer or the individual who has "sex wearing rubber suits and all tied up?"
By the way, adulterers and fetishists may get married. There is no law that prevents this. Again you single out homosexuals.
-
Yes, Christ saved the adulterous, and no where do you see me (or Plane fot that matter) advocating anything differently. That fits nicely with hate the sin but love the sinner.
And one last time, I'm not judging yours or Fat's walk with your God. That's between you and your God, so I'd appreciate you stopping trying to judge my walk, with the obvious implication of how much holier and evolved you're trying to present yourself as
-
Yes, Christ saved the adulterous, and no where do you see me (or Plane fot that matter) advocating anything differently. That fits nicely with hate the sin but love the sinner.
And one last time, I'm not judging yours or Fat's walk with your God. That's between you and your God, so I'd appreciate you stopping trying to judge my walk, with the obvious implication of how much hoier and evolved you're trying to present yourself as
See, that is where you are absolutely wrong Sirs. I know that I'm a sinner. I don't consider myself any better than anyone else. I know that there are is nothing I can do as a human being, no good deeds I can do that earn God's love or Christ's sacrifice.
You keep saying "stop judging my walk." That, of course, is not what I'm doing at all. There is nowhere written that a Christian need be an unthinking drone who follows others who interpret Christian scriptures. God gave us all intellectual capacity to some degree or another. Therefore, you can stop with the whole "stop judging me" every time I challenge your notions of what it really means to be a Christian. You've got a mind - use it. If more Christians had done this in the South, the rampant racism would not have been so easily excused (and even encouraged) in churches across those states.
Christianity is not static Sirs. It has changed quite a lot over the last two millennia as has Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and other major religions. That isn't a judgment, just a fact.
Now, care to actually answer the question I asked without the defensive reaction?
-
Yes, Christ saved the adulterous, and no where do you see me (or Plane fot that matter) advocating anything differently. That fits nicely with hate the sin but love the sinner. And one last time, I'm not judging yours or Fat's walk with your God. That's between you and your God, so I'd appreciate you stopping trying to judge my walk, with the obvious implication of how much hoier and evolved you're trying to present yourself as
See, that is where you are absolutely wrong Sirs. I know that I'm a sinner. I don't consider myself any better than anyone else. I know that there are is nothing I can do as a human being, no good deeds I can do that earn God's love or Christ's sacrifice. You keep saying "stop judging my walk." That, of course, is not what I'm doing at all.
I wish you could look at precisely what you're typing and implying, since it's 180degrees opposite, and precisely what you're doing. I'm here typing my walk, my faith, and at no time condemning anyone else's walk or proclaiming how they need to see it my way. That that is between themselves and God. And there you are claiming how my view is wrong, how my view is bigoted, how my walk is literally broken with Christ, yet I'm the one supposedly with the problem of judging others. Somehow hating the sin but loving the sinner just can't exist in your world. Which is fine. Like I said, that's what you're going to have to deal with
Now, care to actually answer the question I asked without the defensive reaction?
Asked and anwered already. If you don't like the answer or that it doesn't fit your pre-conceived prism of what is is, I can't help
-
I'm here typing my walk, my faith, and at no time condemning anyone else's walk
Of course you are. Look at the words you've used:
You've called homosexuals "immoral"
You've compared them to people who enjoy "sex wearing rubber suits and all tied up"
You claim that allowing homosexuals to marry would undermine the "foundation of morality that the bible has instilled in so many."
And your only defense for using the "separate but equal" argument against homosexuals is this: "stop trying to judge my walk." While you are free to condemn others, you hide behind the story of Sodom for your bigotry. Nice.
I'll give you a point on Plane who compared homosexuals to the Nazi youth...at least you did not stoop to that level.
Asked and anwered already.
Certainly asked, but not answered. Are you incapable of a straight answer? Do you believe you are better than Fatman because you aren't gay?
-
I'm here typing my walk, my faith, and at no time condemning anyone else's walk
Of course you are. Look at the words you've used: You've called homosexuals "immoral"
Close...I've called the ACT of homosexuality, immoral. And how the hell is that condemning their walk with God?? Lying is also immoral, yet when we catch someone in it, we have no problem making that proclaimation as well. Love the sinner hate the sin, a very simple concept.
You see Js, you have the problem of recognizing when another person is simply acting out in a way they've been brought up, in this case a moral Christian upbringing and then judging them as not following their faith properly, because JS (the fella that has a better, more holier interpretation of Christianity apparently) has deemed it so ---> that's called JUDGING another person's walk. And what I'm "comparing" are acts that are not considered wholesome or "standard", by most in the art of sexuality. Why they CHOOSE to perform in such ways is their choice alone. THAt's what the comparison was about, and not some twisted version of trying to compare the acts themselves like apples to apples. They're not, and was never the reason such a comparison was brought up in the 1st place. then again, you probably knew that
Certainly asked, but not answered. Are you incapable of a straight answer? Do you believe you are better than Fatman because you aren't gay?
Doesn't even warrant a response, so don't try going there again. He knows me FAR better than you do
-
Love the sinner hate the sin, a very simple concept.
A post-modern Protestant construct used to defend the indefensible and almost always used to attack homosexuals. It is nowhere found in the Bible to "love the sinner, hate the sin." Read 1 Corinthians 13:4-8, this is Paul's description of Christian love. Tell me anywhere in there where the notion of "love the sinner, hate the sin" is found?
I notice a great deal of self-proclaimed "Bible-believing" Christians use this coy phrase, but it is not scriptural at all. Find me a scripture verse that says "Christ hates..."
You're correct that the concept is simple. That's why it is popular. Yet, simple doesn't mean right. It certainly doesn't mean Christian.
Sirs, you can call it "judging" if you like...it is semantics with you anyway (most arguments are). You can call me a litany of names if you like, but you're damn straight that I'll stand up against Christ being used for "separate but equal" ever again.
Doesn't even warrant a response, so don't try going there again. He knows me FAR better than you do
Irrelevant. You can still answer the question. Are you a better person because you aren't gay?
-
Love the sinner hate the sin, a very simple concept.
A post-modern Protestant construct used to defend the indefensible and almost always used to attack homosexuals.
Except when its not
Doesn't even warrant a response, so don't try going there again. He knows me FAR better than you do
Irrelevant. You can still answer the question. Are you a better person because you aren't gay?
As I said, doesn't even warrant a response based on how ridiculous a question it is
-
Have you found "hate this sin, love the sinner" in the scriptures Sirs?
You speak of the Bible as a foundation of morality - where is this ethical law found in the Bible?
-
I'll give you a point on Plane who compared homosexuals to the Nazi youth...at least you did not stoop to that level.
That isn't a fact about the NATZI Youth?
-
Have you found "hate this sin, love the sinner" in the scriptures Sirs?
I have found it in my walk with God. If I were to actually be pushing what you keep claiming, I'd be pressing you (like you are to me) why is it not part of your walk? But unlike you, I'm not going to continually stand over you and judge your faith, as I see fit. I think we can cease this now
-
I quit smoking in 1986, right after my father's second heart attack.
It wasn't easy, but the idea of being dead was a great motivator.
I do not think that homosexuality can be equated with a taste for turnips or an addiction to cigarettes.
The best way to think about it would be to consider what it would take to convince yourself to like men, as opposed to women.
What would I need to do to get turned on by thinking of Ricky Martin, George Clooney or some other guy?
Long term imprisonment.
-
Long term imprisonment.
Is that supposed to be funny plane? Because it sure isn't to me. Being equated with Nazi's, fetishists, adulterers, and now criminals is a bit grating. I'm surprised that someone hasn't thrown in child molestors. In the interest of remaining on good terms with the right in this forum, I'm going to cease my part in this debate, before I type something that I regret later.
But here's one last thing to keep in mind. This is not an abstract issue to me. Gay marriage is very unlikely to affect you directly, but it has a direct impact on my life and my future. While you and sirs may argue abstract principles of morality, I would think that the chances are very slim that either of you would ever want to marry another man. That's your choice and your right, but for a party that argues against government intrusiveness in the home and the bedroom, you're hypocrites.
-
Civil Unions, Fat. Civil Unions. Takes care of everything regarding equal rights, and is the perfect compromise. How is it not?? and one more time, those references to other sexual activities, is NOT, repeat NOT trying to compare the sexual acts, it's dealing with the arguement of "choice vs no choice" that's so often used in trying to supposedly validate why folks have sex with the same sex. That's all
-
Long term imprisonment.
Is that supposed to be funny plane? Because it sure isn't to me. Being equated with Nazi's, fetishists, adulterers, and now criminals is a bit grating. I'm surprised that someone hasn't thrown in child molestors. In the interest of remaining on good terms with the right in this forum, I'm going to cease my part in this debate, before I type something that I regret later.
But here's one last thing to keep in mind. This is not an abstract issue to me. Gay marriage is very unlikely to affect you directly, but it has a direct impact on my life and my future. While you and sirs may argue abstract principles of morality, I would think that the chances are very slim that either of you would ever want to marry another man. That's your choice and your right, but for a party that argues against government intrusiveness in the home and the bedroom, you're hypocrites.
You are still better than most , you may be seething , but you are exibiting self controll and measuring your response.
Kudos to you .
We might be better able to discuss this if you were less personally attached to it , but in any important question someone is actually personally attached , so if you bow out rather than scrap , count me gratefull.
Long term imprisonment does seem to produce a bit of Homosexuality in people who don't tend to it otherwise ,is this phenominon actually off limits to a discussion on whether Homosexuality can be learned?
-
Civil Unions, Fat. Civil Unions. Takes care of everything regarding equal rights, and is the perfect compromise. How is it not??
Even if all benefits were exactly the same it is the diffrence between social approval and social opprobrium.
If Homosexual marrage becomes common I don't think that the Opprobrium will disappear.
-
Civil Unions, Fat. Civil Unions. Takes care of everything regarding equal rights, and is the perfect compromise. How is it not??
Sure it's a great compromise sirs, and you know that I'm in agreement with it. But the problem is that right now there are 18 states that ban civil unions. Not gay marriage (though they ban that also), but civil unions. It's kind of hard to make headway on a compromise when more than 1/3 of the states are totally against even the baby steps of compromise. Then there's also the issue of getting the fed to recognize civil unions as being "marriage-like". When 1/3 of the states are against it, I think that it has slim chances of Federal recognition. For the record, there are 10 states that have civil union laws for it's citizens, and two that grant gay marriage (that may change with CA, by the looks of it). I have little hope of a compromise succeeding, though I would like for it to. It's become my position that in order to have equal rights, there needs to be recognition of a marriage right. Otherwise it's pick and choose. I like BT's idea the best, of removing marriage from the state and placing it within the Church, but I don't see that happening either.
With the militantcy of some on the right, is a militantcy on my part unjustified? While I and you are willing to come to an amicable and practical compromise, there are those who are going to upset that boat.
-
Long term imprisonment.
Is that supposed to be funny plane? Because it sure isn't to me. Being equated with Nazi's, fetishists, adulterers, and now criminals is a bit grating. I'm surprised that someone hasn't thrown in child molestors. In the interest of remaining on good terms with the right in this forum, I'm going to cease my part in this debate, before I type something that I regret later.
But here's one last thing to keep in mind. This is not an abstract issue to me. Gay marriage is very unlikely to affect you directly, but it has a direct impact on my life and my future. While you and sirs may argue abstract principles of morality, I would think that the chances are very slim that either of you would ever want to marry another man. That's your choice and your right, but for a party that argues against government intrusiveness in the home and the bedroom, you're hypocrites.
You are still better than most , you may be seething , but you are exibiting self controll and measuring your response.
Kudos to you .
We might be better able to discuss this if you were less personally attached to it , but in any important question someone is actually personally attached , so if you bow out rather than scrap , count me gratefull.
Long term imprisonment does seem to produce a bit of Homosexuality in people who don't tend to it otherwise ,is this phenominon actually off limits to a discussion on whether Homosexuality can be learned?
Well I'm done seething, a cup of hot tea after a long day in a cold shop can help with that. You are probably correct, in that I'm too close to this issue and too emotionally tied into it for me to even pretend objectivity. I just wanted to put the brakes on (mostly on myself) before it got ugly, because when someone is strongly tied to an issue emotionally things have a tendency to get way out of hand way too quickly sometimes. So I just wanted to post this real quick and thank you and sirs for a good debate and let you know that there aren't any hard feelings, but I need to bow out of this one in my own best interest.
As to your question about long term imprisonment, it's not off limits to discussion (what really is in this forum?), but I took it personally until I realized that I'd never talked about that here and you didn't know. I've done volunteer work for 6 years now in prisons here in Washington State, mostly to do with organizing housing/jobs/support services for inmates to be released. That's where I met my partner, he is an ex-con. He's cleaned his life up and turned things around, and I'm extremely proud of him for that. Believe it or not, a lot of guys do. But one thing that inmates have always told me, is that prison doesn't make someone gay, it just brings it out in the people that have had the tendency but have never acted on it. Which makes sense to me, because I've always thought that homosexuality is something probably both pre-programmed and learned, basically that someone may have a "tendency", but through environmental influences is able to repress that more or less easily, or decide not to repress it at all. I hope that helps.
Thanks again for the debate.
-
Civil Unions, Fat. Civil Unions. Takes care of everything regarding equal rights, and is the perfect compromise. How is it not??
Sure it's a great compromise sirs, and you know that I'm in agreement with it. But the problem is that right now there are 18 states that ban civil unions.
Then, with all due respect Fat, your beef is with democracy, unless you're claiming there was some unilateral ban imposed by the acting Governor. It's even more egregious here in CA, where the people DID speak, but a court overuled the will of the people, when this came up the last time. The compromise is there, but trying to ram one side thru, and screw compromise isn't going to make any friends from those willing to compromise ideals that largely should never be compromised in the 1st place.
I wonder if there's a record for how many times the word compromise can appear in a sentence?
-
Thanks again for the debate.
You are welcome , and I am very impressed with your civility.
This makes me nostalgic for Gannemede , who used to confrount me on this topic for hours at a time, but didn't get abuseive.
We lost Gannimede in the flamewars of Elio , because Elio was so severe .
I wonder whatever happened to Elio ? If his real attitude was much like his internet attitude he may be on death row somewhere in Honduras, but Gannimede would be nice to have back.
-
It's even more egregious here in CA, where the people DID speak, but a court overuled the will of the people, when this came up the last time. The compromise is there, but trying to ram one side thru, and screw compromise isn't going to make any friends from those willing to compromise ideals that largely should never be compromised in the 1st place.
==================================================================
What sort of "ideal" is the objective of preventing people from having the exact same rights as everyone else? If heterosexual couples can marry, why should momosexual couples not be given that same right? Because some ancient books say they should be stoned? Because the mob of people want to impose their restrictions on people who are not like them?
Democracy is Majority rule combined with minority rights. The majority of Christians cannot order the minority of atheists, Jews, Muslims or whatever stoned, for example.
Since homosexuality is not illegal, this means that it is accepted by the state, so where does the state get off telling homosexuals that they are accepted with fewer rights?
-
It's even more egregious here in CA, where the people DID speak, but a court overuled the will of the people, when this came up the last time. The compromise is there, but trying to ram one side thru, and screw compromise isn't going to make any friends from those willing to compromise ideals that largely should never be compromised in the 1st place.
==================================================================
What sort of "ideal" is the objective of preventing people from having the exact same rights as everyone else? If heterosexual couples can marry, why should momosexual couples not be given that same right?
And Civil Unions can provide precisely that. oy
-
It's even more egregious here in CA, where the people DID speak, but a court overuled the will of the people, when this came up the last time. The compromise is there, but trying to ram one side thru, and screw compromise isn't going to make any friends from those willing to compromise ideals that largely should never be compromised in the 1st place.
==================================================================
What sort of "ideal" is the objective of preventing people from having the exact same rights as everyone else? If heterosexual couples can marry, why should homosexual couples not be given that same right?
And Civil Unions can provide precisely that. oy
=======================================================================
The thing is that most of the impetus against homosexuals are also against civil unions. Here in FL a bunch of antigays have an amendment that declares that civil unions and marriages of gays should be invalid in this state.
Why not just give gays the same rights, including the word marriage? How could that possibly harm anyone else?
If all marriages were actually sacred, then how is it that every state offers civil marriages with no clergy or holy people involved? Why aren't these people who are always ranting about sanctity of marriage out to remove civil marriages from the statutes?
If all you are arguing over is the use of one word, that is really dumb.
-
What sort of "ideal" is the objective of preventing people from having the exact same rights as everyone else? If heterosexual couples can marry, why should homosexual couples not be given that same right?
And Civil Unions can provide precisely that. oy
=======================================================================
The thing is that most of the impetus against homosexuals are also against civil unions.
Which is less and less an "impetus" as more and more folks like myself, who were totally against the idea, now support it. Try working with that, vs trying to cram 1 side down our throat, and you're likely to get those "equal rights" everyone SAYS is what they want
Why not just give gays the same rights, including the word marriage?
Asked and answered already. Go with the compromise route. Gets the "same rights" taken care of, while leaving marriage as that of a bond between a man & a woman
-
Asked and answered already. Go with the compromise route. Gets the "same rights" taken care of, while leaving marriage as that of a bond between a man & a woman
A poor answer, because there never will BE a civil union law passed. You may be the only one who sees any merit in one, anyway. There are NO STATES where a civil union guarantees the same rights as a marriage.
Stop it with the "asked and answered already", you are not God, and nearly all your answers suck.
-
Asked and answered already. Go with the compromise route. Gets the "same rights" taken care of, while leaving marriage as that of a bond between a man & a woman
A poor answer, because there never will BE a civil union law passed.
Why? And if you think a compromise bill couldn't be passed, how the hell do you think a screw 1 side bill would??
You may be the only one who sees any merit in one, anyway.
I seriously doubt that as Bt has been singing that tune far longer tham myself. So that makes at least 2
There are NO STATES where a civil union guarantees the same rights as a marriage.
That can't be worded properly & corrected, via the legislative route
Stop it with the "asked and answered already", you are not God, and nearly all your answers suck.
Ahh, back to the terminal lack of self control response. Good to see consistency, though. FYI, never did try passing myself off as God, unlike some who try to pass themselves off as the spelling Nazi
-
You may be the only one who sees any merit in one, anyway.
I seriously doubt that as Bt has been singing that tune far longer tham myself. So that makes at least 2
IIRC, Fatman also agrees. And he's the only vocal gay member here.
-
There is no screw one side bill. If gay people are allowed to legally marry, how does that screw anyone?
This civil union stuff would be nice, but it will not pass. It's like saying that you can't own a Rotweiler unless you name him "Fluffy".
-
There is no screw one side bill.
Yea, there is....the one that legislates "marriage" as anyone marrying anyone, and screw the traditional definition. That screws the other side, who whole heartedly, and with complete conviction believe marriage to be a sacraed covenent between a man and a woman
This civil union stuff would be nice, but it will not pass.
Again, WHY??, it's actually a compromise. You have't yet explained that bit of irrational thought
It's like saying that you can't own a Rotweiler unless you name him "Fluffy".
Completely unrelated and irrelevent. No one is argueing you can't name your dog anything you want
-
I have found it in my walk with God.
Sirs is a moral relativist...I've seen it all now.
If I were to actually be pushing what you keep claiming, I'd be pressing you (like you are to me) why is it not part of your walk? But unlike you, I'm not going to continually stand over you and judge your faith, as I see fit. I think we can cease this now
You may ask me that, I do not find questions towards my faith the least bit offensive. I don't adhere to "love the sinner, hate the sin" for a myriad of reasons. The first being that there is no basis in the ministry of Christ for such an ethical proposal. It does not follow the Pauline theology of Christian love that one is to "hate." Moreover, as I said before, it is simply a modern Protestant (and not mainstream protestant by any stretch) construct that finds no real basis in Christian tradition. We can dig deep into the scriptures and into various theological aspects, but I don't think that is what you have in mind.
The truth is that you cannot justify it with the Bible. So now you have to use something you truly despise to justify this ethical rule you've created - moral relativism!! What an intricate web of hypocrisy you've created for yourself. Some introspection would do some good on this issue.
-
You can be married, as long as you agree to let us call it a 'civil union".
You can own a Rotweiler as long as you agree to call it "Fluffy".
If we allow you to call it a Rotweiler, there are these people over here who are afraid of Rotweilers and they will not allow anythoig named a Rotweiler in our community. They feel that Rotweilers are satanic. But if you agree to call it "Fluffy", we are going to make a special exception.
There is no merit to calling something which it is not.
-
See XO I think you miss how nice this compromise is.
Homosexuals will be separate, but equal (sort of) to heterosexuals. They will be segregated and given a similar right called by a different name. They should be grateful to these great compromisers who deem them almost worthy enough to enjoy the same right to be married that the rest of us have.
I mean, not everyone should be like Tom Arnold, Liz Taylor, Rudy Giulianni or Dennis Rodman. That is a special right reserved for those who treat marriage with the dignity and respect it deserves.
-
I would not object to calling it a civil union, but we know the IRS would not treat these equally, not would insurance companies, hospitals or banks, unless the law demanded it.
Of course, since I am neither gay nor a great fan of marriage, my personal views are irrelevant.
If you want to give people the right to be married, just do it. It harms no one, it makes no demands of any church. It it might be construed that way, write into the law that it will not oblige any clergyman to wed anyone against his will.
-
See Js, you miss how nice the compromise is where the Bible and God teaches Christians that homosexuality is immoral, yet we're even able to compromise that standard by allowing for civil unions. Same rights and everything
Unless of course this has never been about "equal rights". Which to this observer, seems to be far more the case
-
See Js, you miss how nice the compromise is where the Bible and God teaches Christians that homosexuality is immoral, yet we're even able to compromise that standard by allowing for civil unions. Same rights and everything
Unless of course this has never been about "equal rights". Which to this observer, seems to be far more the case
Are we now creating conspiracy theories?
Sirs...I'd put more into your "homosexuality is immoral" line if you didn't defend that position with moral relativism.
-
Problem for you Js, there is no "moral relativism". Bible is clear, Homosexuality is a sin. You don't need me to provide you with the passages, do you? You being the Bible guru and all
-
There is no screw one side bill. If gay people are allowed to legally marry, how does that screw anyone?
This civil union stuff would be nice, but it will not pass. It's like saying that you can't own a Rotweiler unless you name him "Fluffy".
Hehehe..
Apt.
So what is the objection to "fluffy" then?
-
Problem for you Js, there is no "moral relativism". Bible is clear, Homosexuality is a sin. You don't need me to provide you with the passages, do you? You being the Bible guru and all
Not a problem at all because the moral relativism comes from your "hate the sin, love the sinner" ethics, which is no where to be found in the scriptures. You defend it with your subjective everyone-gets-to-make-up-their-own-ethics walk with God line of New Age babble. That, Sirs, is moral relativism.
And for the record, not once have I EVER claimed to be a "Bible guru." Nor would I ever do so.
-
You're the one sitting in judge over my walk. I thought Bible guru was pretty light. And last time I checked, Homosexuality was still a sin in the eyes of God, so how that negates my attempt to love the sinner but hat the sin, is still a problematic issue for you, I'm afraid, regardless your numerous attempts at labeling me
-
Getting divorced is a sin as well more clearly stated than homosexuality, but I haven't seen you push to ban divorce.
Why not?
-
LOL..."more clearly"?? So, you're advocating people who hate each other must stay together??
Look, I'm all against divorce myself. When I took my vows, they were "till death do us part", not "til I get tired of you". It's a solemn vow. Those that divorce, "probably" shouldn't have gotten married in the 1st place, but that's just an opinion. Point being, I'm not BANNNG or even supporting a ban that 2 guys or 2 gals can't get together. Have at it, enjoy. I'm not even supporting a "ban" that they can't arrange for a mutual level of rights, both legal & matrimonial, analogus to a married couple
So I think we know where we can shove your "ban" inferrence
And yea, I'd still love the divorced couple, if they were my friends, but hate the divorce
-
Getting divorced is a sin as well more clearly stated than homosexuality, but I haven't seen you push to ban divorce.
Why not?
It would be nice if we could.
But when Jesus himself was asked this question , he deplored devorce and did not forbid it.
Is it stated even more clearly than Homosexuality indeed?
What is the unclear part?
-
LOLOL
So, you're advocating people who hate each other must stay together??
I'm not advocating anything. I'm saying that by your logic you should be advocating that divorce be illegal (or some ridiculous compromise that separates divorced people into another group and labels them with some other bizarre moniker).
I have seen it all in this debate. A moral relativist who wishes to impose his concrete religious rules on others, but gets incredibly defensive when others make judgments about his arrival at this ethical law.
On the flipside we have someone who advocates learning about sex from the equine world and refers to his fellow man with tags of Nazi Youth and both compare homosexuals to adulterers and other bizarre sexual deviants, who by the way - can get married!
I've seen logic misused and not used...but I've never seen it beaten and dismantled then thrown together in chaos quite like this.
Truly impressive gentlemen.
-
And yes...more clearly. Directly from Christ and recorded by one not far removed.
The story of Sodom is from an Old Testament oral tradition passed down for centuries before it was ever in written form. Do you believe every story in the Old Testament to be absolute historical truth - word for word? Even the Jewish tradition does not hold to that belief.
-
And right on cue, Js, in his more evolved level of Christianity, has deemed sirs walk with God as bigoted, morally relativistic, and completely illogical
But he's not judging me............naaaaaaaaaaa
And you'll note at no time have I EVER referenced the notion that homosexuality be made illegal. So that bit of intellectual dishonesty, when trying to apply it to divorces, really takes the cake. But alas, I apparently haven't evolved enough in my Christianity to understand. I sit in utter shame
-
Yes, yes you're the victim Sirs. :'(
I'm stating fact. Your ethical law of "hate the sin, love the sinner" is moral relativism. If it is not, then defend it. This is a board for debate, is it not? Am I going to have to carve out a special place for Sirs' feelings and his "walk with God?"
Please.
I'll try and use less personal language so I won't hurt your feelings.
The "personal walk with God" defense of using the "hate the sin, love the sinner" ethical rule is nothing more than a mask for moral relativism.
For example, one could say that "in my walk with God I learned to loathe poor people for their stupidity and faithlessness." In this example, the individual is simply using his or her "walk with god" to justify his or her own beliefs and/or lifestyle. It doesn't make it right. Nor does it make it wrong for someone else to correct that person.
-
Yes, yes you're the victim Sirs. :'(
ahh, now that Js has been called on his being judegemental in someone else's walk with God, he has to throw out the claim of that source of judgement being a victim now. Nice deflection effort. Compliments the intellectual dishonesty & name calling earlier, much the nicer >:(
I think we can stop now, don't you? My anger level is still under control
-
And yes...more clearly. Directly from Christ and recorded by one not far removed.
The story of Sodom is from an Old Testament oral tradition passed down for centuries before it was ever in written form. Do you believe every story in the Old Testament to be absolute historical truth - word for word? Even the Jewish tradition does not hold to that belief.
You did not catch that your question was a quote of a Pharisee?
The purpose of the question in the first place was to catch Jesus in an embarrasing answer.
But Jesus did not forbid divorce , he advised that it is not an idea that God likes , but Moses allowed in law because of the hardness of peoples hearts. In those days Divorce was prone to put a woman into pitifull poverty , it was not as easy to survive then as now, but God still very likely disaproves of it about the same.
Sodom and Gamorrah hints that Homosexuality was part of the problem , it is stated more explicitly as a bad idea in Leviticus and in the Epistiles of Paul.
-
Yes, yes you're the victim Sirs. :'(
ahh, now that Js has been called on his being judegemental in someone else's walk with God, he has to throw out the claim of that source of judgement being a victim now. Nice deflection effort. Compliments the intellectual dishonesty & name calling earlier, much the nicer >:(
I think we can stop now, don't you? My anger level is still under control
I'm not angry at all.
I really would like to debate the "hate the sin, love the sinner" point in sincerity and not with the personal garbage attached.
None of this bothers me Sirs. Call me judgmental, deflective...I don't care. I'd like to debate the topics. Sure, I'd like it to be a more academic debate, but that doesn't seem to happen here.
I still see you hiding behind "walk with God" as some sort of defense - it isn't. Anyone could say that. If we can debate the points without all the nitpicking personal crap (and I know I'm as guilty as anyone) then that much the better.
-
I'll try and use less personal language so I won't hurt your feelings.
Good policy in general.
The "personal walk with God" defense of using the "hate the sin, love the sinner" ethical rule is nothing more than a mask for moral relativism.
Oh?
What was the policy of Jesus himself in this re guard?
Didn't Jesus complain that Johnthe Baptist was criticised for fasting a lot and keeping to himself , while he ,Jesus , took criticism for eating out with ordinary and sinfull people?
Like Zacheus who was a notorious sinner but was host to Jesus in his own home , Jesus loved Zacheus but when criticised for spending time with him he didn't complement Zacheus virtue , he said he was here to heal and like a physician he wasn't here to heal the already well , he was looking for sinners to heal.
-
Yes, yes you're the victim Sirs. :'(
ahh, now that Js has been called on his being judegemental in someone else's walk with God, he has to throw out the claim of that source of judgement being a victim now. Nice deflection effort. Compliments the intellectual dishonesty & name calling earlier, much the nicer >:( I think we can stop now, don't you? My anger level is still under control
I'm not angry at all.
Never said you were, did I now
I really would like to debate the "hate the sin, love the sinner" point in sincerity and not with the personal garbage attached.
Yea, being called a bigot, a victim, and morally relativisic are such endearing terms. But hey, if you want to love the sin as well Js, by all means, that's between you and your God. As opposed to you, I'm not going to sit over you in Judgement.
-
Yes, yes you're the victim Sirs. :'(
ahh, now that Js has been called on his being judegemental in someone else's walk with God, he has to throw out the claim of that source of judgement being a victim now. Nice deflection effort. Compliments the intellectual dishonesty & name calling earlier, much the nicer >:( I think we can stop now, don't you? My anger level is still under control
I'm not angry at all.
Never said you were, did I now
I really would like to debate the "hate the sin, love the sinner" point in sincerity and not with the personal garbage attached.
Yea, being called a bigot, a victim, and morally relativisic are such endearing terms. But hey, if you want to love the sin as well Js, by all means, that's between you and your God. As opposed to you, I'm not going to sit over you in Judgement.
I think he loves you Sirs , but he can't stand your attitude.
-
Hard to tell, Plane. This Christian evolving stuff is apparently much harder than I ever imagined
-
Yea, being called a bigot, a victim, and morally relativisic are such endearing terms.
Getting an idea how others feel being called a liar, illogical, senseless, etc, because they don't agree with you?
It has been quite amusing.
-
No, not at all. I'm called names all the time H. Doesn't both me a hoot. I'm sorry if it bothers you. Skin issue apparently
Who called you a liar, BTW?
-
No, not at all. I'm called names all the time H. Doesn't both me a hoot.
You sure seem to making a big deal of it, then. "I think we can stop now, don't you? My anger level is still under control"
I'm sorry if it bothers you.
Bullshit.
Who called you a liar, BTW?
Look for yourself - you won't have to go far.
-
No, not at all. I'm called names all the time H. Doesn't both me a hoot.
You sure seem to making a big deal of it, then. "I think we can stop now, don't you? My anger level is still under control"
That's entirely having to do with someone sitting in judgement of my walk with God. I would have thought you would have grasped that
I'm sorry if it bothers you.
Bullshit.
ok, now apparently you read minds?....ok
Who called you a liar, BTW?
Look for yourself - you won't have to go far.
Sorry, I don't have the time to fish thru every thread for someone who called you a liar. Much easier and simpler if you provide it yourself, and in the context the claim was made. We thank you in advance. They were likely wrong, but I'd have to see the line of conversation
-
That's entirely having to do with someone sitting in judgement of my walk with God.
Aww, as though you've never 'sat in judgement' on anyone here. Oh, but it's your 'walk with God', so I guess that makes it special.
ok, now apparently you read minds?....ok
Pretty easy to see you just flat don't care, considering the number of times you've come at me with the same old shit.
We thank you in advance.
Don't. It won't get you anywhere.
-
That's entirely having to do with someone sitting in judgement of my walk with God.
Aww, as though you've never 'sat in judgement' on anyone here. Oh, but it's your 'walk with God', so I guess that makes it special.
Ok, show the audience where I've EVER sat in judgement of anyone's faith. Judging when one has acted immorally, unethcially, or illegally is a whole different kettle of fish, H. God has taught us to distinguish between what is right & what is wrong. So, ball in your court. I'm not going to hold my breath, because I can tell you up front, you're not going to find any such examples
ok, now apparently you read minds?....ok
Pretty easy to see you just flat don't care, considering the number of times you've come at me with the same old shit.
Just goes to show you how bad you are at reading minds. Best leave that to folks better at it, than you are. Miss Cleo comes to mind
We thank you in advance.
Don't. It won't get you anywhere.
And...............the showing us where you were callled a liar again is..........??.........we be waiting. It can't be that hard, can it
-
Ok, show the audience where I've EVER sat in judgement of anyone's faith.
Not what I said. You're reading comprehension is off again.
And you can either keep waiting, or go searching for yourself. Try the advanced search, under my name, search term 'liar'. Or sit and spin, I really don't care.
-
Ok, show the audience where I've EVER sat in judgement of anyone's faith.
Not what I said. You're reading comprehension is off again.
No, your accusation is off again. I've made it abundantly clear my issue was with someone else judging my walk with God. I have no problem with someone judging if I'm being truthful or not, acting immoral or not, acting illegal or not. Conversely I have no trouble judging the other way around. And sadly, I think you knew that, but insisted on inferring how I have a problem with someone judging me, when it's obvious I judge others as well. That's bordering on intellectual dishonesty, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you were simply in error
And you can either keep waiting, or go searching for yourself.
Naaaa. You made the claim, you get to do the work, if you want to make it credible. I'm going to have to assume at this point it was a false claim, if you're having this much of a caniption in providing it. No biggie though
-
sirs likes to wait. While he waits, there is silence, and when there is silence, it speaks volumes. The more volumes of silence he possesses, the more points he gets.
-
Conversely I have no trouble judging the other way around.
Ah, so we are in agreement, then? After all, I didn't say anything about you judging other's faith, now did I?
...insisted on inferring how I have a problem with someone judging me, when it's obvious I judge others as well.
See, there ya go, we agree again. And since 'judging your walk with God' is part and parcel of 'judging you', well, yes, you do appear to have a problem with people judging you.
And no conniption about the rest of it. I've pointed you to where I found the reference, and I only had to look back about 90 days. Of course, that doesn't include the times you have accused me of 'intellectual dishonesty' or some such other bullshit such as a 'rationalization effort' when I've tried to share something here. 'Liar' might be a strong word for it, but what else would you call it when someone accuses you of not being truthful? And I've tried over and over to explain to you that that tag carries as much weight with me as your supposed walk with your God does with you, to no avail. So don't expect any sympathy from me.
-
Conversely I have no trouble judging the other way around.
Ah, so we are in agreement, then? After all, I didn't say anything about you judging other's faith, now did I?
No, you said I had a problem having someone judge me (with the inferrence that it was in general), when I made it crystal clear that it was specifically about my faith. You appear to be the one blurring the distinctions. On purpose? Naaaaa, that'd be intellectually dishonest then. And you wouldn't be pulling that now, right?
...insisted on inferring how I have a problem with someone judging me, when it's obvious I judge others as well.
See, there ya go, we agree again. And since 'judging your walk with God' is part and parcel of 'judging you', well, yes, you do appear to have a problem with people judging you. ............
Now lets finish that statement for accuracy....... when its regarding your faith & walk with God. There, all better now
I've pointed you to where I found the reference, and I only had to look back about 90 days.
oy. You made a claim someone called you a liar. I simply asked who and in what context, and you want me to go search back 90+days. Sorry, that's your job, if you want the claim to have more merit than just you throwing it out there. But if you're happy with just that, fine
-
Yea, being called a bigot, a victim, and morally relativisic are such endearing terms. But hey, if you want to love the sin as well Js, by all means, that's between you and your God. As opposed to you, I'm not going to sit over you in Judgement.
This is getting far too petty.
Sirs, you are being extremely defensive. I'm challenging your view as bigoted. Then I challenged your defense of that view as "playing the victim" and moral relativism. Those were, what I saw as two techniques you employed.
Not everything need be taken quite so personally.
-
I'll try and use less personal language so I won't hurt your feelings.
Good policy in general.
The "personal walk with God" defense of using the "hate the sin, love the sinner" ethical rule is nothing more than a mask for moral relativism.
Oh?
What was the policy of Jesus himself in this re guard?
Didn't Jesus complain that Johnthe Baptist was criticised for fasting a lot and keeping to himself , while he ,Jesus , took criticism for eating out with ordinary and sinfull people?
Like Zacheus who was a notorious sinner but was host to Jesus in his own home , Jesus loved Zacheus but when criticised for spending time with him he didn't complement Zacheus virtue , he said he was here to heal and like a physician he wasn't here to heal the already well , he was looking for sinners to heal.
Good points Plane, the problem is that you nor Sirs have been able to find the verse where "Jesus hated" or been able to connect Christian love with an unorthodox notion of "Christian hate."
I want to see the proof for that. It can be Biblical, traditional, historical...but show me how that works in Christian theology. Show me that this isn't exactly what I said it is.
-
Yea, being called a bigot, a victim, and morally relativisic are such endearing terms. But hey, if you want to love the sin as well Js, by all means, that's between you and your God. As opposed to you, I'm not going to sit over you in Judgement.
I'm challenging your view as bigoted. Then I challenged your defense of that view as "playing the victim" and moral relativism. Those were, what I saw as two techniques you employed. Not everything need be taken quite so personally.
No, you're challenging my FAITH, and unlike you, I'm not planning on responding reciprically in judgement. You are neither my minister nor my "spiritual advisor & mentor"
-
Yea, being called a bigot, a victim, and morally relativisic are such endearing terms. But hey, if you want to love the sin as well Js, by all means, that's between you and your God. As opposed to you, I'm not going to sit over you in Judgement.
I'm challenging your view as bigoted. Then I challenged your defense of that view as "playing the victim" and moral relativism. Those were, what I saw as two techniques you employed. Not everything need be taken quite so personally.
No, you're challenging my FAITH, and unlike you, I'm not planning on responding reciprically in judgement. You are neither my minister nor my "spiritual advisor & mentor"
::)
-
I'll try and use less personal language so I won't hurt your feelings.
Good policy in general.
The "personal walk with God" defense of using the "hate the sin, love the sinner" ethical rule is nothing more than a mask for moral relativism.
Oh?
What was the policy of Jesus himself in this re guard?
Didn't Jesus complain that Johnthe Baptist was criticised for fasting a lot and keeping to himself , while he ,Jesus , took criticism for eating out with ordinary and sinfull people?
Like Zacheus who was a notorious sinner but was host to Jesus in his own home , Jesus loved Zacheus but when criticised for spending time with him he didn't complement Zacheus virtue , he said he was here to heal and like a physician he wasn't here to heal the already well , he was looking for sinners to heal.
Good points Plane, the problem is that you nor Sirs have been able to find the verse where "Jesus hated" or been able to connect Christian love with an unorthodox notion of "Christian hate."
I want to see the proof for that. It can be Biblical, traditional, historical...but show me how that works in Christian theology. Show me that this isn't exactly what I said it is.
Oh is that all you want?
I think that Jesus had a special feeling towards Hypocrisy , he was now and then so peeved at hypocritical speech and behavior that he was heard to spew flaming invective in the direction of those he considered hypocritical, "generation of vipers" ,for example. He would even resort to public ridicule or corporal punishment when the offense was severe enough . I don't know if the guys he was insulting in public or strikeing with a whip really understod how much of a love he had for their person.
He instructed his unarmed disciples to buy swords sell their clothes if they needed to, but buy a sword.
As far as I know the only thing he is recorded to have killed was a tree so I don't want to paint him as uncontrolled , but I think that when anger was appropriate, he was angry.
Did Jesus preach peace and forgiveness as being superior to anger and violence? Certainly he did ,when people say "Live by the soward, die by the soward" they are quoteing Jesus. But a lot of his preaching included warning of hell and that being disobedient and separated from God would buy you a ticket there. As he was dieing from a severe beating and crucifixion he prayed to God that his persecutors would be forgiven , because they know not what they do , he seemed to imply thateven the fellows who scurged and crucified him could hope for forgiveness , after all "...they know not what they do".
Jesus didn't like the idea of getting crucified , he prayed hard the previous night to have some other choice , if ever there was a sin that deserved for him to hate it and work against it the thouroughly predictable crucifixion would qualify , but because he was going to use the crucifixion as the vehicle of salvation for the people , he went through with it.
"greater love has no man than he that will give his life for his freind" seems true on the face of it and has deeper truth within it . Jesus who was as fully human as any other human and as fully capable of hatred as any of us told us flatly that none of us deserved salvation but for the sake of love he gave his life away , not holding back this salvation even from those whose personal activity caused him pain and death.
-
As far as I know the only thing he is recorded to have killed was a tree...
Well, there was that herd of swine.
-
Yes Plane.
I follow what you're saying. I get that the moneychangers angered Christ. I don't recall disputing that. This is not an argument between pacifism and taking up arms.
I've yet to see you show where Christ "hates" anything or anyone. And I've yet to see where "hate the sin, love the sinner" is proven as anything but a modern Protestant construct used primarily to defend a position against homosexuals.
Does God show rage? Sure. I even saw a bumper sticker the other day that read "God is pro-life" and I thought about asking the owner if he recalled the story of the Israelites attack on Jericho.
Show me something (apparently I'm a Missourian today) that has Christ "hating." You can make Christ into some sort of warrior messiah (He wasn't...but there is some scattered evidence one could cobble together), but I've yet to see someone convincingly make Him into the antithesis of love.
-
As far as I know the only thing he is recorded to have killed was a tree...
Well, there was that herd of swine.
He is responsible for suicidal swine stampedeing into the sea?
Wouldn't the swine have had the choice to remain alive ?
-
Perhaps Js can provide us the scriptures where Jesus advocates that we love the sin
-
but I've yet to see someone convincingly make Him into the antithesis of love.
Why should anyone want to do that?
-
He is responsible for suicidal swine stampedeing into the sea?
Wouldn't the swine have had the choice to remain alive ?
================================================
The tale of the Gaderine Swine is as follows.
Jesus & Co. were strolling along when they came upon a madman. He was mad because he was possessed by demons. Jesus drove the demons out of the man into a herd of swine. The swine then became suicidal and ran into the Sea of Galilee and drowned.
There is no belief in the Bible that animals have souls or even the power to decide what they want to do. The Roman Catholic Church echoes this, and does not claim any type of free will for animals.
------------------
The story suggests several rather antique beliefs, to wit:
(1) madness is caused by demonic possession.
(2) demons can be moved, but not destroyed.
(3) demons can cause pigs to become suicidal.
(4) a deity possesses the power to cure madness by driving out demons.
(5) Someone in Galilee was raising pigs, which are considered unclean animals by Jews. Perhaps they were Roman pigs destined to become pork sausages.
I don't think to many people believe that madness is caused by demonic possession these days, even though many of the same people will claim that they believe that every word in the Bible is true. I tend to think that they just don;t think much about the implications of this story, which is presented as an actual occurrence, not a parable.
-
Perhaps Js can provide us the scriptures where Jesus advocates that we love the sin
No need. Unlike your view of "Hate the sin..." I never made the opposite claim.
-
but I've yet to see someone convincingly make Him into the antithesis of love.
Why should anyone want to do that?
Someone who believes in "hate the sin, love the sinner" would be thus inclined to show a foundation for this ethical rule. Jesus did not hate, therefore it is not a Christian principle.
-
He is responsible for suicidal swine stampedeing into the sea?
Wouldn't the swine have had the choice to remain alive ?
================================================
The tale of the Gaderine Swine is as follows.
Jesus & Co. were strolling along when they came upon a madman. He was mad because he was possessed by demons. Jesus drove the demons out of the man into a herd of swine. The swine then became suicidal and ran into the Sea of Galilee and drowned.
There is no belief in the Bible that animals have souls or even the power to decide what they want to do. The Roman Catholic Church echoes this, and does not claim any type of free will for animals.
------------------
The story suggests several rather antique beliefs, to wit:
(1) madness is caused by demonic possession.
(2) demons can be moved, but not destroyed.
(3) demons can cause pigs to become suicidal.
(4) a deity possesses the power to cure madness by driving out demons.
(5) Someone in Galilee was raising pigs, which are considered unclean animals by Jews. Perhaps they were Roman pigs destined to become pork sausages.
I don't think to many people believe that madness is caused by demonic possession these days, even though many of the same people will claim that they believe that every word in the Bible is true. I tend to think that they just don;t think much about the implications of this story, which is presented as an actual occurrence, not a parable.
Interesting point H.
I suppose that it could have been a Greek, non-Jewish farmer as well. Greeks and their culture had become more prevalent in Palestine by the New Testament time. Or, it could be that the swine are symbolic and purposefully used in this story as unclean animals.
-
There are those who maintain that the Philistines (who were the nucleus of today's modern Palestinians) arrived on boats from Mycenean Greece perhaps 1100 BCE. They are alleged to have come with their swine.
I suppose that today, now that most Palestinians are Muslims and not particularly known as seafaring people, this is a story that has not been passed down as much as other tales.
-
but I've yet to see someone convincingly make Him into the antithesis of love.
Why should anyone want to do that?
Someone who believes in "hate the sin, love the sinner" would be thus inclined to show a foundation for this ethical rule. Jesus did not hate, therefore it is not a Christian principle.
I wish that when I wrote , you would read.
Especially when you asked for something so specific and I complied so well with your request.
On what scripture do you possibly base the rediculous assertion that Jesus does not hate?
-
Perhaps Js can provide us the scriptures where Jesus advocates that we love the sin
No need. Unlike your view of "Hate the sin..." I never made the opposite claim.
So your inference now is that Christ was.......ambivalent to sin??, no biggie?? That whole dying on the cross thing was for.......show?? :-\
-
Perhaps Js can provide us the scriptures where Jesus advocates that we love the sin
No need. Unlike your view of "Hate the sin..." I never made the opposite claim.
So your inference now is that Christ was.......ambivalent to sin??, no biggie?? That whole dying on the cross thing was for.......show?? :-\
Sirs, I hesitate to comment...but consider this: you are suggesting that Christ's death at Golgotha was not an act of love, but actually an act of HATE. Have you considered that? Is that what you really believe?
-
Perhaps Js can provide us the scriptures where Jesus advocates that we love the sin
No need. Unlike your view of "Hate the sin..." I never made the opposite claim.
So your inference now is that Christ was.......ambivalent to sin??, no biggie?? That whole dying on the cross thing was for.......show?? :-\
Sirs, I hesitate to comment...but consider this: you are suggesting that Christ's death at Golgotha was not an act of love, but actually an act of HATE. Have you considered that? Is that what you really believe?
An act of love for sinners , a chance for the sinner to seaparate himself from sin , the sin which God hates to damnation.
-
Perhaps Js can provide us the scriptures where Jesus advocates that we love the sin
No need. Unlike your view of "Hate the sin..." I never made the opposite claim.
So your inference now is that Christ was.......ambivalent to sin??, no biggie?? That whole dying on the cross thing was for.......show?? :-\
Sirs, I hesitate to comment...but consider this: you are suggesting that Christ's death at Golgotha was not an act of love, but actually an act of HATE. Have you considered that? Is that what you really believe?
An act of love for sinners , a chance for the sinner to seaparate himself from sin , the sin which God hates to damnation.
Shown where? Where is it said that "Jesus hates..."? And yes Plane, I did read what you wrote.
In the Prodigal Son, for example, where is the hatred? Surely if "hate the sin, love the sinner" were a Christian principle then the father would have acted more as the older son had. Yet - he did not. God may be vengeful. He is certainly justice. Yet, hateful? I have not seen it.
-
Perhaps Js can provide us the scriptures where Jesus advocates that we love the sin
No need. Unlike your view of "Hate the sin..." I never made the opposite claim.
So your inference now is that Christ was.......ambivalent to sin??, no biggie?? That whole dying on the cross thing was for.......show?? :-\
Sirs, I hesitate to comment...but consider this: you are suggesting that Christ's death at Golgotha was not an act of love, but actually an act of HATE. Have you considered that? Is that what you really believe?
An act of love for sinners , a chance for the sinner to seaparate himself from sin , the sin which God hates to damnation.
Shown where? Where is it said that "Jesus hates..."? And yes Plane, I did read what you wrote.
In the Prodigal Son, for example, where is the hatred? Surely if "hate the sin, love the sinner" were a Christian principle then the father would have acted more as the older son had. Yet - he did not. God may be vengeful. He is certainly justice. Yet, hateful? I have not seen it.
Did the man accept his prodigal son back along with his sons sin?
Or did the son leave the sin behind and return in repentance?
I didn't see the prodigal son being prodigal in his fathers presence , nor hisfather offering to allow him to be.
While he was lost his father mourned him , celebrateing his return.
-
Did the father punish him for his sins?
A judge can dispense justice without hating that a criminal broke the law. For you and Sirs, why must God "hate" sin?
To me hate is a very strong emotion that goes well beyond anger or indignation.
Here is the only reference I find to "hate" in the scripture and interestingly it has nothing to do with sin:
Luke 14:26
If any one comes to me without hating his father 7 and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.
The verse is very similar to:
Matthew 10:37
Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me
One wonders if the Greek translation of the Hebrew in the negative is not exaggerated by using the verb "to hate."
-
Did the father punish him for his sins?
A judge can dispense justice without hating that a criminal broke the law. For you and Sirs, why must God "hate" sin?
To me hate is a very strong emotion that goes well beyond anger or indignation.
Here is the only reference I find to "hate" in the scripture and interestingly it has nothing to do with sin:
Luke 14:26
If any one comes to me without hating his father 7 and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.
The verse is very similar to:
Matthew 10:37
Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me
One wonders if the Greek translation of the Hebrew in the negative is not exaggerated by using the verb "to hate."
The prodigal sons punishment was self inflicted , mostly it was separation from his father.
What he wanted to do , hecould not do in the presence of his father , so away he went.
You say his father loved for him to be doing this?
-
Proverbs 6...
16 There are six things the LORD hates,
seven that are detestable to him:
17 haughty eyes,
a lying tongue,
hands that shed innocent blood,
18 a heart that devises wicked schemes,
feet that are quick to rush into evil,
19 a false witness who pours out lies
and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%206;&version=31; (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%206;&version=31;)
Try useing a searchable bible , it takes a lot of the work out of it.
-
Thanks Plane. Kinda reinforces how even God turned from Jesus when he was up on the cross, bearing all the sins, of all the world, thru-out all of time. Yet Js seems to imply we should just be cool with it
-
Thanks Plane. Kinda reinforces how even God turned from Jesus when he was up on the cross, bearing all the sins, of all the world, thru-out all of time. Yet Js seems to imply we should just be cool with it
It is hard work for me , the idea that God loves the sinner and also loves the sin, is hard to understand well enough to argue with it.
-
Sirs, I hesitate to comment...but consider this: you are suggesting that Christ's death at Golgotha was not an act of love, but actually an act of HATE. Have you considered that? Is that what you really believe?
It was an act of love that went beyond hate. It was the ultimate Sacrafice, and THE only way any of us were going to heaven. Point remains though, that sin wasn't something that Christ supported, embraced, or even just kicked back and didn't care about. It was to be avoided, however possible. You couldn't make it into God's Kingdom with it. Simple as that. and since it was largely impossible for any of us not to sin, in some way, Christ died for us, and absorbed that sin.
-
Thanks Plane. Kinda reinforces how even God turned from Jesus when he was up on the cross, bearing all the sins, of all the world, thru-out all of time. Yet Js seems to imply we should just be cool with it
It is hard work for me , the idea that God loves the sinner and also loves the sin, is hard to understand well enough to argue with it.
I concur
-
One wonders if the Greek translation of the Hebrew in the negative is not exaggerated by using the verb "to hate."
-====================================
I am guessing that it is NOT a bad translation, because someone would have changed it in other translations, and they haven't done so, have they?
-
Sirs, I hesitate to comment...but consider this: you are suggesting that Christ's death at Golgotha was not an act of love, but actually an act of HATE. Have you considered that? Is that what you really believe?
It was an act of love that went beyond hate. It was the ultimate Sacrafice, and THE only way any of us were going to heaven. Point remains though, that sin wasn't something that Christ supported, embraced, or even just kicked back and didn't care about. It was to be avoided, however possible. You couldn't make it into God's Kingdom with it. Simple as that. and since it was largely impossible for any of us not to sin, in some way, Christ died for us, and absorbed that sin.
Hmmmm...
If the sin can be God loved , what makes the Crucifixion necessary?
-
Excellent question. That's why my previous query.....was it just for "show"?
-
One wonders if the Greek translation of the Hebrew in the negative is not exaggerated by using the verb "to hate."
http://dkizer.blogspot.com/2007/06/questions-answers.html (http://dkizer.blogspot.com/2007/06/questions-answers.html)
http://askville.amazon.com/Hebrew-translation-Satan-closer-accuser-hinderer-ideas-combined-idiom/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=7115521 (http://askville.amazon.com/Hebrew-translation-Satan-closer-accuser-hinderer-ideas-combined-idiom/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=7115521)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_of_Jesus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_of_Jesus)
Raca
Matthew 5:22
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
Raca, or Raka, in the Aramaic of the Talmud means empty one, fool, empty head.
In Aramaic, it could be -------- or ------ which is also its form in Hebrew.
Mammon
Main article: Mammon
Gospel of Matthew 6:24
No one can serve two masters: for either they will hate the one, and love the other; or else they will hold to the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.
-
Excellent question. That's why my previous query.....was it just for "show"?
Every religion in that part of the world demanded some sort of sacrifice, meaning the death, generally by bleeding to death, of some animal: goat, sheep, bull, or chicken. The most impressive sacrifice woud be human, but Christianity one-upped everyone by sacrificing a Deity. Communion involves he parishioners, rather than the priests, eating the sacrificed entity.
Ritual cannibalism and deicide are pretty hard to beat.
To most of us in our modern age it just seems rather dumb to bleed a chicken to death to gain the favor of a God, and then, leave it for the priests' dinner. To people back then, it was expected. You can't be saved without some blood being spilled. See what your nasty sin made us have to do?
-
Excellent question. That's why my previous query.....was it just for "show"?
Every religion in that part of the world demanded some sort of sacrifice, meaning the death, generally by bleeding to death, of some animal: goat, sheep, bull, or chicken. The most impressive sacrifice woud be human, but Christianity one-upped everyone by sacrificing a Deity. Communion involves he parishioners, rather than the priests, eating the sacrificed entity.
Ritual cannibalism and deicide are pretty hard to beat.
To most of us in our modern age it just seems rather dumb to bleed a chicken to death to gain the favor of a God, and then, leave it for the priests' dinner. To people back then, it was expected. You can't be saved without some blood being spilled. See what your nasty sin made us have to do?
Leaves what it is "for" unanswered.
-
Leaves what it is "for" unanswered.
=============================
I think I made this pretty clear. It was "for" convincing the believers in other religions that Christianity was a superior religious product than traditional Judaism, Roman and Germanic and Greek god worship, Baal worship, Egyptian god worship, Mythraism, Zoroastrianism, Manicheaism and I suppose moon and rock worshipping religions of the sort that Mohammad replaced with Islam.
Wow! They killed their GOD and were saved, and now they are going to join him in Heaven!
Jeepers! In our religion, the priests kill a sheep and eat him in secret, but in theirs, they snack on God's Son!
Lookit! Their god died as a common criminal and came back to life! And they say he's coming back again, soon!
I'd say that is an adequate answer.
If you think God and/or Jesus thought all this all up themselves, you'd have to ask them what their motives were.
-
Leaves what it is "for" unanswered.
=============================
I think I made this pretty clear. It was "for" convincing the believers in other religions that Christianity was a superior religious product than traditional Judaism, Roman and Germanic and Greek god worship, Baal worship, Egyptian god worship, Mythraism, Zoroastrianism, Manicheaism and I suppose moon and rock worshipping religions of the sort that Mohammad replaced with Islam.
Wow! They killed their GOD and were saved, and now they are going to join him in Heaven!
Jeepers! In our religion, the priests kill a sheep and eat him in secret, but in theirs, they snack on God's Son!
Lookit! Their god died as a common criminal and came back to life! And they say he's coming back again, soon!
I'd say that is an adequate answer.
If you think God and/or Jesus thought all this all up themselves, you'd have to ask them what their motives were.
When it happened there was no established Christianity , nor for another generation was there any profit in it.
-
When it happened there was no established Christianity , nor for another generation was there any profit in it.
=============================================
Of course not. Paul assembled the various gospels, disciples, tales and quotes and turned it into a major religion. His purpose was not profit, by the way. Paul was after major social change, and it seems to me that he believed everything he said, even the parts he made up himself.
Establishing a religion for profit is a modern, mostly American, XX Century phenomenon.
The priestly class, of course, has always profited from religion. But covertly, as a rule.
-
When it happened there was no established Christianity , nor for another generation was there any profit in it.
=============================================
Of course not. Paul assembled the various gospels, disciples, tales and quotes and turned it into a major religion. His purpose was not profit, by the way. Paul was after major social change, and it seems to me that he believed everything he said, even the parts he made up himself.
Establishing a religion for profit is a modern, mostly American, XX Century phenomenon.
The priestly class, of course, has always profited from religion. But covertly, as a rule.
Wellll....
You are getting there.
Why would Paul want social change so much he would literally give his life to the cause?
-
Why would Paul want social change so much he would literally give his life to the cause?
Martyrdom is a way of assuring yourself a place in Heaven, of course, and it serves as a proper model to others.
Paul was not a modern man and did not think like one. He was a Hellenized Jew who had attained (probably purchased) Roman citizenship, and found even that lacking. That was about all anyone of his type could aspire to. Christianity gave him a chance to be a leader.
The social change was to cause people to strive for holiness in Heaven, rather than wealth or even survival on Earth. It was not any sort of social change as we consider it, that is, making life better. Of course, binding people together in religious communion was also a social change.
-
Why would Paul want social change so much he would literally give his life to the cause?
Martyrdom is a way of assuring yourself a place in Heaven, of course, and it serves as a proper model to others.
Paul was not a modern man and did not think like one. He was a Hellenized Jew who had attained (probably purchased) Roman citizenship, and found even that lacking. That was about all anyone of his type could aspire to. Christianity gave him a chance to be a leader.
The social change was to cause people to strive for holiness in Heaven, rather than wealth or even survival on Earth. It was not any sort of social change as we consider it, that is, making life better. Of course, binding people together in religious communion was also a social change.
I don't see Paul advocateing for any social changes at all , could you be more specific about what these changes he desired were?
-
I don't see Paul advocateing for any social changes at all , could you be more specific about what these changes he desired were?
Read what I wrote. I was clear and thorough and I fail to see what benefit it wold be to rewrite it all over.,
Social change can also refer to life after death, can't it?
The society in Heaven is supposed to be vastly different from the society on Earth, isn't it? If you woke up in a society in Heaven, I am sure you'd notice a change.
-
I don't see Paul advocateing for any social changes at all , could you be more specific about what these changes he desired were?
Social change can also refer to life after death, can't it?
No , it cannot.
-
No , it cannot.
=====================
Why not? Is there not a society in Heaven, composed for former Earth-dwellers?
The Kingdom of Heaven is a Utopian society for the former wretched and righteous of the Earth.
Of course, Paul organizing communities of believers also resulted in a social change.
-
No , it cannot.
=====================
Why not? Is there not a society in Heaven, composed for former Earth-dwellers?
The Kingdom of Heaven is a Utopian society for the former wretched and righteous of the Earth.
Of course, Paul organizing communities of believers also resulted in a social change.
It can only count for those who thihnk it genuine , anyone who thinks it genuine will not be makeing "social change" a big goal.
Heaven is ordered by Gods will.
His organiseing Communitys of beleivers is more like social change , he gives a lot of advice to the far flung churches on how to behave, but he didn't advocate change in law or social station , he advocated change in the person.
-
but he didn't advocate change in law or social station , he advocated change in the person.
======================================================================
Lenin spoke of creating the "new Soviet Man" Castro, the "New Cuban Man".
Jesus said to his disciples that they should give all their possessions to the poor, quit their jobs and follow him.
That rather sounds like it would be a major social change. Imagine what would have happened had everyone done it...
-
but he didn't advocate change in law or social station , he advocated change in the person.
======================================================================
Lenin spoke of creating the "new Soviet Man" Castro, the "New Cuban Man".
Jesus said to his disciples that they should give all their possessions to the poor, quit their jobs and follow him.
That rather sounds like it would be a major social change. Imagine what would have happened had everyone done it...
Very good examples , the new man the communists wanted never showed up, even though they had a coupple of generations to controll.
Jesus is asking each individual to accept the guidence of Jesus , the salvation of and the forgiveness of.
Success or failure of this project is acheived individually.
-
Very good examples , the new man the communists wanted never showed up, even though they had a coupple of generations to controll.
Not actually true. In a population of 250,000,000 between 1917 and 1990 there were LOTS of new Soviet men. They just weren't in the majority. You can say the same thing about good, sincere, Christians. Some people will comply with whatever standard is set, but it will never be enough to guarantee any Utopian state, Christian, Communist or whatever.
-
Thanks Plane. Kinda reinforces how even God turned from Jesus when he was up on the cross, bearing all the sins, of all the world, thru-out all of time. Yet Js seems to imply we should just be cool with it
It is hard work for me , the idea that God loves the sinner and also loves the sin, is hard to understand well enough to argue with it.
You'll note that I never once said that "God loves sin." That is a strawman that you and Sirs keep building and beating to a pulp. It is not an argument I have made.
But back to my point that you never addressed.
Does Christ truly wish you to "hate" your parents in order to follow Him? Or are we perhaps dealing with hyperbole? What makes yours and Sir's OT verse any different?
And yes, there is another verse in Luke that uses the term "hate" and one in Genesis as well.
-
By the way:
The seven vices in Proverbs 6 (pride, lying, murder, intrigue, readiness to do evil, false witness, and the stirring up of discord) have nothing to do with homosexuality. So even if I submit that this verse means exactly what it says - you and Sirs have still gone beyond its meaning and extended God's hatred beyond scriptural bounds. Have you not?
-
Speaking of strawman, at no time have I ever referenced that God commanded us to hate anyone, including parents. So I'd appreciate if you stopped that maliscious representation. So, more to the point, in your sunday school teaching curriculum, what exactly did God want us to do about sin?? If it's not love it, and if its not be ambivalent to it, what exactly were you taught? Because, Homosexuality IS a sin, in the eyes of God. So, what were you taught about sin?, besides that everyone does it in 1 way or another, and that Christ made the ultimate sacrifice in removing our sin.
-
Speaking of strawman, at no time have I ever referenced that God commanded us to hate anyone, including parents. So I'd appreciate if you stopped that maliscious representation. So, more to the point, in your sunday school teaching curriculum, what exactly did God want us to do about sin?? If it's not love it, and if its not be ambivalent to it, what exactly were you taught? Because, Homosexuality IS a sin, in the eyes of God. So, what were you taught about sin?, besides that everyone does it in 1 way or another, and that Christ made the ultimate sacrifice in removing our sin.
I was speaking of the verse I cited in Luke. I never claimed that you said to "hate" your parents. Christ said it was a necessity to follow Him. Please read.
I attended a fire and brimstone Southern protestant church when I was young enough to go to Sunday school Sirs. An angry, wrathful, hate-filled God in large doses was what I got every Sunday and Wednesday. Litanies of sins, do's and don'ts, can's and cannot's were spouted by with righteous indignation. I did not know any better.
What I learned later is that it is not about what God feels. God is love (1 John 4:8 & 1 John 4:16). The act of incarnation was one of immeasurable humility and infinite love. The act of crucifixion and expiation was one of sacrifice, love, and reconciliation.
Sin is the product of a fallen man. There is no perfection (Pelagius was indeed wrong). More than that, Luther was right - there is nothing a human can do that earns his or her way into heaven. That is why I do not believe the old Baptist door-to-door question "are you saved?" has any merit whatsoever. I believe that conversion is a lifelong process, which is what the Church tells us.
Does God hate sin? The truth is that the question is irrelevant. We can't possibly know the answer with any certainty. Sin injures our relationship with God and mortal sin may cause a permanent impediment to that relationship. That is why we have reconciliation.
It is similar to the question: will I get into heaven? It shouldn't matter. You should love God for the sake of loving God and following Christ. Let Him worry about your afterlife.
-
And I've never made it about how God feels.....another strawman, but about what God would have his do.
But what's most striking in your answer was "Does God hate sin? The truth is that the question is irrelevant"
The truth is that the question is at the core of this topic, and a polar opposite to irrelevant. Christ literally absorbed all our sins, with his death on the cross. Sin prevents us from reaching heaven, plain and simple. God commands us to follow as sinfree a life as possible, and when we do sin, to seek his forgiveness, and "attempt" to sin no more. At no time, in any scripture I've ever come across his God so ambivalent to sin, that we are to give it a pass, no biggie, move on. He's made it very clear where sin falls on his ledger. He's also made it very clear how we're to love our fellow man. Ergo, again reinforced by what I've been taught in church & sunday school, we are to hate the sin, but love the sinner.
Unless of course you want to demonstrate for us all, thru scripture that we are to embrace both the sin & sinner
-
Sirs, if you aren't going to read what I write then why bother?
Never have I said that "God is ambivalent" towards sin. Never have I said that we "give sin a pass."
If you are going to lie, then what is the point of discussion? >:(
By the way:
"Christ literally absorbed all our sins"
I think that you should understand what the word "literally" means before you use it.
I'm getting really tired of you misrepresenting my position and absolutely flat out, bald-faced lying Sirs. You keep setting up the same strawman ("love the sin," "embrace the sin") which I have NEVER espoused. Simply because I do not hold to your errant view, does not mean that I must hold to the opposite view.
Now we can have a decent discussion, but you have to stop making false claims as to what I've said.
-
So, perhaps now, you know a bit how I feel, with the numerous strawmen and questioning of my faith you've been applying. And news flash Js, lying is when you KNOW something to be one thing, but say another. Your position, especially in how you have so vehemently been criticising how I view sin, portrays a position that indeed sees sin, if not something to embrace, then to treat it as no big deal. So, it's not lying when I make such a claim, so that deflection effort is right up there with the strawmen you've been using.
So, let's get clarity on how YOU see sin, since we already know how sirs (& Plane) see it. What were you taught in church & Sunday School, regarding how to deal with sin (read: NOT sinners, but sin itself)? Are you to judge for yourself what's right and wrong in someone else's actions? (read: NOT judging if they're to go to heaven or not, as that's God's domain, but assessing their actions). Not looking for the PC answer, looking for a simple direct response to a simple direct question
And yes, I do understand what literally means, and its absolutely appropriate, in the context of what Christ's sacrifice on the cross was all about
-
Lying is exactly what you're doing when you knowingly misrepresent what I believe. I told you what I was taught and what I believe now in the previous post.
And yes, I do understand what literally means
Quite clearly you do not. Christ literally absorbed adultery through his skin? Huh?
You do not want clarity on what I really think, you would not handle it very well as you're starting to really piss me off.
-
Lying is exactly what you're doing when you knowingly misrepresent what I believe. I told you what I was taught and what I believe now in the previous post.
NO, you didn't make it clear, you gave a typical long-worded lecture-like answer, in an effort to try and cover all bases, minus the clarity requested. Since it wasn't "knowingly" misrepresenting anything, it's not lying. Care to clarify, for us simpletons, minus the harvard-like rhetoric?
And yes, I do understand what literally means
Quite clearly you do not. Christ literally absorbed adultery through his skin? Huh?
Oy, so you're not referring to sin as something "tangible"?? Taking lessons from Xo I see. FYI, I referring to spiritual rhetoric & ACTIONS
You do not want clarity on what I really think, you would not handle it very well as you're starting to really piss me off.
Which explains why I asked for it....because I don't want it. And like I said, now you know how I feel when you were consistently challenging my faith and what I believe.
-
Speaking of strawman, at no time have I ever referenced that God commanded us to hate anyone, including parents. So I'd appreciate if you stopped that maliscious representation. So, more to the point, in your sunday school teaching curriculum, what exactly did God want us to do about sin?? If it's not love it, and if its not be ambivalent to it, what exactly were you taught? Because, Homosexuality IS a sin, in the eyes of God. So, what were you taught about sin?, besides that everyone does it in 1 way or another, and that Christ made the ultimate sacrifice in removing our sin.
I was speaking of the verse I cited in Luke. I never claimed that you said to "hate" your parents. Christ said it was a necessity to follow Him. Please read.
I attended a fire and brimstone Southern protestant church when I was young enough to go to Sunday school Sirs. An angry, wrathful, hate-filled God in large doses was what I got every Sunday and Wednesday. Litanies of sins, do's and don'ts, can's and cannot's were spouted by with righteous indignation. I did not know any better.
What I learned later is that it is not about what God feels. God is love (1 John 4:8 & 1 John 4:16). The act of incarnation was one of immeasurable humility and infinite love. The act of crucifixion and expiation was one of sacrifice, love, and reconciliation.
Sin is the product of a fallen man. There is no perfection (Pelagius was indeed wrong). More than that, Luther was right - there is nothing a human can do that earns his or her way into heaven. That is why I do not believe the old Baptist door-to-door question "are you saved?" has any merit whatsoever. I believe that conversion is a lifelong process, which is what the Church tells us.
Does God hate sin? The truth is that the question is irrelevant. We can't possibly know the answer with any certainty. Sin injures our relationship with God and mortal sin may cause a permanent impediment to that relationship. That is why we have reconciliation.
It is similar to the question: will I get into heaven? It shouldn't matter. You should love God for the sake of loving God and following Christ. Let Him worry about your afterlife.
And this is the guy that built hell?
God hates sin in such an widespread way that calling someone a fool can endanger ones soul for damnation, I think Jesus picked this rather mild sin as one to point at to demonstrate that Gods policy is Zero tolerance of sin.
Gods love is directed twards persons , he offers salvation to the undeserveing because he loves the person , but a person can turn down salvation and might smugly cling to his sin certain that it is a mild sin, but any sin at all must be forgiven and repented elese even the mildest one of all will damn the obstinate sinner who refuses Gods gift of love.
All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God ,but Hell is built for sin , no one has to go there if they are willing to let the sin go without them.
-
You'll note that I never once said that "God loves sin." That is a strawman that you and Sirs keep building and beating to a pulp. It is not an argument I have made.
...
Does God hate sin? The truth is that the question is irrelevant. We can't possibly know the answer with any certainty. Sin injures our relationship with God and mortal sin may cause a permanent impediment to that relationship. That is why we have reconciliation.
What strange things to say.
Why does Sin injure a relationship with God, in your opinion?
-
God hates sin in such an widespread way that calling someone a fool can endanger ones soul for damnation, I think Jesus picked this rather mild sin as one to point at to demonstrate that Gods policy is Zero tolerance of sin.
Well referenced, Plane. ZERO tolerance towards sin
-
And this is the guy that built hell?
The traditional view of hell is primarily a medieval Christian construct. Gahenna, Sheol, and Hades were quite different from the eternal torture pit of modern belief.
God hates sin in such an widespread way that calling someone a fool can endanger ones soul for damnation, I think Jesus picked this rather mild sin as one to point at to demonstrate that Gods policy is Zero tolerance of sin.
Here's the problem with your view. It is in the first part of your sentence: "calling someone a fool can endanger ones soul for damnation." Your words imply that one could live a perfect existence and heaven is theirs. You're implying what Pelagius argued - that perfection attains heavenly reward.
I have a question for you and Sirs. Why this need to confine God to such simple human feelings such as hatred?
-
NO, you didn't make it clear, you gave a typical long-worded lecture-like answer, in an effort to try and cover all bases, minus the clarity requested. Since it wasn't "knowingly" misrepresenting anything, it's not lying. Care to clarify, for us simpletons, minus the harvard-like rhetoric?
You're not a simpleton and I'm not a Harvard graduate. My answer was by no means complex. God gave us brains complete with the ability to think. I resent the implication that I "cover-all-bases." I use what I've learned in both experience and knowledge.
Oy, so you're not referring to sin as something "tangible"?? Taking lessons from Xo I see. FYI, I referring to spiritual rhetoric & ACTIONS
*sigh*
Actions cannot be literally absorbed. For the love of all that is good and holy, please research the difference between 'literal' and 'figurative.'
Which explains why I asked for it....because I don't want it. And like I said, now you know how I feel when you were consistently challenging my faith and what I believe.
I don't mind a challenge to my faith in any way. I relish in the discussion. What I dislike is a constant beating of a strawman after I've repeatedly told you that I did not say what you claim. It is not that difficult. You make quick assumptions then expect the other party to prove them untrue. That is not logical.
-
1 last time....This has zip to do with God's "feelings", so the question is moot
Now, as it relates to sin, we have a few options
- hate it
- dislike it
- be ambivalent towards it
- like it
- embrace it
Given God's zero tolerance towards sin, I'm going with the 1st option. Feel free to go with your own
-
1 last time....This has zip to do with God's "feelings", so the question is moot
That would be true except that "hatred," "dislike," "ambivalence," are all emotive feelings.
Now, as it relates to sin, we have a few options
- hate it
- dislike it
- be ambivalent towards it
- like it
- embrace it
And who are you to limit God to five trite, simple options!?!
Given God's zero tolerance towards sin, I'm going with the 1st option. Feel free to go with your own
It is more a reflection on you than God.
-
As I said, you go with what makes you feel better, Js. I'll go with what God clearly demonstrates to me, as it relates to his tolerance of sin. Hint, it prevents you from entering his kindom. That's how much a "biggie" it is to him
-
As I said, you go with what makes you feel better, Js. I'll go with what God clearly demonstrates to me, as it relates to his tolerance of sin. Hint, it prevents you from entering his kindom. That's how much a "biggie" it is to him
Do not patronize me Sirs.
-
And do not tell me what God has or has not taught me. By all means, feel free to add futher options to how we are to deal with sin, in our lives
-
Here's the problem with your view. It is in the first part of your sentence: "calling someone a fool can endanger ones soul for damnation." Your words imply that one could live a perfect existence and heaven is theirs. You're implying what Pelagius argued - that perfection attains heavenly reward.
The problem is not my words , What was Jesus implying when he said this?
Matthew 5:22
But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca, ' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=5&verse=21&end_verse=23&version=31&context=context
In no way do I excuse you for implying that I am impling that perfection is acheiveable when plainly I am quoteing Jesus as he implys that perfectrion is unacheivable . It is as though you were refuseing to understand the plain and were reverseing everything said.
Oh you fool!
oops...
Oh, oh....