|
| Thread: Popped in the Pooper in a Pup Tent |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted February 11, 2013 08:49 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Since my questions are not answered - and I had thought so -, maybe this next one will:
If we do not tolerate HUMAN gay bashing anymore - why would we tolerate a self-proclaimed god doing it?
Phrased differently: if we don't think that we should kill, outlaw or even discriminate gays, why would we worship a so-called god doing exactly that - and with the added twist that supposedly he is the one responsible for making them so?
And if we are at it - why would we tolerate this with organisations named after a guy who preached unconditional love? After all, this Christ guy, after which these organizations are named, MADE A POINT OF consorting or seeking company with the so-called sinners.
So the conclusion is, an organization calling itself CHRISTIAN, that is, after Jesus Christ, should not shunt ANYONE,otherwise it doesn't deserve the name.
I agree with your point of view but the thing is, they don't have to. It's their private space, they have the right to be theoretically wrong about their own religion too. I don't understand all the crying about "they call us bigots" though. You act like that and people will call you a bigot, you can't both have the cake and eat the cake.
But that is true for everything then. EVERY private corporation might call themselves "Christian" - let's say "Christian Cola LTD" - and make an inquisition with every prospective worker: Have you ever been unfaithful? Sexual orientation? Do you use contraceptives? Are you married? If not, do you have a sex partner?...
And then make every worker swear on the Bible to live a life free of "sins" with the right to fire them immediately once they fail to do so.
I mean, IF you concede that you have to concede EVERY kind of "rule" for this: skin color, eye color, gender, height, life style, whatever, and you have to conceded every kind of question.
Of course that also means that lies are completely ok, because who is going to force anyone to tell the truth on intimate things, except that you cannot lie about things that are obvious, like your skin color.
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted February 11, 2013 01:42 PM |
|
|
In regard to what you can call yourself. Christianity does not mean what it used to, I guess. Now it represents a group of people who share this vague set of beliefs which may differ a lot. Calling yourself a christian says you're part of the "good guys", it's like saying you want to be friends when meeting someone new.
Which is also why a homosexual CAN BE of christian faith and be part of such a community. That is also why parts of this community CAN shun other people. In fact, I'll go so far to claim it's not Christianity which has changed its meaning, it's simply the "followers of Christ" who behave in non-christian ways, but because they've other group members supporting each others beliefs, they're re-enforced in their faith, no matter how absurd, when comparing to the scripture. But it's simpler to say it's Christianity which became vague, than it's people divided in many groups everyone calling themselves Christians, but are of vastly different beliefs.
On the other hand, there also exists a broad range of subjects where you can't simply put any label on without risking false advertising. Maybe, if the matter was raised in court, calling yourself a Christian organization while shunning homosexuals would be ruled as false advertising. But in my opinion, unlike say ingredients in food, it's one of those topics where being Christian does not mean actual follower of Christ, it means they want to be identified with your group, i.e. they want as many members as possible.
That's why I think they can get away with calling themselves a Christian organization.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 11, 2013 01:47 PM |
|
|
Ok, Elodin, I'll answer your post - not that you wrote much beside "God is the Power and that is that".
You see, the point is, that this God, absolute Power or not, ordered his chosen people to punish gay sex the same way than, say, baby-rape-killing, while at the same time making no move to punish something abhorrent like slavery at all.
Are we really supposed to accept those moral priorities? Aren't you the one arguing in absolute terms, when it comes to good and evil, and if so, how come that God seems to think that gay sex is evil while slavery is not, while we think that it's exactly the other way round, since we do not punish gay sex, but instead have abolished slavery?
I'm a bit loathe to come up with that - but if you look at the way Hitler dealt with gays and at the same time utilized prisoners of war as a slave labor force for the industry, I can't help but notice certain similarities, and I see no reason whatsoever to be abhorred about one and sing Hosianna about the other.
Except, of course, when we are supposed to be slaves as well, who blindly follow whatever this god supposedly says or have said, and are allowed no DIFFERENT opinion or face dire consequences. It's not freedom if you CAN speak your mind, but will be punished for eternity when speaking the wrong words; it's tyranny instead.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted February 11, 2013 02:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But that is true for everything then. EVERY private corporation might call themselves "Christian" - let's say "Christian Cola LTD" - and make an inquisition with every prospective worker: Have you ever been unfaithful? Sexual orientation? Do you use contraceptives? Are you married? If not, do you have a sex partner?...
And then make every worker swear on the Bible to live a life free of "sins" with the right to fire them immediately once they fail to do so.
I mean, IF you concede that you have to concede EVERY kind of "rule" for this: skin color, eye color, gender, height, life style, whatever, and you have to conceded every kind of question.
Of course that also means that lies are completely ok, because who is going to force anyone to tell the truth on intimate things, except that you cannot lie about things that are obvious, like your skin color.
Well, you caricatured it a little bit. First of all, people need to work and most of the time they can't be too selective about where they work. People don't need to be scouts in a specific organization that is part of a religious group that shuns them though,they can easily unite and form their own scouting club. (But getting in a club in age of 7 and making friends and then being forced to get out was a good point, I couldn't see that angle because it's not a common tradition in my country). Anyway, at some point it kind of feels like defending black people's right to join Ku Klux Klan to me.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 11, 2013 02:54 PM |
|
|
Right - a 16-year-old who may suspect that he's probably gay, may not want to join in the first place, but I don't think ANY 16-year-old or at least not many of them would want to join in that age anyway, gay or not, so in practise that's not much of a point.
By the way, the BOY Scouts accept girls ...
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted February 11, 2013 03:38 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 15:41, 11 Feb 2013.
|
Quote:
Ok, Elodin, I'll answer your post - not that you wrote much beside "God is the Power and that is that".
No, you did not answer my post at all.
Questions:
1) You claim God has no right to judge. What is the basis of your claim?
2) You have condemned God and condemned the people of God and claimed God has no right to judge and the people of God have no right to say anything is sin or to live their beliefs.
a) What is the basis for you being allowed to judge God but God not being allowed to judge you?
b) What is the basis of you being allowed to speak all sorts of negative things about Christianity but Christianity being wrong for calling anything sin?
c) God has all knowledge of past, present, future, thoughts, intentions, and deeds. He has experience at being both deity and human.
What are your qualifications to judge God and to judge his people?
So far your stance looks rather hypocritical to me in that you claim the right to judge God and his people but condemn God for judging and condemn his people for pronouncing the judgement of God about certain sins. But I look forward to your explanations.
Quote:
You see, the point is, that this God, absolute Power or not, ordered his chosen people to punish gay sex the same way than, say, baby-rape-killing, while at the same time making no move to punish something abhorrent like slavery at all.
In Israel everyone vowed to obey God's Law and repeated the blessings for following the Law and the penalties for breaking the Law. So anyone who intended to have gay sex in Israel really only had himself to blame if he was found out and executed in accordance with the Law. No one was required to live in Israel and the Jews did not go running around in other nations seeking to punish sinners there.
God allowed slavery for the same reason he allowed divorce. The hardness of the hearts of men.
Quote:
Are we really supposed to accept those moral priorities?
I don't accept your stance that you have the right to judge God and to judge his people but that God can't judge and his people can't proclaim what God has said about certain actions.
I do accept God's judgement about what is moral and immoral. God is the only rational basis for measuring morality.
Quote:
Aren't you the one arguing in absolute terms, when it comes to good and evil, and if so, how come that God seems to think that gay sex is evil while slavery is not, while we think that it's exactly the other way round, since we do not punish gay sex, but instead have abolished slavery?
God said man is to leave his parents and cleave to his wife. As Jesus said, from the beginning God's plan for marriage is one man and one woman. Gay sex (and all sex outside marriage) goes against the plan of God and God has pronounced such sex sin.
Why do you have the right to declare gay sex is not sin but God does not have the right to declare it sin? Again, your stance seems to be hypocritical.
God's command was for the old nation of Israel to punish gay sex withing its borders, not for all nations to punish gay sex. Israel was to be a kingdom of priests spreading the Word of God.
Quote:
I'm a bit loathe to come up with that - but if you look at the way Hitler dealt with gays and at the same time utilized prisoners of war as a slave labor force for the industry, I can't help but notice certain similarities, and I see no reason whatsoever to be abhorred about one and sing Hosianna about the other.
Hitler is not the only socialist to have murdered gays or enslaved people. I'm not sure what your point is.
You judge God as having no right to judge. I'm not sure on what basis you can claim your right to judge God while condemning him for pronouncing judgement or condemning his people for saying what God says about sin.
Quote:
Except, of course, when we are supposed to be slaves as well, who blindly follow whatever this god supposedly says or have said, and are allowed no DIFFERENT opinion or face dire consequences. It's not freedom if you CAN speak your mind, but will be punished for eternity when speaking the wrong words; it's tyranny instead.
I am a slave of God, a follower of God, a friend of God, a son of God, and a brother of God. God uses many human ways to describe his relationship with his people.
God is not opposed to honest questions and encourages diligent seeking. But certainly the person angrily shaking his fist at God and pronouncing judgement on God for being Judge of all does not want answers and is certainly not seeking them. It is no wonder that studies link atheism to poor relationships with their fathers and anger at God. Some people simply reject all authority but their own.
God does not have to allow everyone in his heaven and certainly no one will be taking heaven by force.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted February 11, 2013 03:51 PM |
|
|
1) If I started a club called Texas Chess Masters and you are from the state of Idaho do you have a "right" to join my club? (Assume the charter says members must be a Texas resident.)
2) If I started a club called Texas Chess Masters and you are do not play chess do you have a "right" to join my club? (Assume the charter says members must be actively involved in chess tournaments.)
3) If I started a club called Texas Chess Masters and you are a novice chess player (as defined under tournament win-loss records under the club charter) do you have a "right" to join my club?
4)If I started a club called Texas Christian Chess Masters and you are a Muslim do you have a "right" to join my club? (Assume the charter calls only allows Christian members.)
____________
Revelation
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted February 11, 2013 04:03 PM |
|
|
A right that overrides someone else's right seems ludicrous. I must accept someone for who they are, but they can't accept me for who I am, not a good trade imho. Be it faith, sex, sexuality, weight etc. (anything that 'defines' a person)
The scouts as they are do no harm in my opinion, they don't incite hatred or violence toward homosexuals, they merely want to educate their moral standards upon their young. Live and let live. Not sure why it's considered important to stamp homosexuality into everyone's lives, it's likely to incite hatred and violence rather than peace and prosperity.
Just because it's considered immoral, doesn't mean that it should be purged, at worst tolerated.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted February 11, 2013 04:11 PM |
|
|
Let's take a look at it from another angle.
Advertising.
There may exist non-advertising boy scout clubs, but odds are that they're secluded anyway.
In this scenario we have two groups of boy scout organizations, one allows gays, one does not. Both want many members, so the group can function as the group leader would like. Therefore they both starts advertising.
Now there are certain laws for advertising, at least where I am from. E.g. you can't discriminate against sexuality, faith, skin-colour, etc. when advertising. I think it's quite obvious why, as advertising is like shouting out into the public room after all.
This means the organization which allows gays can freely advertise, however the one which does not can either:
A) Break laws for advertising
B) Advertising falsely
Both options are illegal, and when you can't advertise, and you aren't secluded, you don't get many members. When you don't get many members, you can't fund the organization the way you want. No organization.
Then there are also some laws in case you receive funding regarding purposely allowing bankruptcy for non-organization related reasons, such as bigotry, at least where I'm from. I don't know how it's in the US of A.
@Elodin
You're probably welcome to start whatever little group you wish, be it chess or whatever, just don't count the official chess federation of your country to acknowledge rules directly discriminating against player for reasons which have nothing to do with the game of chess (not the history of chess).
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 11, 2013 04:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
1) If I started a club called Texas Chess Masters...
Wrong example, except you'd understand the club that way, that the intention of the club was to PRODUCE Chess Masters of Texas. Consider the military. If you call the military a "club of Soldiers" with YOUR way to see things only soldiers could join.
However - and it's the same with the ABS, you don't join AS a BS, you BECOME one.
And in this case even the BOY in the name is misleading, since they take girls as well, doubtlessly not changing them into boys.
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted February 11, 2013 04:23 PM |
|
Edited by Seraphim at 16:24, 11 Feb 2013.
|
Quote:
...blame if he was found out and executed in accordance with the Law. No one was required to live in Israel ...
Oh, I love this logic.
Nobody was by law required to live in Nazi Germany, so any Jew masacred in germany has only to blame him/her self.
Oh elodin, you amaze me with such words. In fact, I lost faith in humanity now completely when I loook out and see that people have simmilar opinions such as you.
Quote:
God allowed slavery for the same reason he allowed divorce. The hardness of the hearts of men.
"Sarcastic LOL"
____________
"Science is not fun without cyanide"
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 11, 2013 04:32 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 16:44, 11 Feb 2013.
|
Quote:
1) If I started a club called Texas Chess etc etc
All of these are okay because anybody can become a Texas resident, anybody can become a chess player and anybody can become a christian. Without resorting to super-expensive and advanced surgery , you can't just become a white person, a man and likely not - even with surgery - a homosexual.
Apparently it's okay to execute gay people as long as laws based on God's jugement allow it. So if God had said "Kill the Jews!", well, then we would have had ourselves the next potential Hitler right in this thread.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted February 11, 2013 04:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
In Israel everyone vowed to obey God's Law and repeated the blessings for following the Law and the penalties for breaking the Law. So anyone who intended to have gay sex in Israel really only had himself to blame if he was found out and executed in accordance with the Law. No one was required to live in Israel and the Jews did not go running around in other nations seeking to punish sinners there.
People are not required to live in countries, they are born in them. It's not a choice, and especially in those times, it's not something you can change.
Quote:
Hitler is not the only socialist to have murdered gays or enslaved people.
National Socialism is NOT socialism, it's not even a leftist movement. Hitler hanged the members of the socialist party. If you think Nazis are socialists your lack of knowledge in history is beyond ignorant.
Quote:
It is no wonder that studies link atheism to poor relationships with their fathers and anger at God.
I wonder who makes those studies since 70-80 percent of scientists themselves keep turning up as atheists in polls every year. Your way of explaining the universe is done, get over it.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 11, 2013 04:50 PM |
|
|
Quote:
God allowed slavery for the same reason he allowed divorce. The hardness of the hearts of men.
See Elodin, this is all we need to discuss, because here is the problem. On one hand he orders to kill people having consensual gay sex, no one being hurt.
On the other hand forced slavery is allowed, supposedly because the hardness of the hearts of men.
So god's priority here is, hey, enslaving people is just fine, because whatever I say, you'll practise slavery anyway, you hard-hearted scumbags, but enough is enough, so while I know you'll practise gay sex anyway as well, there must be a line drawn somewhere, and I draw this line at this exact point.
Now, correct me, if I'm wrong, but for "our" - and with "our" I mean that of the nations of the first world - the big no-no is SLAVERY, as in, cheap sex slaves from low-income contries, while gay sex is a PRIVATE MATTER as long as it is consensual between adults. THAT in turn has something to do with so called "human rights" that in turn are supposedly granted BY GOD.
Doesn't that strike you a wee bit odd here? Make something like a poll and ask people what is worse for them, slavery or homosexuality, and then compare that with the priorities of God - you might get the idea, God has a homophobia, outlawing it ARBITRARILY and UNREASONABLY in comparison with, say, slavery. You'd think, that a REASON would be given WHY something was sin that nobody gets hurt from, while the quite hurtful slavery is considered, well, maybe not fine, but "okay".
How do we think about countries that still know slavery, but kill homosexuals? Aren't we considering them barbaric? And if we do, why wouldn't we consider a God barbaric for the same reason?
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted February 12, 2013 01:18 PM |
|
|
|
And meanwhile the pope resigned mainly because church's failure to root out child abuse by priests. Go scouts!
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 12, 2013 01:30 PM |
|
|
|
Don't give the Pope too much credit here. It's rare enough that a Pope resigns due to decreasing health and mental capabilities. We don't have to stretch by speculating he would resign due to an inability to root out carnal sins in his church.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted February 12, 2013 04:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Don't give the Pope too much credit here. It's rare enough that a Pope resigns due to decreasing health and mental capabilities. We don't have to stretch by speculating he would resign due to an inability to root out carnal sins in his church.
In fact his resignation letter said he is resigning due to the failing strength of his body. And it should be noted that the percentage of pedophiles in the Catholic priesthood is smaller than the percentage of pedophiles in the general population. In all fairness the Catholic church preaches that gay sex is sin and that sex with children so you really can't rationally blame them for anyone who molests little boys the Catholic Church. I'm not Catholic by the way.
Quote:
See Elodin, this is all we need to discuss, because here is the problem. On one hand he orders to kill people having consensual gay sex, no one being hurt.
On the other hand forced slavery is allowed, supposedly because the hardness of the hearts of men.
Again, you have refused to answer my questions about why you are allowed to judge God and to judge his people and yet neither God nor his people have a right to say anything is sin. Explain what appears to be a hypocritical stance by answered the questions I posed to you please.
Possibly the reason gay sex was a death penalty sin in Israel was because many of the pagan nations around Israel practiced homosexual sex in their rituals to false gods. I really can't say why God imposed the death penalty in Israel for it. God calls it an abomination so it is something that he especially does not like.
But certainly anyone who practiced gay sex in Israel was a liar and a covenant breaker and had only himself to blame.
Now, I asked questions in my first two posts on this page and I'd appreciate your answers.
____________
Revelation
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 12, 2013 04:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
1) You claim God has no right to judge.
I do not claim that, even though the sentence makes no sense. If this God exists, since everything would basically depend on him, the question of "rights" wouldn't ask itself, since there is no one and no such thing that could contest it.
I only take offense at the rules of conduct he is supposedly making and at the penalties for it.
Quote:
2) You have condemned God and condemned the people of God and claimed God has no right to judge and the people of God have no right to say anything is sin or to live their beliefs.
No, that's not true. Of course, everyone can say that god declared something sin - but the question is for whom it's valid and what the consequences are in terms of behaviour. If Jesus sat with the sinners, then believing people should so, too, and most churches have actually no problem with it.
Quote:
a) What is the basis for you being allowed to judge God but God not being allowed to judge you?
I don't JUDGE him, I build an opinion based on his deeds, and I don't need any permission for that.
Quote:
b) What is the basis of you being allowed to speak all sorts of negative things about Christianity but Christianity being wrong for calling anything sin?
see abobe. I don't need any permisison, since the deeds speak for themselves, and Christianity can call sin whatever they want - the question is what they DO because of it.
Quote:
c) God has all knowledge of past, present, future, thoughts, intentions, and deeds. He has experience at being both deity and human.
What are your qualifications to judge God and to judge his people?
Again I point to his deeds. His people is just that, and it doesn't seem like it would be something special or profit from the supposed all-knowingness og God in any way. As always, deeds say more than thousand words.
Also, if the Bible is right, I was made in God's image, which should be qualification enough. Lastly, if we do have free will, it might mean that god doesn't want his images to be slaves and freely voice their opinion, maybe even about him, but that would make sense only if people wouldn't have to live in fear to suffer severe penalties for speaking freely.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted February 12, 2013 06:34 PM |
|
|
|
The simpler answer would be "I am not discussing with god, I am discussing with YOU claiming there is such a god." Burden of proof is upon existence of things not non-existence of them. A very simple concept religious people seem incapable of understanding.
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted February 12, 2013 07:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Burden of proof is upon existence of things not non-existence of them.
Statement: You do not exist.
Proof: Not necessary for non-existence.
Conclusion: Statement is true.
@Elodin
Why can't we blame a catholic priest who molest children when it's against his belief?
So if a baby rapes a cow, but the baby is a clear believer of non-rape, then we can't blame the baby, because it goes against its beliefs?
____________
Living time backwards
|
| |
|
|
