Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff considers homosexuality to be immoral

And I will do the same.

First of all, just because somebody isn't a "violent and hateful bigot" doesn't mean that they don't have a bigotted view on homosexuality.

Now, you say I am falsely attributing motives to Max and rhester. Actually, I have been trying to ascertain their motives throughout this thread. My argument is quite clear. If the only reason that they think homosexuality is wrong is that the Bible says so, then they must consider every word in the Bible to be absolutely true. Do you not agree with that?

Again: if the Bible is your sole criterion for morality, then you must defend every word of the Bible as moral. This is my ENTIRE argument, and has been the entire time, yet nobody had adressed it until you previous post (which I will get to).

I don't want to argue this, as it is not central to my point, but I will say that it should be obvious that a widely held beleif that a certain behavior is immoral will likely cause villification of that behavior.

This is just wrong. I never tried to impose my beleifs on anybody.

I think you're trying to say that my opinion on their beleifs is meaningless. I agree.

Let's take a quick step back, though. They said homosexuality is immoral (MadMax's struggle with the issue notwithstanding). I said that if you beleive homosexuality is immoral, then you are a bigot.

I already explained why I think they are bigots. They don't have to think that homosexuality is immoral. They choose to. They choose every one of their beleifs.

This brings up the question: why do they choose to beleive as they do? Their answer (I am assuming here, because they still haven't confirmed this) is that the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin. Now, refer back to what I said earlier in the thread about the implication of citing the Bible as the sole criterion for one's personal morality.

There is a difference. That is not my point. My point is both attitudes are bigotted.

Is somebody who says, "being black is immoral," not a bigot simply because they don't actively persecute black people?

This is totally absurd. All any of us are doing by posting on an internet message board is sharing our beleifs and seeking out others'. You're drinking from the same bottle, buddy.

Yes, I am a student. I ask questions. I think critically about what people say. Is there something wrong with that?

It seems like you were turned off by my initial vitriol. Please don't be. I already appologized for my tone and for my use of the phrase, "Christianity is a joke." I was wrong, but I stand by argument. I ask that you look past any personal animosity you hold towards me and focus on the arguments at hand.

 

Oooooooo!!!

I'm gonna freak out!




Really, is that the best you can do? You should go out with basso. You'd make a great couple. No, scratch that. basso says he's married, and as irritating as he can be, I'm sure his wife is extremely nice, and doesn't deserve a comment like that from me.



D&D. The Ark of Civilization has Sprung a Leak.

 

Congrats, Deckard, you win!

 

Rhester said repeatedly that he believes there are different degrees of wrongness according to his religion. It seems like you already have a preconceived notion of how high a degree of wrongness all Christians have against homosexuality.

I don't agree with Rhester's opinion on homosexuality, but I understand his position. He is trying to share his understanding of Christianity. Shouting him down and disrespecting his beliefs doesn't prove you right and all Christians wrong.

 

Well the Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination, punishable by death. That's pretty severe if you ask me.

I never tried to shout anybody down. In fact, I have constantly asked for others' reasoning behind their beleifs.

I do not understand why rhester thinks homosexuality is immoral. I am trying to learn something about Christianity, but I will not accept a simplistic answer like, "because the Bible says so," because the answer is not that simple.

 

I feel for you. I rarely start them, so I don't have that problem.




D&D. Head on a Post.

 

disingenuous. you insult the bible..but won't read it to discover what it actually says. you've already misquoted it. this is a "witch hunt" that has nothing to do with my faith...it's about you getting your rocks off. it started with "christianity is a joke" and has progressed from there. the thread should be locked at this point.

you've made up your mind on the subject. let's move on. gives us a break.

 

max,
i understand your frustration. there is a severe lack of civility coming from dude's posts. it's no fun to debate or discuss anything when someone has their chest all puffed out and are spoiling for a fight. you are right, he has made up his mind and is trying, which is surely in vain, to trip you up somehow. however, i think he has one very good question that remains unaddressed. since the bible cannot be taken literally, and changing times demand new interpretations of the "word", who or what is the authority on what should be relegated to the past and what remains valuable in our current context. in other words, do you see a time when homosexuality will not condemn a man to eternal damnation?

 

Civil unions, gay marriage and gay adoption are not universally accepted or protected rights in West or even in the United States (gay adoption is still illegal in Forida). The continued efforts to secure those rights in a more public, organized and effective manner than in the past creates unique and continued catalysts.

Not necessarily stupid, but, outside of (the American segment of) the Anglican Church, too small in numbers or possiby too complacent to convincingly buttress a large amount of anti-gay sentiment coming from high-profie Christian leaders.

Birth control is a different issue because non-gay Christians have a much more practical impetus for endorsing birth control: not having to choose between pre-menopausal consummation with one's spouse or practical family planning.

 

Changed "buttress" to "coutneract," would have been contradictory otherwise.

 

Unfortunately there are jerks of every persuasion.

Fair enough and I apologize if I come off as berating you. From what I know of you you're a good person. I disagree with you on this issue but know that you aren't doing anything with malice.

 

I've been reading you posts with interest and I agree with you that this is a prejudicial view that said I think there are a few key problems with your argument. The first is that you are demanding a legalistic interpretation of the Bible. Something that is very problematic as the Bible makes a very poor legal document since on its surface it contains a lot of contradictions. Many Christians themselves and my understanding is that Jesus cautioned against legalistic and absolutist interpretations so you're demanding the Christians do do something that they aren't supposed to do.

The next problem though is that you aren't a Christian, neither am I, but are demanding that Christians stick to one particular interpretation of their holy book. Personally I'm curious about how Christians interpret the Bible but not being a Christian I'm in no position to demand that they should interpret it a certain way. I might dissaprove of stances in Christianity, I might question them about their beliefs, I might ask them to reexamine their beliefs but as a non-Christian I'm in no position to tell them what is the correct interpretation of their belief.

In regard to them having to justify or defend their belief you're asking for something that they need not due and is ultimately fruitless. As I said faith isn't rational or objective. Christian faith belief isn't something that you can argue in a logical fashion but a matter of an appeal to the emotional and spiritual. MadMax and Rhester don't have to justify or defend their beliefs to someone who doesn't share that faith since their beliefs are a matter of faith to begin with. You either believe or you don't.

Obviously though how someone practices their beliefs matters. If someone believes that homosexuals are deviant and acts on that belief by beating up gays that is one thing as opposed to harboring that belief but treating homosexuals civilly and respectfully. I agree with you that the very belief can cause pain but in a pluralistic society people are free to hold all sorts of beliefs as long as they still behave civilly.

So yes I agree with your basic point regarding Christian attitudes on homosexuality and agree that you are raising important questions but I think you are placing an unfair and ultimately fruitless challenges to MadMax, Rhester and other Christians.

 

They're not universally accepted...and? Nothing you wrote refutes the point that these issues have been in the public for the past decade or so. I mean seriously... gay marriage was one of the biggest issues during the 2004 election. You can pretend that it hasn't been very public, to prove your point, but you would be wrong.

Too small in numbers or too complacent... Well, obviously, this is nothing more than a guess, based on a particular perspective. There is no empirical data for you to prove this, of course, not even personal experience. But your whole argument has just been an opinion, really. A thesis without proof. To be honest, it is kind of annoying too, when I was actually talking from personal experience.

Oh, so they're small-minded and are only willing to disagree when it is convenient for them. No. But this was not my point, anyway. My point was that they are willing to disagree with the Church when they think it is being too rigid and conservative. I was disproving your theory that people are just waiting for instructions from the Church in order to form an opinion on a matter.

 

Christians believe we stand condemned already. we all sin. we all fall short of God. there's nothing magical about homosexuality that earns double condemnation. Christians belive the world has received a tremendous gift of grace and forgiveness we didn't deserve to begin with.

 

i get that max. however, non-christians like myself see absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality. there is an agenda to keep gays from having equal rights. that agenda comes from the christian right, no? look, i'm sure there are many facets of the bible that you find out of date. why is homosexuality as a sin not one of them?

 

First of all, thank you very very much for looking past my initial rudeness and actually understanding my argument.

Now, the Bible that I know (Torah) is supposed to be legalistic. I have spoken with a number of Rabbis, and they contend that there are no contradictions because God cannot contradict Himself (because he is omniscient). I have definitely heard Christians say this too, and I think Biblical inerrantists are bound to that interpretation.

You are really using the word "legalistic" as a euphamism for "rational." I have no problem with the idea that Jesus somehow changed all the laws when he came. But at least explain why that is! And the fact is, most Christians misinterpret a lot of the Old Testament because they never have studied the original Hebrew. Every time I ask why they think Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of the Messiah, they invariably cite a major misinterpretation of a specific section of Isaiah. This makes me skeptical.

Good point here. I guess my problem is that I am too demanding in my tone. Still, until I'm shown otherwise, it seems clear to me that the beleif that homosexuality is immoral is bigotry, even if one's religious beleifs are cited as their justification.

This makes no sense to me! Saying that you beleive something simply because you "have faith" seems like such a cop-out, doesn't it? Didn't God give us the gift of rational thought?!?!

I absolutely agree that there are degrees of bigotry. That doesn't make it OK to be a "minor" bigot.

Why do my challenges have to be fruitless? If MM and rhester would provide some sort of logical basis for their beleifs, then I would learn something, and they would too by examining their own beleifs and coherently presenting them.

I may have invited some of the defensiveness that was in the responses to my posts. But, seriously, back up your faith! It's your fundamental philosophy on life, no? If it is so important to you, justify it! Not for me, but for youself.

 

I think what you're missing is the fact that the concept of faith and religion don't fall within the realm of rationality. Even the concept of God can't be proven with logic and rational thinking. There's no way to prove God exists so by logical and rational thinking, we have no reason to believe in a concept like God. The same goes for religion and faith. You don't have to justify religion, you just believe in it or you don't. Faith is a personal action and decision and it's not your burden to justify your faith.

Now when people take their faith and religion and inject it into politics (as some members of the religious right do) then that's a problem. Same with personal action. Rhester may disagree with homosexuality but he's not going to treat a gay person like crap or any different from a regular person (or at least I hope not) Personal views of homosexuality extend only that far. They are personal opinions and thoughts and nothing more.

Look you can disagree with their views on homosexuality but that's as far as it goes. You can question why they object to homosexuality. But you can't put the burden on them to say their faith is worthless if they can't justify it. Because I believe in some sort of supernatural but I sure as hell can't justify the concept to you. It's just a you believe/don't believe in concept. There's no right or wrong answer when it comes to faith.

 

I simply do not understand how any concept can be outside the realm of rationality.

Also, the idea that God can't be proven with logic is inetersting. Many of the greatest minds of modernity have attempted to do just that (starting with the father of modernity, Descartes).

Having faith in something for no reason (remember, we're talking about rationality here) implies a pretty weak and tenuous faith.

But isn't their faith worthless if they can't justify it? Forget justifying it to the BBS. You have to justify it to yourself!