Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Steve H on May 15, 2020, 12:45:48 PM
-
Ok, ok, I surrender. Having thought about it a lot recently, and having rejected my own argument based on anatomy as breaking Hume's law (in the bible bigotry thread, q.v., op cit, ibid, idem, ad nauseam, etc.), I find myself without a logical leg to stand on, and since the thought of agreeing with anyone as vile as Andrew Pierce is anathema, I remove my objection to gay marriage. It was never very strong, anyway: I'd never have dreamed of campaignong against it. I confess to a continuing mild revulsion to the idea of two chaps getting their end away*, but as long as such a revulsion is recognised for the instinctive, illogical gut-feeling that it is, and dismissed, it isn't homophobia. My argument that it is changing the age-old definition of marriage failed when I realised that I have always firmly believed in women's ordination, which was a radical re-definition of the priesthood, and realised how much my "radical redefinition" argument resembled the hate-fueld bilge spouted against women priests by "Backward In Bigotry".
So I now approve of gay marriage, and hope that church gay weddings will eventually take place. Perhaps Really Sanctimonious** could finally stop accunsing me of "twee homophobia" in every post in which he mentions me at all, and nobody ever asgain, and one poster in particular, could suggest that I never change my mind or am impervious to reason.
*but not two chapettes, curiously. It has been noted by others that instinctive revulsion to homosexuality is stronger towards people of the same sex as the person revolted, than towards people of the opposite sex. I don't feel any revulsion about Lesbians.
**and if RS had not been so sanctimonious for so long, I might have got here sooner.
-
Ok, ok, I surrender. Having thought about it a lot recently, and having rejected my own argument based on anatomy as breaking Hume's law (in the bible bigotry thread, q.v., op cit, ibid, idem, ad nauseam, etc.), I find myself without a logical leg to stand on, and since the thought of agreeing with anyone as vile as Andrew Pierce is anathema, I remove my objection to gay marriage. It was never very strong, anyway: I'd never have dreamed of campaignong against it. I confess to a continuing mild revulsion to the idea of two chaps getting their end away*, but as long as such a revulsion is recognised for the instinctive, illogical gut-feeling that it is, and dismissed, it isn't homophobia. My argument that it is changing the age-old definition of marriage failed when I realised that I have always firmly believed in women's ordination, which was a radical re-definition of the priesthood, and realised how much my "radical redefinition" argument resembled the hate-fueld bilge spouted against women priests by "Backward In Bigotry".
So I now approve of gay marriage, and hope that church gay weddings will eventually take place. Perhaps Really Sanctimonious** could finally stop accunsing me of "twee homophobia" in every post in which he mentions me at all, and nobody ever asgain, and one poster in particular, could suggest that I never change my mind or am impervious to reason.
*but not two chapettes, curiously. It has been noted by others that instinctive revulsion to homosexuality is stronger towards people of the same sex as the person revolted, than towards people of the opposite sex. I don't feel any revulsion about Lesbians.
**and if RS had not been so sanctimonious for so long, I might have got here sooner.
well done. But now that you have agreed you were being homophobic, why do you think it was sanctimonious to point that out?
-
well done. But now that you have agreed you were being homophobic, why do you think it was sanctimonious to point that out?
Because you banged on about it ad fucking nauseam at every opportunity.
-
Ok, ok, I surrender. Having thought about it a lot recently, and having rejected my own argument based on anatomy as breaking Hume's law (in the bible bigotry thread, q.v., op cit, ibid, idem, ad nauseam, etc.), I find myself without a logical leg to stand on, and since the thought of agreeing with anyone as vile as Andrew Pierce is anathema, I remove my objection to gay marriage. It was never very strong, anyway: I'd never have dreamed of campaignong against it. I confess to a continuing mild revulsion to the idea of two chaps getting their end away*, but as long as such a revulsion is recognised for the instinctive, illogical gut-feeling that it is, and dismissed, it isn't homophobia. My argument that it is changing the age-old definition of marriage failed when I realised that I have always firmly believed in women's ordination, which was a radical re-definition of the priesthood, and realised how much my "radical redefinition" argument resembled the hate-fueld bilge spouted against women priests by "Backward In Bigotry".
So I now approve of gay marriage, and hope that church gay weddings will eventually take place. Perhaps Really Sanctimonious** could finally stop accunsing me of "twee homophobia" in every post in which he mentions me at all, and nobody ever asgain, and one poster in particular, could suggest that I never change my mind or am impervious to reason.
*but not two chapettes, curiously. It has been noted by others that instinctive revulsion to homosexuality is stronger towards people of the same sex as the person revolted, than towards people of the opposite sex. I don't feel any revulsion about Lesbians.
**and if RS had not been so sanctimonious for so long, I might have got here sooner.
Steve - I appreciate your candour and honesty here, and trust it is genuine.
I think many of us have prejudices that are deep seated gut reactions against things that we cannot quite understand but feel. That is where challenge of those views sometimes has value. It makes people think more deeply about a subject and sometimes, just sometimes, those people come to realise that their gut feelings are just wrong and they need to learn to accept them as wrong or to try to overcome them. Perhaps this is one of those, sadly too rare, moments.
I think it is pretty rare for the comments on this MB to change anyone's mind (or certainly if it does few people admit to it) but this may be one of those times - and if so that is a genuinely good thing.
-
Well I suppose Steve must take some credit for admitting he is homophobic.
-
Well I suppose Steve must take some credit for admitting he is homophobic.
Trust you to get it completely arsey-versey. ::)
-
Trust you to get it completely arsey-versey. ::)
I was congratulating you. ::) BTW, you need to sort out your spellchecker.
-
Because you banged on about it ad fucking nauseam at every opportunity.
Because you kept up the homophobia. If someone was being racist is it sanctimonious to point it out continually?
-
I'm not sure if not wanting to watch anything on T V or film with anything of a gay theme/nature to it is homophobic, it's just not entertainment to me.
At the same time I'm 100% all for gay rights it's just get on with it and don't put in front of me, I can use the switch or channel changer on my T V and can chose the films or plays I go to see.
ippy
-
It has been noted by others that instinctive revulsion to homosexuality is stronger towards people of the same sex as the person revolted, than towards people of the opposite sex. I don't feel any revulsion about Lesbians.
My advice. Don't think about it. I never think about heterosexuals doing it. It's a bit like your parents, you know they had sex, but you would much rather not think about it.
Mind you I did sit through all of "Normal People" without feeling too much revulsion. But he was a handsome lad;-)
-
People do change opinions over time, it's inevitable if they have open minds. Unfortunately not everyone does. Well done Jedediah-Hercules.
What Trent says about not thinking of other people's sexual activities is right & it's something we usually outgrow. I know gay people in relationships and never give a thought to the details, really doesn't interest me but when I was at school I often wondered what went on.
-
Because you kept up the homophobia. If someone was being racist is it sanctimonious to point it out continually?
Yes.
-
Yes.
I agree. A will and a rush to hang around people you consider morally worse than yourself is virtue signalling and making one’s self look saintly.
-
I agree. A will and a rush to hang around people you consider morally worse than yourself is virtue signalling and making one’s self look saintly.
It is amazing the excuses that homophobes and racists can think up to justify their prejudices!
-
It is amazing the excuses that homophobes and racists can think up to justify their prejudices!
My own theory 'Swing is that for many antitheists homosexual rights in the issue of Gay marriage comes second to sticking one on the church and the opportunity for a choice bit of linguistic imperialism.
And talking of coming second to those aims some antitheists are willing to sacrifice their theories on morality as well to become honorary moral realists. In my very, very humble opinion.
-
My own theory 'Swing is that for many antitheists homosexual rights in the issue of Gay marriage comes second to sticking one on the church and the opportunity for a choice bit of linguistic imperialism.
And talking of coming second to those aims some antitheists are willing to sacrifice their theories on morality as well to become honorary moral realists. In my very, very humble opinion.
You might like to translate that into English! ::)
-
You might like to translate that into English! ::)
Don't need to....The problem is yours. I can recommend the Janet and John series of books as a good starting point for the alleviation of your difficulties.
-
My own theory 'Swing is that for many antitheists homosexual rights in the issue of Gay marriage comes second to sticking one on the church and the opportunity for a choice bit of linguistic imperialism.
Or might it be that some of us (I'm not sure if I qualify as an 'antitheist', since that status seems to be at your discretion) think that some elements within organised religion (but not all) are acting in a discriminatory manner.
And talking of coming second to those aims some antitheists are willing to sacrifice their theories on morality as well to become honorary moral realists. In my very, very humble opinion.
So, and again presuming I qualify as an 'antitheist', what theories of morality do you imagine I had subscribed to and have now 'sacrificed'?
-
Or might it be that some of us (I'm not sure if I qualify as an 'antitheist', since that status seems to be at your discretion) think that some elements within organised religion (but not all) are acting in a discriminatory manner.
So, and again presuming I qualify as an 'antitheist', what theories of morality do you imagine I had subscribed to and have now 'sacrificed'?
Not sure what you are after here Gordon. You seem to be saying. ''I am not one of the some or many you talk about(OK), now explain how I am.''
-
I agree. A will and a rush to hang around people you consider morally worse than yourself is virtue signalling and making one’s self look saintly.
Isn't that the Christian way? And well practiced?
-
Isn't that the Christian way? And well practiced?
I thought that when I was pretty ignorant about Christianity.
-
Isn't that the Christian way? And well practiced?
Indeed - and always to make people know that you are doing that 'good' thing and make it clear in no uncertain terms that you are doing the 'good' thing because you are a christian.
Christianity is second to none in using virtue signalling as a marketing tool.
-
Indeed - and always to make people know that you are doing that 'good' thing and make it clear in no uncertain terms that you are doing the 'good' thing because you are a christian.
Christianity is second to none in using virtue signalling as a marketing tool.
I thought that when I was pretty ignorant about Christianity.
-
Not sure what you are after here Gordon. You seem to be saying. ''I am not one of the some or many you talk about(OK), now explain how I am.''
No I'm not: I'm asking you if I qualify as an 'antitheist' and, if so, what theories of morality you think I have 'sacrificed' en route to becoming an honorary 'moral realist'.
In other words - I'm asking you to explain what you meant.
-
No I'm not: I'm asking you if I qualify as an 'antitheist' and, if so, what theories of morality you think I have 'sacrificed' en route to becoming an honorary 'moral realist'.
In other words - I'm asking you to explain what you meant.
OK Some Antitheists do not have an absolute morality or do not see morals as having reality. Therefore logically there is no moral arbitration, merely an exercise in the expression of personal preference which is then actually and logically not applicable outside that personal preference. In the case of homosexuality, what some antitheists would believe is actually personal preference suddenly becomes a binding absolute moral arbitration on everyone and so moral realism is expressed.
-
In the case of homosexuality, what some antitheists would believe is actually personal preference suddenly becomes a binding absolute moral arbitration on everyone and so moral realism is expressed.
So are you accusing NS of being an antitheist?
-
Vlad's posts are so muddled it is hard to understand what he is supposed to be saying. ::)
-
OK Some Antitheists do not have an absolute morality or do not see morals as having reality. Therefore logically there is no moral arbitration, merely an exercise in the expression of personal preference which is then actually and logically not applicable outside that personal preference. In the case of homosexuality, what some antitheists would believe is actually personal preference suddenly becomes a binding absolute moral arbitration on everyone and so moral realism is expressed.
So, to precis, in your view 'antitheists' (*whoever they are) eschew objective morality - yes?
-
So, to precis, in your view 'antitheists' (*whoever they are) eschew objective morality - yes?
Some do.
-
But not all?
-
But not all?
I'm sure there are antitheists who are moral realists. In fact my point is that those who aren't often make an exception when it comes to sticking it to the Church in a fashion most reminiscent of the biggest, shiniest most minty humbugs in the sweetshop.
-
So are you accusing NS of being an antitheist?
Would that surprise you or shock you?
-
I'm sure there are antitheists who are moral realists. In fact my point is that those who aren't often make an exception when it comes to sticking it to the Church in a fashion most reminiscent of the biggest, shiniest most minty humbugs in the sweetshop.
So, if you're sure that there "are antitheists who are moral realists", where do you think these 'anitheists' think their moral values come from?
-
So, if you're sure that there "are antitheists who are moral realists", where do you think these 'anitheists' think their moral values come from?
Their real absolute moral values I think you mean. I think there moral theory is correct in that it is moral reality. That like everyone else, they have an iffy moral praxis reflecting ,like everyone else, an aptitude for moral confusion , I believe the conviction they have ultimately comes from God. You would have to find out from them where they think it comes from. Sam Harris could be your man for that.
-
Their real absolute moral values I think you mean. I think there moral theory is correct in that it is moral reality. That like everyone else, they have an iffy moral praxis reflecting ,like everyone else, an aptitude for moral confusion , I believe the conviction they have ultimately comes from God. You would have to find out from them where they think it comes from. Sam Harris could be your man for that.
In my experience, Vlad, few non-theists subscribe to objective morality and that it is more the case that it is theists, such as Alien (late of this parish) who go down the objective morality route (since they think their 'God' is the source of morals).
Your stance is confusing - you seems to be dicing and slicing terms and concepts for the hell of it.
-
In my experience, Vlad, few non-theists subscribe to objective morality and that it is more the case that it is theists, such as Alien (late of this parish) who go down the objective morality route (since they think their 'God' is the source of morals).
Your stance is confusing - you seems to be dicing and slicing terms and concepts for the hell of it.
Whatever.
-
Whatever.
Thank you for the thoughtful response.
-
Vlad's posts are so muddled it is hard to understand what he is supposed to be saying. ::)
He is trrying to make himself sound super, sorry, hyper intelligent!
-
In my experience, Vlad, few non-theists subscribe to objective morality and that it is more the case that it is theists, such as Alien (late of this parish) who go down the objective morality route (since they think their 'God' is the source of morals).
Your stance is confusing - you seems to be dicing and slicing terms and concepts for the hell of it.
Replace the italics above with "to try to convince everyone here that he is, in fact, intelligent!"
-
Replace the italics above with "to try to convince everyone here that he is, in fact, intelligent!"
One would take a lot of convincing! ;D
-
One would take a lot of convincing! ;D
One Hell of a lot! ;D
-
My own theory 'Swing is that for many antitheists homosexual rights in the issue of Gay marriage comes second to sticking one on the church and the opportunity for a choice bit of linguistic imperialism.
And talking of coming second to those aims some antitheists are willing to sacrifice their theories on morality as well to become honorary moral realists. In my very, very humble opinion.
You post an enormous amount of crap, sometimes achieving pure word-salad, but just for once, you're spot-on. Well done. (How's that for a back-handed cmpliment?)
-
You might like to translate that into English! ::)
It makes perfect sense to anyone with a good command of English.
-
It makes perfect sense to anyone with a good command of
English GIBBERISH.
-
It makes perfect sense to anyone with a good command of English GIBBERISH.
;D 8)
-
Steve,
Ok, ok, I surrender. Having thought about it a lot recently, and having rejected my own argument based on anatomy as breaking Hume's law (in the bible bigotry thread, q.v., op cit, ibid, idem, ad nauseam, etc.), I find myself without a logical leg to stand on, and since the thought of agreeing with anyone as vile as Andrew Pierce is anathema, I remove my objection to gay marriage. It was never very strong, anyway: I'd never have dreamed of campaignong against it. I confess to a continuing mild revulsion to the idea of two chaps getting their end away*, but as long as such a revulsion is recognised for the instinctive, illogical gut-feeling that it is, and dismissed, it isn't homophobia. My argument that it is changing the age-old definition of marriage failed when I realised that I have always firmly believed in women's ordination, which was a radical re-definition of the priesthood, and realised how much my "radical redefinition" argument resembled the hate-fueld bilge spouted against women priests by "Backward In Bigotry".
So I now approve of gay marriage, and hope that church gay weddings will eventually take place. Perhaps Really Sanctimonious** could finally stop accunsing me of "twee homophobia" in every post in which he mentions me at all, and nobody ever asgain, and one poster in particular, could suggest that I never change my mind or am impervious to reason.
*but not two chapettes, curiously. It has been noted by others that instinctive revulsion to homosexuality is stronger towards people of the same sex as the person revolted, than towards people of the opposite sex. I don't feel any revulsion about Lesbians.
**and if RS had not been so sanctimonious for so long, I might have got here sooner.
I doff my cap to you for your honesty and self-awareness here.
-
Steve,
It makes perfect sense to anyone with a good command of English.
Vlad has a poor command of English. Not just weak spelling and grammar, but the inappropriate use of terms he clearly doesn't understand and so cannot use in coherent sentences. Long ago and far away I advised him to try using plain terms that he did understand (or at least to look up the meanings of the words he was attempting before trying them) but, predictably, he ignored that advice so we still have the linguistic car crash results we see today.
-
Steve,
Vlad has a poor command of English. Not just weak spelling and grammar, but the inappropriate use of terms he clearly doesn't understand and so cannot use in coherent sentences. Long ago and far away I advised him to try using plain terms that he did understand (or at least to look up the meanings of the words he was attempting before trying them) but, predictably, he ignored that advice so we still have the linguistic car crash results we see today.
Indeed, very often his posts approach word-salad. That one, however, was commendably plain and clear (except to LR).
-
Indeed, very often his posts approach word-salad. That one, however, was commendably plain and clear (except to LR).
Your posts are often word-salad on this forum due to very poor spelling! ::)
-
Your posts are often word-salad on this forum due to very poor spelling! ::)
How dare you presume to calumniate my orthography, you contumelious flibbertigibbet? Apart from the occasional obvious typo, my spelling is perfect.
-
You post an enormous amount of crap,
When in Rome and all that.
-
sometimes achieving pure word-salad,
Often I'm replying to several Meldrews at once but you are right I should slow down and take more time.
-
Steve,
Vlad has a poor command of English. Not just weak spelling and grammar, but the inappropriate use of terms he clearly doesn't understand and so cannot use in coherent sentences. Long ago and far away I advised him to try using plain terms that he did understand (or at least to look up the meanings of the words he was attempting before trying them) but, predictably, he ignored that advice so we still have the linguistic car crash results we see today.
May I return the favour and give you some advice?
Stop producing patronising shite like this designed to cover your redefinitions.
-
How dare you presume to calumniate my orthography, you contumelious flibbertigibbet? Apart from the occasional obvious typo, my spelling is perfect.
Your 'typos' have been more than occasional lately, some of your posts have been riddled with them. Don't you bother to check what your have written before presenting it to the forum?
-
Vlad,
May I return the favour and give you some advice?
You can try.
Stop producing patronising shite like this designed to cover your redefinitions.
Trumpian misdirection, just Trumpian. So far as I’m aware the only person here who redefines terms to suit his own purposes is you. I seem to recall for example the hilarious occasion (“Vladgate”?) when you pointed me to a Wiki page about a term you were trying, but I bothered to read it and found that the article agreed with my understanding of your redefinition! We still have a chuckle about that from time-to-time down at the Old Limping Whippet.
Anyway, as ever I see that you’ve avoided the problem and, as you know, I have no time these days for such trollery.
-
Your 'typos' have been more than occasional lately, some of your posts have been riddled with them. Don't you bother to check what your have written before presenting it to the forum?
Wish you two would get a room. You are giving marriage a bad name.
-
Would that surprise you or shock you?
Tell me whether you are and I'll let you know.
-
Vlad,
You can try.
Trumpian misdirection, just Trumpian. So far as I’m aware the only person here who redefines terms to suit his own purposes is you. I seem to recall for example the hilarious occasion (“Vladgate”?) when you pointed me to a Wiki page about a term you were trying, but I bothered to read it and found that the article agreed with my understanding of your redefinition! We still have a chuckle about that from time-to-time down at the Old Limping Whippet.
Anyway, as ever I see that you’ve avoided the problem and, as you know, I have no time these days for such trollery.
Hillside, your patronising post telling me what I should stick to is undiluted intellectual technopratic technocratic totalitarianism.
-
Vlad,
Me (Reply 46):
Vlad has a poor command of English. Not just weak spelling and grammar, but the inappropriate use of terms he clearly doesn't understand and so cannot use in coherent sentences.
You (Reply 57):
Hillside, your patronising post telling me what I should stick to is undiluted intellectual technocratic totalitarianism.
QED
-
Did somebody just fart?
-
Tell me whether you are and I'll let you know.
Not anywhere near as antitheist as most on this board.
-
I'd like to reply to this, Steve, even though I know it will probably spark more disagreement.
Ok, ok, I surrender. Having thought about it a lot recently, and having rejected my own argument based on anatomy as breaking Hume's law (in the bible bigotry thread, q.v., op cit, ibid, idem, ad nauseam, etc.), I find myself without a logical leg to stand on, and since the thought of agreeing with anyone as vile as Andrew Pierce is anathema, I remove my objection to gay marriage. It was never very strong, anyway: I'd never have dreamed of campaignong against it. I confess to a continuing mild revulsion to the idea of two chaps getting their end away*, but as long as such a revulsion is recognised for the instinctive, illogical gut-feeling that it is, and dismissed, it isn't homophobia. My argument that it is changing the age-old definition of marriage failed when I realised that I have always firmly believed in women's ordination, which was a radical re-definition of the priesthood, and realised how much my "radical redefinition" argument resembled the hate-fueld bilge spouted against women priests by "Backward In Bigotry".
OK, I get your point about women's ordination, and it's logical but may not be the whole story because it is an issue for the Church only, whereas marriage is a universal issue. Unlike 'priest', 'marriage' is not defined on the basis of what people believe about creation, but on the basis of an 'is' (see Hume's Law): Again, this is my view, but as I understand it, there is a 'thing' where a man and a woman who love each other commit themselves to being faithful to each other and have children whose parents are solidly identified and available to raise them. Children are not always produced, but the pattern is the same in that it is the sort that would have the potential to produce them in the right circumstances. As I understand it, that 'thing' is worthy of its own name, and marriage is the name that was given to it. Same sex couples simply do not qualify - and there is no moral reasoning there - although they need some form of recognition for various reasons. There may be a similar line of thought for ordination, but that might be for a separate discussion.
So I now approve of gay marriage, and hope that church gay weddings will eventually take place.
Since the Bible says explicitly that this is morally wrong, but not that women's ordination is wrong, the comparison isn't a good one.
Perhaps Really Sanctimonious** could finally stop accunsing me of "twee homophobia" in every post in which he mentions me at all, and nobody ever asgain, and one poster in particular, could suggest that I never change my mind or am impervious to reason.
*but not two chapettes, curiously. It has been noted by others that instinctive revulsion to homosexuality is stronger towards people of the same sex as the person revolted, than towards people of the opposite sex. I don't feel any revulsion about Lesbians.
**and if RS had not been so sanctimonious for so long, I might have got here sooner.
Homophobia is defined as "having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people." But aren't these two different things? The way the word is usually used on this forum implies prejudice (I would have thought a literal meaning of the word would only refer to revulsion or fear?). I don't think the distaste you describe or the view I've set out here is prejudiced.
-
I wonder how Spuddy would react if it was discovered, without any shadow of doubt, that Jesus had been gay and had a great sex life?
-
I wonder how Spuddy would react if it was discovered, without any shadow of doubt, that Jesus had been gay and had a great sex life?
I think you need to get real on this LR. Jesus asked Peter if he loved him (John 21). This and the mention of the beloved disciple had nothing to do with romance.
-
I'd like to reply to this, Steve, even though I know it will probably spark more disagreement.
OK, I get your point about women's ordination, and it's logical but may not be the whole story because it is an issue for the Church only, whereas marriage is a universal issue. Unlike 'priest', 'marriage' is not defined on the basis of what people believe about creation, but on the basis of an 'is' (see Hume's Law): Again, this is my view, but as I understand it, there is a 'thing' where a man and a woman who love each other commit themselves to being faithful to each other and have children whose parents are solidly identified and available to raise them. Children are not always produced, but the pattern is the same in that it is the sort that would have the potential to produce them in the right circumstances. As I understand it, that 'thing' is worthy of its own name, and marriage is the name that was given to it. Same sex couples simply do not qualify - and there is no moral reasoning there - although they need some form of recognition for various reasons. There may be a similar line of thought for ordination, but that might be for a separate discussion.
Perhaps, Spud, you need to broaden your understanding.
Since the Bible says explicitly that this is morally wrong, but not that women's ordination is wrong, the comparison isn't a good one.
That is an argument from authority: you're labouring under the delusion that the Christian Bible is authoritative as regards current social policy.
Homophobia is defined as "having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people." But aren't these two different things? The way the word is usually used on this forum implies prejudice (I would have thought a literal meaning of the word would only refer to revulsion or fear?). I don't think the distaste you describe or the view I've set out here is prejudiced.
I think you would be prejudiced if your stated aim was to sustain inequality so that social policy conforms to your prejudices.
-
My own theory 'Swing is that for many antitheists homosexual rights in the issue of Gay marriage comes second to sticking one on the church and the opportunity for a choice bit of linguistic imperialism.
And talking of coming second to those aims some antitheists are willing to sacrifice their theories on morality as well to become honorary moral realists. In my very, very humble opinion.
Are you saying that I am an antitheist?
If you are you are showing your monumental ignorance of both Pagans and Paganism!
-
I think you need to get real on this LR. Jesus asked Peter if he loved him (John 21). This and the mention of the beloved disciple had nothing to do with romance.
That is what you want to believe to be true. ::) Jesus never condemned homosexuality, and it is not mentioned as a, 'thou shalt not', in the ten commandments.
-
I think you need to get real on this LR. Jesus asked Peter if he loved him (John 21).
Allegedly. Perhaps. We have a record of someone's belief about events alleged second- (t least) or third-hand accounts which have subsequently been translated into a fundamentally different culture, selectively edited by a committee with vested interests, then translated into a third fundamentally different culture with more of an eye on poetry than conveying cultural subtleties. To try to place significance on particular phrasing, under those circumstances, is unrealistic.
This and the mention of the beloved disciple had nothing to do with romance.
How can you be sure of that?
O.
-
That is what you want to believe to be true. ::) Jesus never condemned homosexuality, and it is not mentioned as a, 'thou shalt not', in the ten commandments.
There is one verse between it and adultery in Leviticus 18.
-
There is one verse between it and adultery in Leviticus 18.
Of course a man can't have sexual relations with another man as he would with a woman, that isn't possible biologically. ::)
-
Of course a man can't have sexual relations with another man as he would with a woman, that isn't possible biologically. ::)
I know it's the silly season floo, but this discussion is bonkers.
-
I know it's the silly season floo, but this discussion is bonkers.
You are right Spud, as there is nothing wrong with gay couples having sex it is bonkers for anyone to object to them doing so! :P
-
Of course a man can't have sexual relations with another man as he would with a woman, that isn't possible biologically. ::)
That rather depends on the woman in question... :-X
O.
-
I think you need to get real on this LR. Jesus asked Peter if he loved him (John 21). This and the mention of the beloved disciple had nothing to do with romance.
I think it is you who needs to "get real" and acknowledge that the veracity of the bible, written by no-one knows how many different people over an unknown timescale and edited and re-written by the Catholic church more times than the timetable for the London Underground!
-
Gay MARRIAGE.... is there such a thing?
There is no accusation of homophobic required if we learn to define the word marriage for Gay and heterosexual,
We forget that atheist believe in marriage but they do not believe that God is included anywhere.
Marriage then is defined three ways. The believer it is ordained by God so MAN and a WOMAN become one flesh.
Atheist in their eyes are just man and wife.
Gay couples wife and wife or husband and husband,
All have a different concept. The latter two had no religious definitive. So whilst the co-equally exist in law, they do not co-equally exist in the eyes of God as marriage.
It is quite easy really and nothing to do with homophobia or atheism. Just logically thought out regarding each group/
-
Gay MARRIAGE.... is there such a thing?
There is no accusation of homophobic required if we learn to define the word marriage for Gay and heterosexual,
We forget that atheist believe in marriage but they do not believe that God is included anywhere.
Marriage then is defined three ways. The believer it is ordained by God so MAN and a WOMAN become one flesh.
Atheist in their eyes are just man and wife.
Gay couples wife and wife or husband and husband,
All have a different concept. The latter two had no religious definitive. So whilst the co-equally exist in law, they do not co-equally exist in the eyes of God as marriage.
It is quite easy really and nothing to do with homophobia or atheism. Just logically thought out regarding each group/
The Biblical god character more than likely doesn't exist, so its human concocted thoughts are irrelevant.
-
The Biblical god character more than likely doesn't exist, so its human concocted thoughts are irrelevant.
If, you actually believed what you preach then you would not be posting on a religion and ethics forum, would you?
At least know why you believe what you preach and make sure your life reflects it. Seems it is just about argument for you. No real belief one way or another, that you actually practice.
-
If, you actually believed what you preach then you would not be posting on a religion and ethics forum, would you?
At least know why you believe what you preach and make sure your life reflects it. Seems it is just about argument for you. No real belief one way or another, that you actually practice.
I have a perfect right to post on any forum. Challenging people like you, whose take on religion is not very pleasant is a plus!
-
I have a perfect right to post on any forum. Challenging people like you, whose take on religion is not very pleasant is a plus!
Your right to post was never the issue. It is you, who does not show you have any real belief in what you believe or preach.
You cannot challenge people or make false accusations that my beliefs are not pleasant. My beliefs show that there is no comparison with atheism or worldly takes on marriage and other
subjects not in the guidelines with Christ and love thy neighbour. Christianity is not about condemning the world but about saving it. Not everyone wants to be saved but you cannot blame religion
only humans like yourself, if you do not believe in God.
Your excuses are just dinosaurs of a past era where they are truly extinct. Even atheist with any cred see these things and some do try and help you but you never listen and never see.
Till you do it is like a record repeating itself and people tend to overlook your posts after a while. Sad, but true. You could make a difference if you could argue from a more modern stance on religion.
-
Your right to post was never the issue. It is you, who does not show you have any real belief in what you believe or preach.
You cannot challenge people or make false accusations that my beliefs are not pleasant. My beliefs show that there is no comparison with atheism or worldly takes on marriage and other
subjects not in the guidelines with Christ and love thy neighbour. Christianity is not about condemning the world but about saving it. Not everyone wants to be saved but you cannot blame religion
only humans like yourself, if you do not believe in God.
Your excuses are just dinosaurs of a past era where they are truly extinct. Even atheist with any cred see these things and some do try and help you but you never listen and never see.
Till you do it is like a record repeating itself and people tend to overlook your posts after a while. Sad, but true. You could make a difference if you could argue from a more modern stance on religion.
You are talking about yourself again! ;D ;D ;D
-
You are talking about yourself again! ;D ;D ;D
So sad you show us all that I am right about you.
-
Gay MARRIAGE.... is there such a thing?
Yes.
There is no accusation of homophobic required if we learn to define the word marriage for Gay and heterosexual,
What?
We forget that atheist believe in marriage but they do not believe that God is included anywhere.
Which we is this?
Marriage then is defined three ways. The believer it is ordained by God so MAN and a WOMAN become one flesh. Atheist in their eyes are just man and wife. Gay couples wife and wife or husband and husband.
Marriage is defined any number of ways, of which these are probably three of the more common. There are thruples (and probably more) who consider themselves married, for instance. Marriage then, is an ill-defined general concept which has been subject to any number of cultural revisions and alteration as it spread from multiple origin points, merged into some degree of a shared world-wide concept and then is reinterpreted into each culture (and sub-culture) time and again.
All have a different concept. The latter two had no religious definitive. So whilst the co-equally exist in law, they do not co-equally exist in the eyes of God as marriage.
Which is only an issue if you believe.
It is quite easy really and nothing to do with homophobia or atheism. Just logically thought out regarding each group/
Believing what you want about marriage isn't homophobia. Suggesting that gay people's marriages should be treated as something 'lesser' is. Suggesting that gay people shouldn't have access to the social institutions that straight people can access is.
O.
-
Believing what you want about marriage isn't homophobia. Suggesting that gay people's marriages should be treated as something 'lesser' is. Suggesting that gay people shouldn't have access to the social institutions that straight people can access is.
O.
I agree with you.