|
Meh, just another guy saying "I'm doing it right, everyone else is doing it wrong" while saying "People who say other people are doing it wrong are doing it wrong."
I don't see it that way at all. What I see is a guy saying that if you are Christian and claim to follow the teachings of Christ, you should follow the teachings Christ.
-
Couple of points here - I do believe in the right to discriminate in any and all forms with regard to preference, association and person choice, doing anything else is contrary to our innate humanity. How I carry myself is my choice – am I going to be indifferent, critical or even lazy when I am confronted with difference, I don’t know. I reserve the right to do so but I also accept the responsibility.
-
That being said my views don't represent the Christian ideal, and it's hypocritical (or just ignorance) to claim to understand the gospel while hating anyone or having hatred in your heart. Being a Christian means being pro-life and being against the death penalty, not a viewpoint bandied around many conservative Christian circles these days. Same goes for war (vs. patriotism).
But this hypocrisy isn't just reserved for gays (as the article points out), it applies to any outsider. I've seen it up close and on a day-to-day basis. I don't know if it's people fighting against their innate human nature vs. their teachings or just their inability to fully grasp (and practice) the tenets of their faith.
Personally I don't think religions promote behavior but serve as a mask or cover for it, and when humanity changes over time they change their religion to interpret and function within their range of current desires (as a group, society, etc).
Sorry for the ramble….
-
TL;DR - He's calling people out on their hypocrisy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My issue with the whole thing is that many (though not all) use Leviticus to say why homosexuality is wrong. The problem is, I have never, ever met a Christian who actually follows Leviticus in it's whole. They'd have to perform animal sacrifices, sequester women who are menstruating, not plant more than one type of crop in a field, not wear clothing of two different materials, and a whole bunch of other things. I've never seen a Christian who does all those things. That makes using Leviticus to prove homosexuality wrong hypocrisy, as it is basically damning someone for not following part of something you don't follow yourself. I feel the same way about using the bible to condemn abortion. The bible not only does not forbid the practice, it can be taken in to allow it depending on the context in which you take certain passages.
Being a Christian means being pro-life
Proof, please.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Just look around the forums; every "ROLEplay vs ROLLplay" debate is exactly what the article is talking about...I disagree because one is an Issue and one is not. One is real life; one is entertainment. One can not compare conversations about sports & movies & gaming & music with conversations about issues such as prejudices, hatemongering, bullying, etc.
It's like, when I say I hate the Cowboys and Yankees and Manchester United -- that's A HUGE DIFFERENCE from me saying I hate christianity or I hate prejudice.
To be clear, I only meant that the underlying "mechanic" (feels like the wrong word, but I'm having a brain fart) is the same, not that they're in any way equivalent as issues.
I mean, using a spoon as a catapult to flip a paperwad at my coworker is nowhere near the same thing as using an actual catapult to besiege a city. But they both use the same principles of physics to operate.
So yeah, hating on people for playing their RPGs wrong is different than hating on them for being gay or poor or religious or whatever. But it's still operating on the same "physics" (trying to feel superior to someone else). That's all I was saying.
|
|
Being a Christian means being pro-lifeProof, please.
First off, I’m not pro-life (at..all). I know you didn't even read my whole post before you spasmed and responded to one part of it but I’ll lay it out for you.
The act of abortion is to stop a child from coming to full term (being born). That wasn't a question.
-
I'm not talking about "when" it becomes a child and all that nonsense - for purpose of argument I've distilled the point down to its base. If you agree or disagree that's your prerogative - I live in realty and deal with facts (and consequence). An abortion stops something from being born, that isn’t a morality question but a statement of fact.
And before you spew/rage attack me, I have no dog in this fight - beyond illustrating the hypocritical behavior of many Christians ("thou shall not kill" nonsense).
It's very hard to talk about Christian behavior without getting into the specifics - sorry about even bringing up the abortion issue.
Being a Christian means being pro-lifeProof, please.First off, I’m not pro-life (at..all). I know you didn't even read my whole post before you spasmed and responded to one part of it but I’ll lay it out for you.
The act of abortion is to stop a child from coming to full term (being born). That wasn't a question.
-
I'm not talking about "when" it becomes a child and all that nonsense - for purpose of argument I've distilled the point down to its base. If you agree or disagree that's your prerogative - I live in realty and deal with facts (and consequence). An abortion stops something from being born, that isn’t a morality question but a statement of fact.
And before you spew/rage attack me, I have no dog in this fight - beyond illustrating the hypocritical behavior of many Christians ("thou shall not kill" nonsense).
It's very hard to talk about Christian behavior without getting into the specifics - sorry about even bringing up the abortion issue.
Sorry. I just irritates me when people use Christianity to try to say why abortion is wrong when the bible doesn't forbid it, and could, depending on how you take certain passages, be taken to permit it. It's a hot issue with me.
...I'll shut up about abortion now.
I follow the idea of, "You're gay, and?"
Frankly, I really don't care about one's sexual preference, I just can't bring myself to be concerned. The closest I've ever come to a hate crime is telling a buddy of mine who just came years ago that I didn't care that he was homosexual, but if he pinched my butt, I'd slug him, (sexual harassment is a sore point with me). He jokingly asked if I would indeed participate in a hate crime against him. I said if hate is against harassment and I'm retaliating after he's been warned, then yes. He said fair enough.
Seriously, we as a people have more important issues to concern ourselves with than what sexual preference Person or Group A likes. Things like, should I use regular unleaded or premium, What beer goes best with what's on the grill, will The Avengers Movie Rock or Tank?
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My only problem with the article is that it's a touchy-feely mess. "I felt the need to write an article saying that we shouldn't dislike people because they're different", and the idea that his article is some kind of clarion call of rationality and sanity. He was brave enough to write a three page article pointing out that the biggest religions have passages calling us to love each other. I'm sorry, I live what he's preaching every day. My church that I attend 3-4 days a week has a celebrate recovery service to help people suffering from any kind of addiction be it sex, drugs, abuse, etc. I serve food to the homeless and needy every week, and my best personal friend other than my black wife is my transgendered homosexual buddy Dom, and while i appreciate the sentiment of the article, I think it was insipid and uninspired repetition of points I've either made or heard made everywhere from Saturday morning specials to friggin cable news reports.
I agree with and live what he's writing about, but I read the thing and found it dull and obvious, sorry I'm not jumping on the bandwagon to say how wonderful the article is for pointing out that the sky is blue and wind is windy.
That was a very good and thought provoking article. This world could use a lot more love from everyone in it. God doesn't hate people, He loves them. He loves everyone.
The article runs against human nature as well.
We all make value judgements and all the time. Everything from favorite or worst favor of ice cream, who is your best friend, your type of music you love or hate and everything up to people you meet each day.
As it is human to make a value judgements, the idea of 'unconditional love'/'universal love' is a foreign concept, which is why as humans, we are very bad at it.
Where we cross the line as 'normal' human beings is taking our value judgements and making them supreme and the notion of 'one true way'. The moment one does this, you have put your values and concerns above others and taken to the extreme, it fosters predjuices, violence, pogroms, ethnic cleansings, genocide and other acts.
Most value judgements we make everyday are 'neutral', in that they are not of consequence to anyone else. Whether I prefer tea to coffee should not matter to you in the least and it doesn't affect you at all. See...neutral.
The problem is that a number of people take many value judgements they make that should be neutral and they put either a postive or negative weight it, meaning what should be of no consequence to others now becomes consequencial.
Imagine me now hating on coffee drinkers because I hate coffee. Perhaps, I make snide comments about your choice of hot beverage, that anyone who like coffee moka is the proverbial devil. I run you down for your daily coffee creama or latte. I post on your face book page what the total git of person you are for cappacino drinking way.
Totally off the wall example, right? Yet I have meet people who take great delight in letting the world know their choices and they are prepared to fight and even die on that choice. On choices of little or no consequences.
Anyone remember some of these oldies but goldies?
"Better Dead than Red!" Yep, I heard that one alot growing up, except the speaker wouldn't know a 'Red' if he meet him on the street, knew nothing about communism. All they knew was that communists were bad because the rhetoric of the time from the government and therefore needed to be hated. No middle ground there. You didn't dare not to show for your hatred for 'Reds' for fear of being branded one.
When democratic and communist governments worked their populations into a lather, you got that wonderful period of time called the Cold War. What a fun time that was. The Cuban Missile Crisis. The numerous proxy wars fought in Asia, Africa and Central America. How the bastions of each philosphy tried to outspend the other in developing miltary hardware.
Yet the average Joe on the street didn't really know anything about the other side other than they were evil bastards who needed hating on and, as history has shown, killing as well.
And that mentality continues to this day. How many presidential candidates have spewed their vile about the evils of socialism (ie. univeral heath care, etc)? You think 'Better Dead is Red' is gone...?
My longwinded and belaboured point is this. People get to hating without really thinking why they hate. I have meet people who are a hating on something and when I asked, they really couldn't give a real solid reason why they had that negative view point of a group.
No, a black man didn't kick their dog and punched them out for their lunch money at school. The jew didn't steal their money or swindle them. The gay didn't get his friends together and hang outside your favorite bar and then jumped them and kick the s^&* of them. No real meaningful reason at for the hate.
I even met one man who hated Jews and he never even knew one at all. When I challenged him on why he hated them, all he said was 'I just do', as if that was an answer.
We make value judgements all the time. The problem is when we make value judgements based on peer acceptance or the prevailing acceptance of the society of the time. The problem is when value judgements are made based on nothing more than heresay and outright wrong facts.
There is nothing wrong with making value judgements. It is human. Just let's do it based on proper facts and proper evidence, not on heresay, stereotypes and because it is socially acceptable to be a hater.
Well, this is a surprise.
Being a Christian means being pro-lifeProof, please.
Well it depends on whether or not you consider abortion to be murder, but...
“You shall not murder.
Also, all I'm going to say on this subject (and then I will hide the thread, so don't bother addressing any responses to me, 'cause I won't be reading them) is, there are many sins besides "laying with men, as you would women" (paraphrazing there, since I can't remember the exact quote), and everyone is guilty of some of them, so it would be inconsistent and possibly hypocritical to treat homosexuals any different from anyone else.
Furthermore, the above mentioned quote is from the Levitical laws. While God has not changed his mind on what is wrong and what is right, those laws were specifically meant for the people of Israel, who were supposed to be a holy nation that was seperated from those around them. The New Testament makes it clear that while the law has not "passed away", we are not supposed to judge people by there adherence to those laws.
Being a Christian means being pro-lifeProof, please.Well it depends on whether or not you consider abortion to be murder, but...
“You shall not murder.Also, all I'm going to say on this subject (and then I will hide the thread, so don't bother addressing any responses to me, 'cause I won't be reading them) is, there are many sins besides "laying with men, as you would women" (paraphrazing there, since I can't remember the exact quote), and everyone is guilty of some of them, so it would be inconsistent and possibly hypocritical to treat homosexuals any different from anyone else.
Furthermore, the above mentioned quote is from the Levitical laws. While God has not changed his mind on what is wrong and what is right, those laws were specifically meant for the people of Israel, who were supposed to be a holy nation that was seperated from those around them. The New Testament makes it clear that while the law has not "passed away", we are not supposed to judge people by there adherence to those laws.
Plus, some other passages in the bible (such as the penalty for beating a woman into a miscarriage) suggest that abortion is a property crime against the father, which would imply that it is not murder. In that case, if consensual, it would not violate the bible.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just to help put into perspective a bit (which, as I've come to learn with time, always helps a lot with leading debates into something useful):
Contextual Note: I'm a Catholic, and I'm only able to properly give a Catholic interpretation. Other Christian denominations might have a different understanding.
A lot of people, many Catholics included, have a pretty wrong understanding of how the Church actually sees homosexuals. Some thing it is okay to hide them, to ignore them, or even to mistreat them. They think homosexuality is a sin.
However, homosexuality is not a sin, at least not to the Catholic Church.
Only a homosexual sexual act, defined as Sodomy within the Catechism, is deemed sinful.
Now, the question remains as to why is sodomy considered a sin? After all, Christ never said anything about homosexuality being bad.
The interpretation of sodomy as a sin comes from the following theological exegesis:
Paramount to Catholicism is the notion that all men are to be weighted equally", that regardless of what we look like, what we do or what our name is, we are all the same (a concept that now might sound rather obvious, but that didn't really exist proper until the First Council of Ephesus, which in my opinion was one of the most trascendental steps in the shaping of modern civilization, even though most people likely have never heard of it).
Now, this coupled with the other Christian notion that all men are worthy of dignity thanks to the grace of God, we get to another fundamental principle within Catholicism: Never a man can be a mean, he must always be an end.
So, going back to sodomy: A careful reading of the Bible shows us that sodomy is grouped under the category of "Paraphilias", that's it, sexual acts that deviate from the loving act of fertility.
But the problem with sodomy in the Bible is not the lack of fertility, but the way it was employed, with a lack of love. Keep in mind that these are lessons written at a time when homosexual intercourse was widespread in Greco-Roman Culture, not as an act of love, but as an act of submission. It was, in fact, socially acceptable for a man to have sex with another man, so long as he remained on top and the other man was a slave.
In other words, back then sodomy was interpreted as an act that only used the other person for pleasure, not as an act born out of love. That's where the whole concept of "Paraphilias" came from: Sexual acts that objectified the other person, turning it into a mere mean to an end.
So, under this context, sodomy became as unnacceptable for the Church as other forms of objectivization, such as slavery. Yet homosexuality itself was never truly to be considered negative in itself. That was a labbel that got mixed up with the passage of time, and had a lot more cultural things to it than just religion, as homosexuality in general has always had a sketchy interpretation in most cultures.
Now, the question remaining is that, well, what about homosexuals who do love each other and want to have sex as a form of consumation? Well my friends, that's where the next step is.
As a very devout Catholic, I firmly believe in the right of homosexuals to live and have sex and all that stuff together if they love each other; I even think they should be able to get a Catholic marriage, priest and holy water included. Love being the key here. I would take ten bullet for His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, but on that specific subject I believe the Holy Mother Church has a theological misconception. After all, Christianity is essentialy about just three simple rules "Love God, love Yourself, and love Others".
However, and despite all the troubles arrising from that particular point of contention, we must give time to time. There is a lot of cultural momentum accumulated within the Church (as one of the priests in my school used to joke about "There is no such thing as tomorrow afternoon in the Holy See; a theological process is considered 'expedite' if it takes less than a century! But what is time for an Eternal Church?"), and it will take a while, but I am quite sure we'll eventually get there and make amends with homosexuals.
I'm not asking you guys to agree with the Catholic view, but I hope these points can help at least shine some light over the fact it is not a whimsical, "LolsGodhatesfags" thing, and that it *does* at its core involve a honest care for one another, even if twenty centuries of history have formed a thick layer of severity around it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
brilliant post
You, sir, are a shining example of why I dislike Catholics least among Christians. I know that sounds backhanded, but really great post.
It seems that not many people have actually read the linked article (at most glanced at it and made wild assumptions). Reading it through, it's a well written article reaching out to hypocritical Christians. It's a very noble cause.
In truth though, I'm not Christian. I don't believe the world will ever be totally peaceful because people are people. Ignorance, wild assumptions, and misunderstandings are prevalent throughout human history (it happens in some areas outside of humans too, but let's not get sidetracked).
There are some people that just frustrate me and I'll never want to be friends with, mainly sanctimonious people who think they are free of faults. I know that there are some people I won't openly embrace, but it's ridiculous that I'm much more tolerant than a lot of the people claiming to "Love Everyone; and Forgive Sins".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you're going to be on the side of tollerance, that means you should also tollerate those who disagree with you...
I should not (and will not) tolerate those people who disagree with one fundamental principle: that human rights are universal, and cannot be denied any person.
In this, I cannot tolerate the intolerant.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
List of stuff God hates;
1. Homosexual acts (Leviticus 18:22).
2. Bestiality (Leviticus 18:23)
3. Idols, and the materials used to make idols (Deuteronomy 7:25)
4. Blemished sacrifices (Deuteronomy 17:1)
5. Worshipping the sun, moon or stars (Deuteronomy 17:3-4)
6. Divination (Deuteronomy 18:10)
7. Astrology (Deuteronomy 18:10)
8. Enchanters (Deuteronomy 18:10)
9. Witches (Deuteronomy 18:10)
10. Charmers (Deuteronomy 18:11)
11. Wizards (Deuteronomy 18:11)
12. Necromancers (Deuteronomy 18:11)
13. Transvestitism (Deuteronomy 22:5)
14. The hire of a whore (Deuteronomy 23:18)
15. Remarriage to a former wife after she has been married to another man (Deuteronomy 24:4)
16. Dishonest scales (Deuteronomy 25:13-16)
17. Workers of iniquity (Psalm 5:5)
18. The wicked (Psalm 11:5)
19. Those who love violence (Psalm 11:5)
20. The froward [perverse] (Proverbs 3:32)
21. A proud look (Proverbs 6:16-17)
22. A lying tongue (Proverbs 6:17)
23. Hands that shed innocent blood (Proverbs 6:17)
24. A heart that devises wicked imaginations (Proverbs 6:18)
25. Feet that are swift in running to mischief (Proverbs 6:18)
26. A false witness who speaks lies (Proverbs 6:19)
27. Anyone who sows discord among brethren (Proverbs 6:19)
28. Lying lips (Proverbs 12:22)
29. The sacrifices of the wicked (Proverbs 15:8)
30. The ways of the wicked (Proverbs 15:9)
31. The thoughts of the wicked (Proverbs 15:26)
32. The proud in heart (Proverbs 16:5)
33. Those who justify the wicked (Proverbs 17:15)
34. Those who condemn the just (Proverbs 17:15)
35. Vain sacrifices (Isaiah 1:13)
36. Feasts as Israel celebrated them (Isaiah 1:14)
37. Robbery for burnt offering (Isaiah 61:8)
38. Idolatry (Jeremiah 44:2-4)
39. Evil plans against neighbors (Zechariah 8:17)
40. False oaths (Zechariah 8:17)
41. Esau (Malachi 1:1-3; Romans 9:13)
[Actually, it’s "Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated" -ed.]
42. Divorce (Malachi 2:14-16)
43. The deeds of the Nicolaitans (Revelation 2:6, 15)
44. "You shall not set up a sacred pillar, which the LORD your God hates" (Deuteronomy 16:22).
45. "I hate, I despise, your feast days" (Amos 5:21). This goes with Isaiah 1:14: "Your new moons and your appointed feasts My soul hates."
God hates everyone and everything, get used to and get on with your life.
|
Human rights are universal? I'm as tolerant as they come, I assure you, but there is no such thing as a human right. If something can be taken away from you than it's a privilege, not a right. Freedom of speech, freedom to worship the god of your choice, to marry whomever you choose, to have children, to not be thrown in prison, to simply be alive - these things are all privileges.I should not (and will not) tolerate those people who disagree with one fundamental principle: that human rights are universal, and cannot be denied any person.
In this, I cannot tolerate the intolerant.
I've argued this until I was blue in the face. Trust me, it isn't worth it.
;-)
But the problem with sodomy in the Bible is not the lack of fertility, but the way it was employed, with a lack of love. Keep in mind that these are lessons written at a time when homosexual intercourse was widespread in Greco-Roman Culture, not as an act of love, but as an act of submission. It was, in fact, socially acceptable for a man to have sex with another man, so long as he remained on top and the other man was a slave.
In most cases, Greek homosexuality was actually a social institution for free citizens, typically reserved for members of the upper class (both partners). In Crete, it was part of a ritual induction into adulthood that started with abducting the young man, though the abductor had to gain consent of the boys father first. In Athens, the fathers actually assigned slaves to watch over the teenage boy to report anything inappropriate, they were called pedagogues. The age range that boys were selected for this type of relationship was also the same age that girls were given in marriage.
Sparta is believed to be the first city in ancient Greece to formalize pederasty. It was the sacred duty of every soldier to take a young boy as his lover and to train him to fight. (Now re-watch 300 knowing that)
There was abuse of the system and sexual predators did indeed assault slaves, but that's happened in any society where people place themselves above others, it's less about sex and more about power.
Christianity has always had a very negative view of human sexuality. In fact, the first details in the west of a wedding were in the 9th century. Augustine considered it okay for people to marry and have kids, but he thought it would be better if everyone stayed celibate instead (and by that he meant EVERYONE). A lot of early church fathers saw marriage as a state of bondage and the only freedom was celibacy.
Part of this stems from Old Testaments dislike of woman (blaming Eve for Man's downfall for example). One theory is that this stems from political struggles in the 8th century BC, when the Israelites were fighting some of their neighbors. Before that period there was a co-mingling of religions and the Babylonian goddess of Asherah was considered to be the wife of Yahweh. Once the fighting started, symbols and ideas that weren't native to Israel were targeted for destruction and condemnation.
Another influence on the early church was its attempts to distinguish itself from various forms of paganism, both to set it apart and an attempt to control society. Most pagan belief systems celebrate sex. There are examples of Greek temples where couples would come to have sex in front of a crowd in an official ceremony. A decent number of religions had sacred prostitutes. Female fertility was often revered and worshiped in early agrarian societies.
The first documented, church sanctioned marriage in the West is in the 9th century. Albertus Magnus (a catholic saint) wrote that the missionary position was the only "natural" position and everything else was a sin. A woman who had sex with her on top could be given up to 3 years of penance.
Please don't take this all as a rant against Catholicism or Christianity. Rather, this is additional information about the history of human sexuality in Europe and how it progressed (or regressed in some cases). The vilification of the Greeks is a major component of why things are the way they are, but most of that information comes from some people who were highly interested in the repression of sexuality in general. I believe the Church has great capacity for good, to help spread love and understanding.
Good stuff.
I think I've heard this before. :)
And yes, they are privileges and they can be taken away. Still, I believe that we should all "do unto others." If we did, than no ones' "privileges" would be denied them.
We owe it to ourselves, and to one another.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Human rights are universal? I'm as tolerant as they come, I assure you, but there is no such thing as a human right. If something can be taken away from you than it's a privilege, not a right. Freedom of speech, freedom to worship the god of your choice, to marry whomever you choose, to have children, to not be thrown in prison, to simply be alive - these things are all privileges.
At the most basic, rights are things that are defined by what we consider to be moral and just, or principles which underpin morality and justice. I guess you can argue that these words or concepts don't exist, but you're going to fight an uphill battle. To talk about "universal rights" is to talk about the basic underpinnings of how human beings should be treated so that they can live their lives with dignity.
Driving is a privilege. While an individual may consider it "necessary", it is just possible for a person to live their whole life without driving a car, and they can live a fulfilling life with dignity without a car.
Free speech is a right. Without free speech a human cannot be expected to live a life of dignity. That's what it means for something to be a right.
Rights can be violated, just as privileges can be. That doesn't mean something isn't a right, it just means that someone else has infringed upon that right. The concept of a right and a privilege are different, therefore we should use different words for them, because words help us convey ideas and concepts and having different words make our conveyance more accurate and precise. Universal rights are things that apply to all of humanity, there are elements of human life that are common to all people and universal rights are meant to reflect that.
I agree absolutely.
And yes, they are privileges and they can be taken away. Still, I believe that we should all "do unto others." If we did, than no ones' "privileges" would be denied them.We owe it to ourselves, and to one another.
I third this.
Times change, and social mores along with them. That's a good thing. But you can't claim that there's some fundamental truth that defines what is right or wrong - unless you're coming from a religious perspective of course. I am clearly not, however.
I think now we're just talking cross purposes. In your earlier post, it seemed you were against the term "universal rights". I am posting to say that this term has a meaning and is useful. I am not defining what those rights are, but rather the existence of the term and how it can be useful for the debate of what is and is not moral and just.
I am not at this particular moment attempting to define what those rights are. I do think that the debate over what is and isn't a universal right is useful. Our society will continue to change and redefine what those rights are continually.