Even Massachusetts has crazy right-wingers

[Adam]

Ukraining? Whoa

[HaloMagic]

That was supposed to be sarcastic. I don't personally believe it's in our DNA.

This is exactly my point. We don't know enough about ourselves to make the claim that everything about us is in our DNA. We also clearly don't know everything about our DNA. We are discovering new things everyday.

No matter how hard I try I will never enjoy music like Carly Rae Jepsen or Skillex. Is my music preference somewhere in my DNA? Or my love of baseball?

[Blarg]

Ukraining? Whoa

Not to sound homophobic that sounds like an unnatural between two soccer players, possibly involving a urinal.

[Angelsjunky]

Man, I turn away for a couple days and this thread gets good. I also have to agree that bakunin is just trolling at this point. He has to be, right?

 

i don't know enough about sexuality to say with complete definity that orientation is or is not intrinsic or a choice. i know that the bible condemns homosexuality, just as it condemns murder and theft, which builds an argument that it's a choice just like murdering and theft are choices. to me, that makes it at least possible that it's different from being left-handed.

 

as a christian, there is difficulty in seeing a person doing something the bible specifically condemns but yet looking the other way or fighting for their social rights. i struggle with how to handle that, trying my best to avoid being judgmental (and not always succeeding). i have two very close gay friends. i love them dearly and worship with them every week at church as well as in my men's chorus. but i don't condone what they do sexually, and i won't fight for their rights socially because they do something the bible condemns. i also won't fight for the social rights of murderers, thieves, or child molesters, either. 

 

While I very much disagree with your view here I recognize and strongly support your right to believe what you want to believe. That said, I don't believe that your belief--which you say is based upon the Bible, and thus a specific religion--should dictate legislation. The US isn't a theocracy nor is it a "Christian Nation" even if the majority check a box labeled "Christian." Unless we want to change the foundation of this country and the Constitution to mirror Christian values (and fundamentalist ones, at that - meaning a literal interpretation of the Bible), we live in a nation that is meant to espouse universal, inclusive values that don't cater to a specific religious orientation.

 

A question: You are putting homosexuals, murderers, thieves, and child molestors in the same box - do you not see this as judgmental? What would your gay friends think of that?
 

Finally, you do realize that the Bible is a compilation of different stories put together by men? There were councils in which the Catholic Church decided what to include and what not to include in the Bible  - there are lots of old Hebrew stories and even gospels that weren't included in the Bible (for whatever reason). Even if you believe that the Bible includes the actual "word of God," it is still the case that mortal men decided what to include (and exclude) in the actual book, and furthermore, the stories of God and Jesus in the Bible are stories told by actual men.

 

In other words, God didn't write the Bible, nor did Jesus. Men did - men of their times and cultures. This isn't my belief - its simple, common sense. Even if God appeared to me in a dream and said, "Take down every word I say," I'm going to filter that through my own understanding - what I remember, how I understand it, etc. When you consider that the Old Testament stories were written three thousand years ago in a very different time and place - a tribal, patriarchal culture - then some adjustments have to be made, no? Unless you think we should go back to living in patriarchal tribes?

 

I'm in the same boat as Tank here. I believe that homosexuality is a sin but in no way is it my place to make judgments on them. If I remember right, I think I may be a sinner too. With that said I have no problems socializing with my gay or lesbian friends or working with them. I just hate that I'm labeled phobic because my beliefs are different. I'm phobic of flying so I try and avoid it as best I can. I don't have that issue with homosexuals. It's hard to stand for your beliefs and have those that disagree with you accept that.

 

By calling it a sin you ARE making judgments.

 

A question: If I said that I think black people are lesser than white people, would you call me racist? What if I said, "I hate being labeled racist because my beliefs are different...its hard to stand for your beliefs and have those that disagree with you accept that."

 

Understand that for many, the "gay issue" is the major civil rights issue of our time. It isn't exactly the same as the civil rights of African Americans in the 50s and 60s, but it isn't entirely different. You have a large group of people who are viewed as "sinful" for something that, to them, is intrinsic to their being.

 

And for those that believe homosexuality is a choice, I'd ask you to talk to actual gay people and ask them if their sexual preference is a choice. How many gay people have denied their sexuality or tried to make it go away? How much agony has this created in them? Don't you think that many of them, if they could, would have--at least at one point--magically "straightened" up? And then they're judged for accepting and embracing their sexuality? I say, bravo! Or to quote the Human Torch, flame on!

Edited March 6, 2014 by Angelsjunky

[Adam]

 

 

Finally, you do realize that the Bible is a compilation of different stories put together by men? There were councils in which the Catholic Church decided what to include and what not to include in the Bible  - there are lots of old Hebrew stories and even gospels that weren't included in the Bible (for whatever reason). Even if you believe that the Bible includes the actual "word of God," it is still the case that mortal men decided what to include (and exclude) in the actual book, and furthermore, the stories of God and Jesus in the Bible are stories told by actual men.

 

 

You can believe something is silly and/or bullshit and still provide a more honest account of history. There have been many canonizations and re-canonizations of scripture and those processes were much more complex than you state.

 

If you're so passionate about this issue, I'd expect a better argumentative approach than asking a bunch of hypothetical "gotcha" questions.

 

Tank was very honest about his opinions and beliefs and even vulnerable about it. You should respect that.  

[nate]

There were councils of men who decided what was included and excluded from the original bible.  That part is true.

[Blarg]

If we were to put a compilation of the greatest writing on Angelswin and have to sift through everything posted to glean the best representation of the collective thoughts of baseball, Saint Halothunder of Tustin collective works may just not make the cut.

[Adam]

There were councils of men who decided what was included and excluded from the original bible.  That part is true.

 

And that can be stated without a condescending attitude. Does AJ think Tank is stupid? And the Catholic Church was just one of various bodies which canonized. 

Edited March 6, 2014 by Adam

[nate]

They were the first.

 

At the time Rome was facing a huge uprising from the people due to the fact that their government was greedy and corrupt.  By canonizing and making their leader more than just a leader but also a spiritual leader, the fear of god greatly reduced the uprisings.

[mtangelsfan]

Rome was not first.  You need to check your facts Nate. 

 

Respectfully of course.

[mtangelsfan]

AJ's comment of 'I respect your beliefs, but......' is really no different than what he is railing against. 

 

People are going to think differently.  As far as what tank said, he treats nobody differently than anyone else.  Isn't that all that should matter?  Unless guys like AJ really want everyone to think just like he does.

[nate]

I will do my research and get back to you.

 

While we are on the topic of making things illegal because they are a sin.  Why haven't we outlawed women from teaching?

 

1 Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.

[mtangelsfan]

I see you are pulling out all the tricks in the Atheist handbook today.

 

I like you Nate.  You are a good guy.  I'm not going to go down this road with you.  It will do absolutely nothing for you or for me.

[nate]

In all seriousness, how do you explain it?  I have never heard a good explanation.  Some parts of the bible are outdated and can be revised for society but others can't?

 

How can part of it be canon and other parts not be?

[Angelsjunky]

AJ's comment of 'I respect your beliefs, but......' is really no different than what he is railing against. 

 

People are going to think differently.  As far as what tank said, he treats nobody differently than anyone else.  Isn't that all that should matter?  Unless guys like AJ really want everyone to think just like he does.

 

This is absurd. First of all, I didn't say I respect his beliefs - but that I respect his right to have beliefs. I respect him, but I don't respect his beliefs because they are, in my opinion, homophobic and prejudiced, in a not dissimilar fashion that I don't respect the beliefs of a racist. And yes, I'm saying that viewing homosexuality as wrong or sinful is akin to racism - perhaps not to the same degree, but certainly a similar type of prejudice.

 

Do I respect the beliefs of a racist? No. Could I respect someone who is a racist? Certainly. Do I respect and support their right to have those beliefs? Of course, but I also won't shy away from debating them if the occasion should arise.

 

Of course if you have the right to think what you think--which you do, of course--I have the right to question your beliefs if you state them publicly. If you don't want to debate this, then don't state it.

 

You can believe something is silly and/or bullshit and still provide a more honest account of history. There have been many canonizations and re-canonizations of scripture and those processes were much more complex than you state.

 

If you're so passionate about this issue, I'd expect a better argumentative approach than asking a bunch of hypothetical "gotcha" questions.

 

Tank was very honest about his opinions and beliefs and even vulnerable about it. You should respect that.  

 

This is a complete sidetrack, Adam, and misses the point. I appreciate Tank's honesty, even if I disagree with his viewpoints and point out some of the problems with them. As Nate said, is what I said actually not "honest"? An over-simplification, sure, but that's not the point. The point is that the Bible was not written by God or Jesus, no matter what (some) Christians say or want to believe.

 

I appreciate you standing up for Tank, but you're also obfuscating something crucial.

[Angelsjunky]

I see you are pulling out all the tricks in the Atheist handbook today.

 

I like you Nate.  You are a good guy.  I'm not going to go down this road with you.  It will do absolutely nothing for you or for me.

 

MT, can you see how this sort of statement puts up a roadblock for any further discussion or debate? It really is not that different from sticking your fingers in your ears and saying, "I can't hear you!"

 

Why not address nate's question? Why are some parts of the Bible to be taken literally but others not? I mean, if we take the Bible's advice literally, shouldn't be stone adulterers and kill homosexuals and, as nate pointed out, put women back in their proper place?

Edited March 6, 2014 by Angelsjunky

[sneaky_flute]

Angelsjunky, it's not worth reasoning with homophobes. They have patently wrong beliefs about sexuality and are unable to see the truth. 

[mtangelsfan]

I won't further the discussion because I've had it before a hundred times.  Not necessarily the exact same question but questions just like it.  No answer will be good enough and frankly I don't feel the need to justify my beliefs to Nate even though I do like him.

 

You I'm not really too sure about.  I think you are disrespectful, and pretty much the exact kind of person you accuse others of being.  A bigot.  You cannot deal with anyone even having opinions that differ from your own.  Just going off of how people post on here tank is more more pleasant, kind, fair-minded and decent a person than most anyone on here.  He treats everyone fairly and is honest with his beliefs and feelings.  I hope I can be the kind of person he is.  He is what being a Christian is about.  He treats people with love and kindness.  But he doesn't shrink from truth either.

 

My own edit:  Just like your ranger fan counterpart.

Edited March 6, 2014 by mtangelsfan

[Angelsjunky]

Mt, all you're doing is resorting to insulting me. You've hit a wall in the conversation, either unwilling or unable to address the questions raised, so instead you want to let me know just what you think about me. How is that not being an instant of your own complaint? How have I insulted you or anyone? Is it not more respectful to openly disagree with someone's opinions rather than resort to ad hominems?

 

As for whether or not I'm a bigot, I suppose on one level I am in that I'm intolerant of opinions that breed hatred, intolerance, homophobia, ignorance, etc. I am not bigoted towards Christianity in principle, but I am towards the more fundamentalist/literalist variant.

[mtangelsfan]

I have clearly stated I am unwilling.  It isn't a mystery.  I'm not the one complaining about how people think in this thread, you are.

 

Why do you care how people think? 

[Adam]

This is absurd. First of all, I didn't say I respect his beliefs - but that I respect his right to have beliefs. I respect him, but I don't respect his beliefs because they are, in my opinion, homophobic and prejudiced, in a not dissimilar fashion that I don't respect the beliefs of a racist. And yes, I'm saying that viewing homosexuality as wrong or sinful is akin to racism - perhaps not to the same degree, but certainly a similar type of prejudice.

 

Do I respect the beliefs of a racist? No. Could I respect someone who is a racist? Certainly. Do I respect and support their right to have those beliefs? Of course, but I also won't shy away from debating them if the occasion should arise.

 

Of course if you have the right to think what you think--which you do, of course--I have the right to question your beliefs if you state them publicly. If you don't want to debate this, then don't state it.

 

 

This is a complete sidetrack, Adam, and misses the point. I appreciate Tank's honesty, even if I disagree with his viewpoints and point out some of the problems with them. As Nate said, is what I said actually not "honest"? An over-simplification, sure, but that's not the point. The point is that the Bible was not written by God or Jesus, no matter what (some) Christians say or want to believe.

 

I appreciate you standing up for Tank, but you're also obfuscating something crucial.

 

You should re-read your response to Tank. It is nasty and disrespectful, accusatory and full of assumption. 

[Tank]

While I very much disagree with your view here I recognize and strongly support your right to believe what you want to believe. That said, I don't believe that your belief--which you say is based upon the Bible, and thus a specific religion--should dictate legislation. The US isn't a theocracy nor is it a "Christian Nation" even if the majority check a box labeled "Christian." Unless we want to change the foundation of this country and the Constitution to mirror Christian values (and fundamentalist ones, at that - meaning a literal interpretation of the Bible), we live in a nation that is meant to espouse universal, inclusive values that don't cater to a specific religious orientation.

 

A question: You are putting homosexuals, murderers, thieves, and child molestors in the same box - do you not see this as judgmental? What would your gay friends think of that?

 

Finally, you do realize that the Bible is a compilation of different stories put together by men? There were councils in which the Catholic Church decided what to include and what not to include in the Bible  - there are lots of old Hebrew stories and even gospels that weren't included in the Bible (for whatever reason). Even if you believe that the Bible includes the actual "word of God," it is still the case that mortal men decided what to include (and exclude) in the actual book, and furthermore, the stories of God and Jesus in the Bible are stories told by actual men.

 

In other words, God didn't write the Bible, nor did Jesus. Men did - men of their times and cultures. This isn't my belief - its simple, common sense. Even if God appeared to me in a dream and said, "Take down every word I say," I'm going to filter that through my own understanding - what I remember, how I understand it, etc. When you consider that the Old Testament stories were written three thousand years ago in a very different time and place - a tribal, patriarchal culture - then some adjustments have to be made, no? Unless you think we should go back to living in patriarchal tribes?

 

 

you have every right to disagree with me, and i appreciate that we can talk about such a difficult issue from different viewpoints. 

 

you are correct when you say that the bible was written by men and not directly by the hand of God Himself. where you and i disagree is your assertion that the bible is simply an assemblage of stories that some council somewhere long ago in time decided should or should not be included. i'll approach it with you as i do with others - i believe that while mortal men wrote it and assembled it, they were very carefully guided by the Holy Spirit. this is God's message of hope and love to us. it reveals Himself to us and what the past was like and what the future holds. i can't and won't believe for a minute that something so important that has gone out in His name as His missive to all mankind was done without His direct involvement, influence, and guidance. if you choose to believe differently, you're within your right to do so, but i'll disagree with you about it 100% of the time.

 

you also wrote "A question: You are putting homosexuals, murderers, thieves, and child molestors in the same box - do you not see this as judgmental? What would your gay friends think of that?"

my gay friends would disagree with me, of this i have no doubt, but i also know that they themselves struggle with that kind of grouping and wondering if indeed their sexuality is wrong. one of them told me several months ago that there are people going back through the bible to see if anything was missed relating to this issue, just as others have done in recent years about the role of women. no final report yet from them, however. because i try not to be judgmental (something i mentioned in my original post as an area where i'm not always successful), and because i value my friendship with them, we haven't gone any further in the discussion, nor do we need to. it is not my job or privilege to condemn people and tell them they're wrong or i disapprove. that is between them and God. my job is to be a witness for God and to love others, especially those who i may disagree with. 

[Tank]

In all seriousness, how do you explain it?  I have never heard a good explanation.  Some parts of the bible are outdated and can be revised for society but others can't?

 

How can part of it be canon and other parts not be?

 

nate, it's a fair question to ask, and there are a number of comments in the bible that don't seem to fit our social values these days. i need to ask someone far more scholarly than i am about this. can i get back to you later?

[Tank]

This is absurd. First of all, I didn't say I respect his beliefs - but that I respect his right to have beliefs. I respect him, but I don't respect his beliefs because they are, in my opinion, homophobic and prejudiced, in a not dissimilar fashion that I don't respect the beliefs of a racist. And yes, I'm saying that viewing homosexuality as wrong or sinful is akin to racism - perhaps not to the same degree, but certainly a similar type of prejudice.

 

Do I respect the beliefs of a racist? No. Could I respect someone who is a racist? Certainly. Do I respect and support their right to have those beliefs? Of course, but I also won't shy away from debating them if the occasion should arise.

 

Of course if you have the right to think what you think--which you do, of course--I have the right to question your beliefs if you state them publicly. If you don't want to debate this, then don't state it.

 

 

This is a complete sidetrack, Adam, and misses the point. I appreciate Tank's honesty, even if I disagree with his viewpoints and point out some of the problems with them. As Nate said, is what I said actually not "honest"? An over-simplification, sure, but that's not the point. The point is that the Bible was not written by God or Jesus, no matter what (some) Christians say or want to believe.

 

I appreciate you standing up for Tank, but you're also obfuscating something crucial.

 

wow, now i'm a homophobe and a racist? why can't i just simply disagree with something? i don't go out and campaign against people or groups. i don't ask for legislation to outlaw them or put them back in the closet. i'm not afraid of them. i don't say or think hateful things about them. i disagree with them - that's it. 

[sneaky_flute]

Religious rationale aside, what about homosexuality do you disagree with?