Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution

[HOBBIT]

How is sexual orientation a sin?

I guess you must really hate it that there are so many openly gay priests and rabis nows.

My temple just got a new rabi that is openly gay.

[Elfhelm]

Any love is good love. Prejudice can only be countered with fact. That is why highschool kids should be required to think about things that are different from the ignorant bigotry that normally results from their insulated interactions.

This is what is wrong - wanting to control other people's sex lives! Thiink about it. Forcing someone to abstain from physical pleasure based on archaic superstition can turn them into murdering sociopaths. Just because you don't physically violate them doesn't mean you haven't assaulted them as surely as a rapist exerts sexual power of his victims.

Go ahead and disagree all you want, but I believe this: rape and stoning women for promicuity and humiliating gay men are all the same psycho-sexual perversion. It indicates a serious inferiority complex. If you are comfortable with yourself, you know there is no need to pervert other people's sexuality. But if you are afraid to be yourself, you must force other people not to be themselves. That's sick.

[Elfhelm]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Good thing those don't apply to Christians, who are not under the old covenant of the law

The OT laws were for our instruction, during that time period, and used to point out our tendency to sin, and to illustrate the need for a substitutionary sacrifice, which was perfectly fulfilled at the right time by Jesus

Amazingly, the minute you point out all the other things that the OT says are wrong, they mentioned the new covenant. Well, duh! That's what I've been saying! Love your neighbor! I don't see much of that going on in the anti-gay crowd. All I see is hatred.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
Any love is good love.

Including a pedophile's love for a young child?

This is what is wrong - wanting to control other people's sex lives!

So you want to remove laws that prohibit child molestation?

Thiink about it.

I think YOU need to think more before making generalizations like those above.

[Elfhelm]

Molestation is not love. It is a kind of rape.

Gay love between consenting adults is none of your business.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
[B]Amazingly, the minute you point out all the other things that the OT says are wrong, they mentioned the new covenant.

Did you even read what I said about the purpose of the OT?

Well, duh! That's what I've been saying! Love your neighbor!

Does that mean ignoring them when they are in harm's way?

I don't see much of that going on in the anti-gay crowd. All I see is hatred.

Do you see hatred in me? If so, you're deceiving yourself.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
Molestation is not love. It is a kind of rape.

I imagine there are many molesters that disagree.

Gay love between consenting adults is none of your business.

It certainly is, if they are trying to pass laws in the country I reside in. I, as a citizen, have the right to vote on what I think is right. RIGHT?

[Elfhelm]

I see only hatred in the anti-gay crowd. There are two commandments. Let's try to follow them.

[Rían]

I'll ask you again, Elfhelm - do you see any hatred in me towards homosexuals?

And do you agree that as a citizen of the US, it IS my business if people are trying to pass laws?

[Blackheart]

"Have I done this, in your opinion? If you think so, please point it out."

Actually, since one of the defining identifiers in our society is gender (rightly or wrongly), your condemnation of homosexual behavior as wrong and harmful smears a broad swath of people as wrong and harmful. Which is sterotyping, and something that I personally have problems with (but that is my own personal issue).

You cut out a single peice of these individuals, their sexual orientation, and condem it without looking at the individual.

"I don't consider people back in those times any less intelligent than we are. I'm sure they were worse in some ways, but also better in some ways."

Actually, I should have been more clear. I do have a bit of snobbery, but it's not technological. It would have been clearer to state that I find most of humanity to be abysmally stupid, however it seems to have gotten better in the past 2000 years...

"They're both wrong; so what is your point?"

The point is, if there is no difference, then there should be no objection to civil contracts that recognize homosexual living partners.

The primary objection should be that the state is infringing upon religion by recognizing marriage as an institution. Marriages shouldn't be recognized as the default. Anyone who is married by the church should still have to apply to the state for a secular civil contract. This is the whole marriage license concept, though it certainly shouldn't be a called a "marriage license".

"why do people pick names like that, anyway?"

Because I am blackhearted, ancient, and evil. Don't ask questions you don't want to know the answers to.

'"Tolerance", as it is used currently, usually means "intolerance" - IOW, the people that use it seem to mean "I'm right and you're wrong, and I'll continue to call you intolerant until you change your beliefs."'

Tolerance as in regards to actions is what I mean. The very fact that I am bothering to discuss it with you means that I already tolerate your viewpoint. I don't hold with censorship. I have yet to call you intolerant, because as I already stated, I know nothing about your individual behavior.

"I AM called to make judgements on their behavior in the sense of ...etc"

Those judgements do not have the force of law however. Which is what you are currently advocating. It's one thing to judge what is right for yourself, or what behavior you will accept from people in your life. It is quite a different matter to try to apply that to everyone by force of law. The first is a natural human tendancy. However the second is tyranny. Which may be why you are puzzled about the whole intolerant thing. Tyranny is intolerance enforced by the state.

"but they ARE trying to push the mistaken idea that homosexual behavior is right and good."

Oh? I think that is exactly the point where you are mistaken. People are trying to point out that is is not different at all, and therefore treating it as different is persecutory.

Since you admitted yourself that it's no different than regular fornication, I don't see why you have a problem.

"I know that's not in the Bible that I consider to be the authorized set of Scriptures."

Authorized by who? No, it's not an innacurate translation, it's directly from Coptic. As for your objections to innacurate translations, I suggest you don't read the King James version then. Not to mention that the reason that certain scriptures were "authorized" and others were suppressed is that the nascent catholic church was having a fued with the Ebionites and Nazareans, and wanted to differentiate themselves. Which also involved moving the sabbath to Sunday, and adopting the pagan holiday of Yule as the Christ mass, but yes that is deserving of another thread.

"apparently I'm tolerant towards homosexuals."

Up to the point that you aren't trying to promote a state that persecutes a class of individuals, yes.

[Rían]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
How is sexual orientation a sin?

I guess you must really hate it that there are so many openly gay priests and rabis nows.

My temple just got a new rabi that is openly gay.

As the thread starter, I would like to request that this not turn into a discussion solely about homosexuality - that should go back to the homosexuality thread. The difference here is that we're discussing tolerance, and homosexuality is an easy example to use because people are very polarized on that issue.

You can search for my posts on the homosexual thread on why I think it's a sin - and remember, I don't consider it unique, but just one of many sins.

I don't "hate" in the sense you probably mean. I think it is sad that something that is clearly called out as a sin is now accepted among religious leaders that claim part or all of the Bible as an authority. Again, I would also be sad if religious leaders said that selfishness or gossip or other sins were OK.

[Blackheart]

"Does that mean ignoring them when they are in harm's way?"

Yes. If you don't understand this, it's probably because you don't understand that human beings have the right to harm themselves. Nothing is worse than having to suffer something for "your own good". (and this is the part that's directly related to tolerance)

Such sentiment would reduce everyone to the level of a child. It would remove the individuality from each and every adult in our society.

Children do not have the ability to discern what is good for them. That is why there are laws protecting them.

Adults on the otherhand, have the right to determine what is good for them, or to ignore what is good for them. One of the current problems wiht our society is that there is constant pressure to "do the right thing" and remove individual choice from adults.

The current drug laws, sodomy laws, euthenasia laws, prostitution laws, and countless other laws that legislate morality (and make no mistake, they do not regulate behavior, they are aimed at proscribing a particular moral view) are causing more problems than they fix.

The only solution is to restore to adult individuals the right to harm themselves. Not other people, not other people's property. But the right to harm themself.

"And do you agree that as a citizen of the US, it IS my business if people are trying to pass laws?"

It should be. But you should ask yourself, in light of what I stated above, if you really want to support the trend towards totilitarian government?

If you support anything, it should be for further seperation of church and state, and to deny the state the ability to sanction a religious ceremony, marriage, period. The state should only be able to sanction civil contracts.

[Elfhelm]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I'll ask you again, Elfhelm - do you see any hatred in me towards homosexuals?

And do you agree that as a citizen of the US, it IS my business if people are trying to pass laws?

I refuse to make direct comments on other people as it is against the rules here.

I welcome you to the democratic process. Please consider the fact that the laws you and your kind have enacted are based on the laws in a book that you yourself said is made invalid by the Two Greatest Commandments. And consider the fact that in a democracy laws are decided by negotiation, not by pointing to cultures that have been dead for thousands of years and saying that is how they did things. Most people in this country are sick of being told how to love each other. Laws against sodomy are laws, seeking to repeal those laws is not enacting new laws, it is an attempt to secure our right to pursuit of happiness.

I won't be logging in for many days. And if I do, I will stay away from Gerenal Discussion. It is too disturbing. I really want to be able to respect people and seeing all sorts of viciousness just makes me want to be elsewhere.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
I won't be logging in for many days. And if I do, I will stay away from Gerenal Discussion. It is too disturbing. I really want to be able to respect people and seeing all sorts of viciousness just makes me want to be elsewhere.

ah dont let it get you all worked up. debating is fun. whats boring is the threads where people have nothing really to say or just want to accounce things about themselves to the world. its rare to find threads where good debates are going on. never take it personally.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
I won't be logging in for many days. And if I do, I will stay away from Gerenal Discussion. It is too disturbing. I really want to be able to respect people and seeing all sorts of viciousness just makes me want to be elsewhere.

Yes, it's good sometimes to take a break from the SSDD of the GD. It is sometimes a bad thing to read what people think. I don't want to be dragged back into the good ol' days of, in reverse order, segregation, anti-semetism, slavery, surfdom, because all these things were once traditional, socially acceptable, and popular.

This just in: Noah actually took THREE of each kind, just in case.

Elfhelm: I will PM you the minute someone in this or any discussion says, "You know, I can into this discussion with one view, but now I'm convinced I was wrong."



I kill me.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Yes, it's good sometimes to take a break from the SSDD of the GD. It is sometimes a bad thing to read what people think. I don't want to be dragged back into the good ol' days of, in reverse order, segregation, anti-semetism, slavery, surfdom, because all these things were once traditional, socially acceptable, and popular.

1. what's SSDD?

2. hmmm, "surfdom" *thinks about the Beach Boys* - do you mean "serfdom"? (these Brits can never spell - they always add extra U's and things like that )

[Rían]

I don't have time to reply in detail, because I"m heading off for a weekend with some good friends, but I will point out that Blackheart's view of how I should be tolerant in this issue seems to have changed from: I'm allowed to have my own thoughts on the subject, as long as I don't hit homosexuals with baseball bats, to: I'm not tolerant unless I give up my rights as a citizen of my country to vote for laws that I in all good conscience think are the best for the individual people involved, as well as for society as a whole. Well, at least in the area of homosexual issues. And it looks like several people think I'm intolerant for even having/voicing my opinion on the issue.

Pretty sad

Why don't you ask the homosexual activists to stop pushing for laws that they, in all good conscience, think are best for the country? Why are the homosexual activists not called "intolerant" for merely having/voicing their view?

What's the difference? There is none.

I still prefer my def. of tolerance - I have my views that I have seriously considered and think are best for everyone involved on this issue; you have yours, and they're different from mine. Let's discuss them, respect each other, be friends, and allow each other to take the course of action that they think is best.

I wish you all a good weekend

[Rían]

Elfhelm - I wish you all the best and hope to see you back soon.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Elfhelm: I will PM you the minute someone in this or any discussion says, "You know, I can into this discussion with one view, but now I'm convinced I was wrong."

People may not change their opinions, but I would say that we gain a greater understanding of each other and our opinions thru discussions of this type. And that is good, is it not? It may even lead to greater true tolerance

I kill me.

Yes, you're pretty funny I can't recall what it was now, but one of your lines busted me up for days!

[Blackheart]

"I'm allowed to have my own thoughts on the subject, as long as I don't hit homosexuals with baseball bats, to: I'm not tolerant unless I give up my rights as a citizen of my country to vote for laws that I in all good conscience think are the best for the individual people involved, as well as for society as a whole. "

Actually if you read carefully It illustrates the difference between individual tolerance, and tyranny (or intolerance enforced by the state).

Individually you may be tolerant.

However if someone supports a state of tyranny, then, while you may be individually tolerant, you are part of a collective intolerance. One of the main dangers of a democracy is the tyranny of the majority. (Which is the one of the main reasons we are actually a constitutional republic.)

I don't see what's so hard to grasp about that...

You may not think that you are supporting such a state, but that's what discussion is for. I would tend to identify any intrusion into the private affairs of individuals as tyranical.